Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Thanga Olivu Nadar, (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Natarajan Nadar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2002 in AS No.4/2002 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2001 passed in OS No.138/2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.
2. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that Arunachala Nadar and his brother Ramasamy Nadar were originally owning schedule I of the suit property along with other properties. Gnanamuthu Nadar is the son of Ramasamy Nadar. He as the guardian of Gnanamuthu Nadar released his share through a registered document dated 06.06.1995 (Ex.A1). Thereafter, Gnanamuthu Nadar became the absolute owner of the I schedule of the suit property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and he was also issued patta in patta No.588. Thereafter Gnanamuthu Nadar along with his children in his individual capacity and in his capacity as the legal guardian sold schedule I of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 11.07.1997 (Ex.A3) for a valuable consideration. Thereafter, the plaintiff wa
Unchallenged documents prove title; appellate court cannot rely on stray admissions without disputing evidence.
Claimants must provide valid title documents and evidence of ownership in property disputes; reliance on non-title documents like patta is insufficient.
First appellate courts must thoroughly review evidence and provide reasoned judgments; failure to do so necessitates remanding cases for reevaluation.
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....
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish title, and mere possession does not confer 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
