Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
Ravindran – Appellant
Versus
S. Jayanthi Selvam – Respondent
A.S. No. 232 of 2023, C.M.P. Nos. 9583, 26495, 26497 of 2023, 1773 of 2026
Decided On : 30-03-2026
For the Appellant : M.L. Ramesh
For the Respondents: G. Devi, S. Rekha
The plaintiff established ownership of the property despite defendants' adverse possession claims; thus, the mandatory injunction for evicting defendants was warranted.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Declaration of title and recovery of possession - Plaintiff, as the sole owner of the property purchased from original owners, was denied possession by defendants despite previous assurances - Defendants claim ownership based on historic family title and occupancy - The trial court declared the plaintiff the absolute owner and ordered mandatory injunction for possession. (Paras 1-8, 10-41)
(B) Adverse Possession - Defendants contended possession based on adverse title - Court found clear evidence of the plaintiff’s ownership and defendants' status as permissive occupants. (Paras 5, 22, 31)
(C) City Tenants Protection Act - Applicable only when there is established tenancy and prior agreements regarding construction on land - Not applicable as defendants denied tenancy. (Paras 38-40)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership based on sale deeds, asserting the defendants were merely permissive occupants who failed to vacate property. The defendants, in turn, asserted historic family ownership and occupancy rights over what they claimed was a different survey number, leading to litigation over property dimensions and identity.
Findings of Court:
The trial court favored the plaintiff, establishing her ownership and granting orders for mandatory injunction to vacate and remove structures.
Issues: The core issues revolved around ownership, entitlement to declaratory relief, identity of the suit property, and the applicability of adverse possession and tenancy laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff maintained a valid claim to the property based on evidence presented and prior ownership titles, with evidence of defendants being mere permissive occupants.
Result: Appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to remove structures and vacate property by a specified date.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership details of the property. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants' claims regarding ownership. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court issues framed. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. trial proceedings and evidence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. summary of the appeal. (Para 12) |
| 6. appellants' arguments. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. plaintiff's defense and claims. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. identification of the suit property. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. evidence presented regarding property ownership. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 10. defendants' alleged claims refuted. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 11. findings of the advocate commissioner. (Para 24 , 26) |
| 12. discussion on property rights. (Para 25 , 27 , 28) |
| 13. court's decision on ownership. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 14. ruling on requested relief. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 15. clarification on defendants' claims. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 16. conclusion of the case. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BALAJI, J.
1. The appellants, who are the defendants 1, 3, and 4, are challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 10044 of 2010, dated 08.11.2002, on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. Pleadings:
Plaint in brief:
(i) The plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the property, having purchased the vacant land under sale deeds dated 14.12.1998 and 12.02.1999, she having purchased the same from the original owners, possessing the title right from 1952 onwards. The plaintiff’s father, Ramachandran, at the time of the sale transaction, assured the vendor that the defendants were temporarily residing in the suit property and would vacate and deliver possession without causing any problems for the plaintiff. However, even after completion of the sale transaction, the defendants did not vacate the suit property, in spite of the demands made by both the vendors and the plaintiff. The defendants started to demand a huge amount for vacating and handing over possession.
(ii) The plaintiff’s application for patta was rejected by the Tahsildar on the ground that the suit is pending before the Court and objections were made. The reasons assigned by the Tahsildar for rejecting the application made by the plaintiff are contradictory in nature, and the defendants are allegedly planning to grab the plaintiff’s valuable property. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration of title, mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession after removing the superstructure, and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from encumbering the suit property in favour of third parties.
3. Written Statement filed by Defendants 1 and 3 in brief:
The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit property is situated at No. 39, R.O.B. Main Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 14, comprised in Survey No. 344/4, and the said property was originally purchased by the great-grandfather of the defendants, viz., Poonuswamy Pillai, by a sale deed dated 22.04.1901. The said Poonuswamy Pillai and Late Marippan mortgaged the suit property to one Mariammal by a registered sale deed dated 19.04.1909. The mortgage was redeemed by the grandfather of the defendants, viz., Thangavelu, and his brother Vadivelu, on 13.03.1914, on which date the suit property with the roofed house was purchased by the grandfather Thangavelu and his younger brother Vadivelu, from their elder brother Poonuswamy Pillai. The property was developed by constructing a new building and also obtaining electricity connection. After the demise of Thangavelu, his son Vijayaganapathi, father of the defendants, inherited the property and was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, including mutation of revenue records. Vijayaganapathi died on 15.02.1983, and these defendants have succeeded to his estate. The defendants contend that the plaintiff is a land grabber. The plaintiff claims that the suit property purchased by her is situated in S.No. 344/6-1, whereas the defendants claim that the property under their occupation is comprised in S.No. 344/4. The plaintiff is a total stranger to these
