Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1553
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.B.Balaji, J.
S.Krishnan - Appellant
Versus
P.Iyappan - Respondent
SA(MD). No.153 of 2017 and CMP(MD)No.2500 of 2017
Decided On : 01-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
Issues: Whether admission of title dispenses proof; necessity of all heirs in declaratory suit; scope of adverse possession plea despite admission. Ratio: Defendant's adverse possession claim fails without evidence; first appellate court erred introducing unpleaded easement; non-joinder bars absolute title declaration but not possessory injunction for co-owner. Second appeal partly allowed; declaration denied, permanent injunction granted; first appellate decree partly set aside, trial court decree partly restored.
For the Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For the Respondent: Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. framing substantial questions of law on title admission and parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. plaintiff seeks title declaration and injunction over courtyard. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. appellant: admission implies title; respondent: non-joinder and misdescription. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. non-joinder of co-heirs bars absolute title declaration. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. unproved adverse possession fails; injunction granted despite no easement plea. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 24) |
| 6. pleadings limit relief; appeal partly allowed for injunction. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
P.B.Balaji, J.
The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.10 of 2025 reversing the findings of the trial Court in O.S.No.161 of 2012 by the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016, is the appellant in the present second appeal.
2. I have heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
4. The second appeal was admitted on 17.036.2017, on the following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether, if the defendant in a suit for title admits to the title of the plaintiff, the Court should go further into evidence and rely on such admission and grant title of suit or should the Court call upon the plaintiff to still prove title?
2. Whether in a declaratory suit, all the legal heirs are necessary and appropriate parties or whether the suit can be maintained as against the particular person, who challenges the title and against whom the relief is required?
3. What is the scope of admission to a suit for title and its limitations in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether a defendant who admits the title can also plead adverse possession to a small area of the land?”
5. Today, by consent of the learned counsel on either side, the following additional substantial question of law is framed:
I. When the defendant claimed title by the adverse possession over 2 feet alone in the 2nd schedule property admitting the title of plaintiff whether the lower appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit as plaintiff has not prove title by travelling beyond the scope of issue?
6. I have heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the second appeal are as hereunder:
The appellant as plaintiff came to Court to declare his title to schedule B property and also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule ‘B’ property. The Schedule ‘B’ property comprises the courtyard attached to the plaintiff’s residential house. The entire extent and description of the property are set out in Schedule ‘A’, and the specific courtyard portion, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, is described as the suit Schedule ‘B’ property. The defendant filed a written statement, conceding to the title of the plaintiff, but, however, set up a plea of adverse possession in respect of two feet in schedule B property, contending that for last 17 years, it has been in the occupation of the defendant and his predecessor in interest. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff.
8. As against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.70 of 2007 and the first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the finding of the trial Court in toto.
9. As against the reversal finding of the first appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff.
10. Arguments of Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for appellant/ plaintiff:
10.1. Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would firstly contend that in view of the stand taken in the written state
