Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 90601
MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 02.01.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN S.A.No.1042
.1042
A tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title, even if the landlord fails to claim rent for several years, and cannot acquire title to the premises through adverse possession.
Headnote:
ESTOPPEL - TENANT-LANDLORD RELATIONSHIP - ADVERSE POSSESSION - [ESTOPPEL PREVENTS TENANTS FROM DENYING LANDLORD'S TITLE, EVEN AFTER FAILURE TO CLAIM RENT FOR SEVERAL YEARS]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants (tenants) claimed adverse possession of the suit property, alleging they had been in possession for over 45 years and had made repairs and improvements without the landlord's consent. The respondents (landlords) claimed title through a settlement deed and argued that the appellants were estopped from denying their title as they had previously acknowledged their tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants were estopped from denying the respondents' title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, as their father had admitted to being a tenant under the respondents' predecessor-in-title. The court found that the appellants had failed to establish adverse possession, as a tenant can never become the owner of the premises through adverse possession, even if the landlord fails to claim rent for several years.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had perfected title by adverse possession. 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to a declaration of title and recovery of possession. 3. Whether the appellants were estopped from denying the respondents' title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prevents tenants from denying their landlord's title. The court held that the appellants' father's acknowledgment of tenancy estopped them from claiming adverse possession, even though they had been in possession for over 45 years.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellants' second appeal and confirmed the lower courts' judgments, which had decreed the suit in favor of the respondents.
S.A.No.1042 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
S.A.No.1042 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.22267 of 2022
1. Thilagavathy
2. Venkatesan
....
Appellants
Vs
A.T.Balasundaram (Died)
1. Sendhil Kumar
2. Umamaheswari
3. Anandhakumar
Shanmugam (Died)
(amended as per order in
I.A.No.7 of 2022 dated 20.04.2022)
4. A.B.Gnanasoundari
5. A.B.Iyappan
6. U.S.Majula
7. A.S.Ganesh Babu
8. A.S.Rajesh Kanna
9. A.S.Viswanath
(amended as per order in
I.A.No.7 of 2022 dated 20.04.2022)
....
Respondents
Prayer :-
This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1042 of 2022
Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.09.2022
made in A.S.No.3 of 2020 on the file of I Additional District Court,
Tiruvallur, by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2019
made in O.S.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Tiruvallur.
For Appellant
: Mr.M.R.Khapali
For Respondents
: Mr.V.M.Ravishankar
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is directed as against the Judgment and Decree
dated 05.09.2022 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2020 on the file of I Additional
District Court, Tiruvallur, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree
dated 28.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.104 of 2009 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur, thereby decreed the suit.
2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the
plaintiffs. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and recovery of
possession in respect of the suit property. The case of the respondents is
that one Narasimma Chettiar purchased the suit property and settled in
favour of his wife, viz., Chengalammal, by a registered settlement deed
dated 27.03.1943. She has one daughter viz., Thirupurasundrammal.
She predeceased Chengalammal leaving behind her husband and three
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1042 of 2022
sons viz., the 1st and 5th plaintiffs, one Shankar and daughter as her legal
heirs. The said Shankar died on 20.10.2007 leaving behind the
respondents 2 to 4 as his legal heirs. Daughter Leelavathi also died
leaving behind her husband and children as her legal heirs. The legal
heirs of Leelavathi released their right over the suit property in favour of
the 1st and 5th plaintiffs. During the life time of Chengalammal, she
rented out the suit property in favour of one Jeevanandham for running a
clinic in a portion of the suit property. He used to pay the monthly rent
to Chengalammal or her representatives. When defaulted in payment of
monthly rent, she issued a legal notice. The first appellant is his
daughter and the second appellant is husband of the first appellant. They
have defaulted in payment of rent and started repairing works in the suit
schedule property without the consent of the respondents. After
exchange of legal notice, the respondents filed a suit.
3. The appellants resisted the suit and filed a written statement
stating that the release deed, executed by the legal heirs of daughter
Leelavathi, was not a registered document. The appellants are in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 45 years.
Apart from the respondents, there are 10 to 15 persons, claiming the
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1042 of 2022
ownership of the property. The property tax and other revenue dues
stood in the name of the appellants. The appellants are not tenants under
the respondents. They constructed shop and obtained electricity
connection in their name. The water connection was also obtained in
their name.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues :-
(i) Is it true that the defendants have perfected title
by adverse possession ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief
of declaration of title to the suit prop
