The court upheld that a mere sale agreement without a registered deed does not confer title, and continuous possession under such agreement is considered permissive, not adverse.

JUDGMENT :

A.S.No.539 of 2016 is filed challenging the dismissal of the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellant.

2. A.S.No.538 of 2016 is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in favour of 1^st respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration of title, declaration that the Settlement Deed executed by the 1^st defendant in the suit in favour of 2^nd defendant was null and void, recovery of possession, permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the 3^rd defendant to disconnect the power service connection effected in favour of the 1^st defendant in the suit.

3. Since the issues in these suits are inextricably mixed up with each other, both the suits were tried together and Common Judgment was rendered by the Trial Court. Since the appeals are connected with each other, they are taken up together for hearing.

4. In this judgment, the expression 'appellant' refers to 'appellant' in both the appeals, plaintiff in O.S.No.172 of 2012 and 2^nd defendant in O.S.No.152 of 2011. The expression '1^st respondent' refers to 1^st respondent in A.S.No.538 of 2016, sole respondent in A.S.No.539 of 2016, plaintiff in O.S.No.152 of 2011 and defendant in O.S.No.172 of 2012. The expression '2^nd respondent' refers to 2^nd respondent in A.S.No.538 of 2016 and 1^st defendant in O.S.No.152 of 2011. The expression '3^rd respondent' refers to 3^rd respondent in A.S.No.538 of 2016 and 3^rd defendant in O.S.No.152 of 2011.

5. The plaintiff in O.S.No.172 of 2012 (appellant in both the appeals) filed a suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in O.S.No.307 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore. The said suit was later transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.172 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.

6.(i) It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to his Junior Paternal Uncle-Natarajan under a registered Sale Deed dated 28.04.1994. He purchased the same from one Devarajulu Naidu. Though on the date of purchase, there was a thatched house in the suit property, the same was not mentioned in the Sale Deed. However, Devarajulu Naidu had executed a Vardhamanam Letter in favour of Natarajan confirming that he conveyed the thatched house and other trees in the suit property in favour of Natarajan. It is further stated by the appellant/plaintiff that Natarajan borrowed money from the father of 1^st defendant and deposited original Sale Deed with him in the year 2000. Though the debt was discharged, he failed to get back the original Sale Deed. The above mentioned Natarajan wanted to sell the property in favour of plaintiff's father and hence, he had executed an Agreement of Sale in favour of plaintiff's father on 25.07.1995 which was marked as Ex.B4.

6.(ii) The possession of the subject property was delivered to the appellant on the date of Sale Agreement and taking advantage of close relationship, no Sale Deed was executed pursuant to agreement. Since the date of agreement, the plaintiff's father enjoyed the property by residing in the building that situated in the front portion of the suit property with an extent of 0.07 cents and enjoying 0.50 cents of land on the back side of the suit property by raising trees. Subsequently, about 10 years before filing of the suit, the thatched building that stood in the suit property was converted into a tiled house and later, electric service connection was obtained in the name of the 2^nd respondent in the year 2005. Thus, the appellant and his predecessor-in-title have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than the statutory period and prescribed title by adverse possession.

6.(iii) It was further stated that the 1^st respondent and his father concocted a Sale Deed in his name as if, the above ment