S.A.No.1313 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgement Reserved on

: 13..04..2023

Judgement Pronounced on

: 27..04..2023

Coram

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

Second Appeal No.1313 of 2007

1. Kamalam

2. Tamilarasi

3. Vasuki

..... Appellants

-Versus-

Rajamani

..... Respondents

Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against

the judgement and decree dated 26.09.2006 made in A.S.No.11 of 2005 by the

learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Vridhachalam, reversing the

judgement and decree dated 27.04.2004 made in O.S.No.284 of 1996 by the

learned II Additional District Munsif at Vridhachalam.

For Appellants

: Mr.N.Krishnakkumar for

M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

For Respondent

: Mrs.R.Meenal

1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.1313 of 2007

JUDGEMENT

This is a dispute between the wife of the elder brother on one hand and

the wife of the younger brother on the other. The elder brother was one

Subramanian and the younger brother was one Kasilingam. The family had

properties which had been acquired for the purpose of expansion of Neyveli

Lignite Corporation Limited. In lieu of the acquisition, a compensation was

paid and in addition, 10 cents of land was given to the two brothers. The

younger brother Kasilingam sold his share of 5 cents of the land, leaving

Subramanian to enjoy his 5 cents.

2. The aforesaid Subramanian died in the year 1975. He left behind as

his legal heirs viz., Tmt.Kamalam (1^st plaintiff) and 2 daughters viz., Tamilarasi

(2^nd plaintiff) and Vasuki (3^rd plaintiff). The defendant – Rajamani is the wife of

Kasilingam. According to the plaintiffs, on the death of Subramanian, they

moved away from the village, where Subramanian and Kasilingam were

residing. As the 1^st plaintiff was an young widow, with two young girl children,

they moved to a different location. The plaintiffs stated that they had permitted

Kasilingam's family to reside in the property as licensees. After a few years,

since the defendant was making an untenable claim over the property, they

came forward with a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.

2 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.1313 of 2007

3. The defendant admitted to the title of Subramanian but, pleaded that

she had purchased the property from the plaintiffs by way of an oral sale. The

consideration paid for this oral sale was Rs.100/- and according to her, this

amount was utilized to educate Tamilarasi (2^nd plaintiff). In the alternative, the

defendant has also pleaded adverse possession.

4. The learned II Additional District Munsif at Vridhachalam, decreed

the suit in O.S.No.284 of 1996 by judgement dated 27.04.2004. Aggrieved by

this decree and judgement, an appeal was preferred by the defendant before the

Additional Subordinate Judge at Vridhachalam, who had accepted the case of

the defendant and held that the defendant had perfected title by adverse

possession and hence, allowed the appeal and dismissed the original suit.

Against this reversal finding, the present second appeal has been preferred

before this court by the plaintiffs.

5. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the following

substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:-

(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in

accepting the oral sale, bye-passing the provisions of

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act which

3 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.1313 of 2007

compels registration of a sale of immovable property

when the value is Rupees one Hundred and upwards?

and

(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in

holding that the respondent has perfected her title by

adverse possession particularly when neither the

pleading nor the evidence of the respondent contains

the ingredients necessary for proving adverse

possession?

6. I have heard Mr.N.Krishnakumar, learned co