Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
R.Velayutha Nadar (Died) – Appellant
Versus
B.Vallinayagam Pillai (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal.
2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 299 of 2003 seeking for the relief of declaration of title for the first and second schedule properties and for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the first schedule property belongs to the mother of the plaintiff which was owned on the basis of a court auction sale. The second schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Chelladurai, son of Kannaya Thevar, through a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1969 marked as Exhibit A2 and that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and an attempt was made by the defendants to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Under such circumstances, the suit came to be filed before the trial court.
3. The defendants denied the exclusive title claimed by the plaintiff mainly on the ground that there was no title deed insofar as the first schedule property is concerned. Insofar as the second schedule property is concerned, the patta (Ex.A1) was issued in the name of five persons and from one of the person's son, the plaintiff has purch
Unchallenged documents prove title; appellate court cannot rely on stray admissions without disputing evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the shift of burden to the defendants to prove lack of possession and title when the plaintiffs have established continuous possession and title....
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, and failure to establish exclusive title can result in dismissal of the claim.
The plaintiff must prove the title over the suit property and cannot succeed based on the weakness of the defendant's case. The procedure for entertaining additional evidence must be followed, and pr....
A mere mention of property ownership in sale deeds does not constitute a substantive admission of title under the Indian Evidence Act; the plaintiff has the burden to establish valid title independen....
The principle of nemo dat quod non habet applies, emphasizing the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish title in a property dispute.
A party claiming title must prove the vendor's title; assumptions or gaps in evidence are insufficient to establish ownership.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
