Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J
Pravind Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Pandian – Respondent
Second Appeal | S.A.No.1074 of 2009 | Miscellaneous Petition | M.P.No.1 of 2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs.V.Srimathi
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Palaniappan for R1
Burden of proof lies on claimants to establish possession; mere documentation is insufficient without substantive proof.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - Second Appeal against the judgments of lower courts - Appellants claimed possession of property against the defendants; the courts found no evidence supporting plaintiffs' claims. Court dismissed the appeal for lack of substantial question of law. (Paras 12, 14, 17)
(B) Possession - Claim of possession without substantial proof is inadequate to support a suit for injunction. Court reaffirmed that mere documents that do not establish rightful possession are insufficient. (Paras 3, 5, 11)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs claimed possession of a 5 cents property based on a 'B' memo and earlier ownership, while defendants asserted their long-term possession supported by revenue documents.
Findings of Court:
The courts concluded that the defendants had established their possession with credible evidence, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims as insufficient and flawed due to overwriting on documents.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of plaintiffs' claims, the authenticity of the presented documents, and the determination of rightful possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim of possession, which they failed to do satisfactorily against the defendants' evidence.
Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim possession based on flawed documents. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's consistent observation about plaintiffs' evidence issues. (Para 3 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. court findings affirm defendants' possession. (Para 7) |
| 4. lower courts dismissed claims due to lack of evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. relevant case law discussing possession of government land. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 6. final ruling confirming the dismissal of appeal. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Poonamallee in A.S.No.43 of 2008 dated
29.11.2008 in confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee in O.S.No.213 of 1994 dated 13.11.2007.
2. The Second Appeal has not yet been admitted. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.213 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee are the appellants herein. They had filed O.S.No.213 of 1994 seeking a judgment and decree against the defendants therein for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit property and for costs of the suit. The property has been described in the schedule to the plaint as a land measuring 5 cents in S.No.579, Maduravoyal Village, Saidapet Taluk, bounded on north by a portion of lake bund which was under possession and enjoyment of Vinod Chandra M.Shah, south by portion of land under the occupation of the defendants, east by the house of the plaintiffs and west by the portion of the lake. The documents relating to the possession are the 'B' memo, for which the date had not been given, but of the year 1991 and two kist receipts dated
02.03.1993 and 23.02.1994.
3. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that they had purchased the wet land to an extent of 20 cents in S.No.268/3 part at Maduravoyal Village, Saidapet, by a registered sale deed dated 03.04.1990 registered as a Document No.1573/1990 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam. Thereafter, they have further stated that they had encroached on the land on the western side of the property which they had purchased. The property which they had encroached measuring about 5 cents is the suit property. The plaintiffs did not claim title and they are claiming possession under 'B' memo which was issued. The date of issuance of 'B' memo has not been stated in the list of documents. Even otherwise, they cannot claim right to possess continuously. The Government has not been made as a party to determine the nature of the land.
4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it had been stated that the defendants are cultivating the land in S.No.579 to an extent of 50 cents for the past 10 years and the Revenue Authorities had issued 'B' memo in their name. They have very specifically questioned the right of the plaintiffs to claim that they were in possession. It had been stated that the defendants has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 10 years. It had been further stated that the plaintiffs had purchased the adjacent property at S.No.268/3 and put up a construction over that particular land and had also fenced the suit property. It had been stated that the plaintiffs had been demanding the defendants to convey the enjoyment right in favour of the plaintiffs and since that was refused by the defendants, holding it was a lake poramboke, the suit has been filed.
5. The suit came up for final hearing before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee and by Judgment dated 13.11.2007, the suit was dismissed. While examining the issues framed, the learned District Munsif had observed that the plaintiffs had relied on a notice issued to them by the revenue authorities which was marked as Ex.A2. It was found that in Ex.A3 kist receipt, the survey number had not been mentioned and that Ex.A1 sale deed was not related to the suit property. On perusal of Ex.A2, it had been observed that 5 cents in S.No.579 has been described as
