2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
Ponnarasi Ruban – Appellant
Versus
Shanmuga Kani – Respondent
S.A. (MD). No.93 of 2019|CMP (MD) No.2520 of 2019

Title to property can be perfected by adverse possession where the occupier proves continuous, open, and hostile possession for over twelve years, even if the primary deed of transfer contained a misdescription of the survey number, provided the physical identity of the property remains ascertainable.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Scope and interference with findings of fact - Appellate court findings based on reappreciation of evidence should not be disturbed unless perverse or illegal. (Para 23)

(B) Adverse Possession - Requirements - Must be continuous, uninterrupted, open, and hostile to the title of the true owner for the statutory period - Burden of identifying and exercising ownership over property rests with the title holder - Once statutory period expires, the possessor acquires an absolute right by prescription. (Paras 18, 33)

(C) Property Law - Power of Attorney - Agency - An agent cannot convey title beyond the scope of the authority conferred - However, regarding description of property, where boundaries are consistent and identifiable, minor errors in survey numbers may be treated as misdescription without invalidating the entire transaction if the identity of the property is established. (Paras 19, 31)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession, alleging that a power of attorney holder appointed by a predecessor in interest exceeded his authority by conveying property under an incorrect survey number. The lower appellate court overturned the trial court's judgment, finding that even if the initial transfer title was defective due to misdescription, the respondents had been in continuous and peaceful possession for over a decade, thereby perfecting title through adverse possession.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the agent indeed acted beyond the scope of authorization regarding the survey number, the failure of the original owner and subsequent title holder to assert rights or maintain the property for over twelve years allowed the occupants to establish adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession was properly raised, and the evidence confirmed that the occupation was open, hostile, and notorious to the knowledge of the true owner.

Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in overturning the trial court’s decision regarding the validity of the sale, and whether the defendants successfully demonstrated that they had perfected title to the property through adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a property transfer involves a misdescription of the survey number but the boundaries are clearly defined and the property is identifiable, the transaction may not be voided if all parties acted as if the transfer occurred. Furthermore, the true owner's prolonged inaction and failure to exercise control over the property for over twelve years, coupled with the open and hostile possession by the occupants, satisfies the requirements for adverse possession, thereby barring claims of title recovery.

Result: Second Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the First Appellate Court confirmed.