Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 27766

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, MR JUSTICE UMESH MADIGA, JJ
CO MATHEWS – Appellant
Versus
M/S SRIVATSA ESTATE PVT LTD – Respondent
RFA 1368 of 2016

Petitioner Advocates:T V VIJAY RAGHAVAN ,Respondent Advocate: ISMAIL ZABIULLA FOR R1 TO R4

The court affirmed that ownership established through a registered partition deed cannot be altered by an unregistered MOU, and adverse possession requires proof of hostile possession, which was not demonstrated.

Headnote:(A) Partition Act, 1893 - Ownership and possession of property - The trial court decreed the suit declaring plaintiffs as owners of the suit properties and directed the defendant to hand over possession - The defendant's claims of adverse possession and modification of shares through an unregistered MOU were rejected - The plaintiffs proved their title through documentary evidence. (Paras 5.1, 5.2, 19, 23)

(B) Adverse Possession - The court held that the defendant's claim of adverse possession was not established as he failed to prove continuous and hostile possession for the requisite period - The plea was inconsistent with his admission of the plaintiffs' title. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of properties under a partition deed and subsequent sales, while the defendant claimed possession based on an MOU and adverse possession. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs.

Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs were declared absolute owners of the suit properties, and the defendant was ordered to hand over possession.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs proved their ownership and whether the defendant's claim of adverse possession was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant's possession was not adverse as he admitted the plaintiffs' title, and the MOU was not admissible to alter the registered partition deed.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that a registered partition deed cannot be altered by an unregistered MOU. (!) (!) - The defendant’s claim of adverse possession was rejected due to lack of continuous, hostile possession and due to admission of plaintiffs’ title. (!) (!) - Plaintiffs proved title through documentary evidence and were declared absolute owners of respective items with possession to be delivered by the defendant. (!) (!) (!) - The suit addresses whether the plaintiffs' titles and possession were proven and whether adverse possession defenses could succeed. (!) (!) - The court allowed reliefs including declaration of title and possession, with a structure for execution and joint petition if needed. (!) (!)

How to determine ownership and possession when a registered partition deed exists but an unregistered MOU attempts to alter shares?

What is the requirement and proof for adverse possession to be valid against registered title?

What is the proper remedy and declaration when plaintiffs prove title and possession against encroachment and an unregistered agreement?

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)

By judgment dated 13.07.2016 the Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs to be the owner of the suit properties and directed the legal representatives of the defendant to hand over possession thereof to the plaintiffs within a month and aggrieved by the same the legal representatives of the defendant have preferred this appeal.

2. The substance of the pleadings is as follows :

Under a partition deed dated 11.09.1984, four persons namely Smt. Acheyamma Oomen, C.O.Mathews, K.T.Mathews and Leelamma Mathews effected partition of the suit properties and other properties that belonged to them. The properties described in ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the partition deed fell to the share of K.T.Mathews and Leelamma Mathews respectively and the property described in schedule ‘A’ of the partition deed was allotted to C.O.Mathews, the defendant. On 12.06.1987 K.T.Mathews and Leelamma Mathews jointly sold the properties that fell to their shares to a partnership firm called M/s Carolina Plantations and put it in possession of the properties. Under three sale dates dated 02.09.1991 Carolina Plantations sold all its properties including the suit property to Srivatsa Estate Private Limited, Suryakiran Estate Private Limited and Sri K.N.Murali, and delivered the possession to the purchasers. The plaintiffs purchased all the shares of the companies namely Suryakiran and Srivatsa Estates and thereafter plaintiffs No.3 and 4 became the directors of the company. Plaintiff No.3 also purchased items 1 and 2 of the suit property from K.N.Murali under registered sale deed dated 31.1.2000. The properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant are situate adjacent to each other. The suit properties were earlier being managed by Smt. Anjana Murali in the capacity of Managing Director of the companies. But she was living in Bengaluru and taking advantage of her absence, the defendant encroached upon the suit properties in June 1998. The plaintiffs approached the defendant on several occasions to demand possession of the suit properties to be delivered to them and in fact the defendant agreed for the survey and delivery of possession if encroachment was traced. But he kept quite. On 21.05.2001 the plaintiffs issued a notice to the defendant who in turn replied to it on 30.5.2001 untenably. The plaintiffs thereafter issued a correction notice on 27.6.2002. Ultimately the plaintiffs had to file suit for declaration of their title over and possession of the suit properties.

3. In the written statement the defendant admitted the plaint averments from paras 2 to 4 in regard to partition deed dated 11.09.1984 and the subsequent sales, but denied the other averments including transfer of shares of the companies to the plaintiffs. The specific contention of the defendant was that on 11.09.1984, there came into existence a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) among the parties to the partition deed, and according to this MOU the existing common road would divide the properties allotted to the share of K.T.Mathews and Leelamma Mathews, and the defendant. The properties situate towards the western side of the road as also the properties allotted to him under the partition deed fell to his share and thus he held lawful possession of the suit properties. He denied encroachment as stated by the plaintiffs. Alternatively he pleaded that he perfected his title over the suit properties by adverse possession because the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs admitted his possession in view of MOU dated 11.09.1984. He also pleaded that the boundaries and the area of the suit properties do not conform to the boundaries and area of the properties described in schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ to the partition deed and with these pleadings he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Out of six issues framed by the trial court, the following three issues were the deciding issues.

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document