Allowed

Chandran v. Ramu Pillai

Madras HC1 Mar 2017SA(MD)/480/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of title and possession. Court held defendant failed to prove adverse possession or hostile animus. Set aside lower court decree and decreed suit in favor of appellant.

What did the court decide?

Set aside judgment and decree of lower appellate Court; suit stands decreed; no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on: 24.11.2016 Delivered on: 01.03.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶3

Second Appeal (MD) No.480 of 2011

¶4

Chandran : Appellant / Appellant / Plaintiff

¶5

-Vs-.

¶6

Ramu Pillai : Respondent/ Respondent / Defendant

¶7

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.92 of 2006 on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, dated 04.06.2009 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai, dated 21.08.2006.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondent : Mr.S.Nates Raja ***

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

¶11

2.The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.143 of 2004 for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property and for recovery of possession. The suit is also for mandatory injunction to remove the shrubs, planted in the boundary line and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit property. The suit property has been described as an extent of 50 cents of land out of the undivided 2 acres and 45 cents in the total extent of 4 acres and 90 cents in Survey No.314/3 and the present Survey No.314/3B in Sithargal Natham, Nilakkottai Sub Registration District, Dindigul Taluk.

Chandran Vs Ramu Pillai — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶23

6.The suit was dismissed after holding that the defendant has prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff though had purchased an extent of 2 acres 45 cents in Survey No.314/3B, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not in enjoyment of the entire extent purchased by him in the year 1994. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is in enjoyment of an extent of 1 acres 95 cents which is the southern portion of the entire extent of 2 acres 45 cents. The dispute is only in respect of the 50 cents in the same Survey Number namely 314/3B. However, from the documents filed by the plaintiff themselves, the trial Court, after holding that the plaintiff is not in enjoyment of the northern 50 cents, held that boundary prevails over the extent and that the plaintiff though has purchased an extent of 2 acres 45 cents is having only an extent of 1 acre 95 cents within the boundary description shown in the document. Since the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.92 of 2006. The appellate Court also accepted the case of the plaintiff that he has purchased an extent of 2 acres and 45 cents under Ex.A3 dated 25.08.1994. After relying upon the previous othi deed dated 16.05.1978, under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 wherein the suit property has been shown as the property on the south of Sundaram Pillai who is the defendant's predecessor-in-interest, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not purchased the entire extent of 2 acres and 45 cents but only the property on the south of Sundaram Pillai. Stating that the defendant's enjoyment of property on the northern side of the suit property is revealed from the plaintiff's document, the lower appellate Court further held that the plaintiff has not proved that the suit property namely an extent of 50 cents comes within the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property namely 2 acres and 45 cents purchased by the plaintiff. From the revenue map, the Courts below accepted the position that

¶35

9.It is to be seen that the plaintiff has claimed title on the basis of the sale deed under Ex.A3 dated 25.09.1994. The plaintiff also marked the previous mortgage deed dated 16.05.1978 as Ex.A2. From this document, it is evident that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest is entitled to an extent of 2 acres and 45 cents in Survey No.314/3B. Since the plaintiff's predecessor-ininterest got the undivided ½ share in Survey No.314/3, the properties purchased under Ex.A3, is only an undivided extent of 2 acres and 45 cents out of 4 acres 90 cents in Survey No.314/3. However, from the documents Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, it can be seen that the boundary description for the land mortgaged under Ex.A2 and purchased by the plaintiff under Ex.A3 are given with reference to the entire extent of 4 acres and 90 cents in Survey No.314/3. The boundary description for the property in Ex.A2 gives an indication that the boundary description is for the entire extent of 4 acres and 90 cents in Survey No.314/3. It has been recited in the said document as follows: “314/3y; Vf;fh; 4 nrz;L 90f;F khy; .” Similar boundary description is also given in the document Ex.A3. The document Ex.A14 is the survey plan pertaining to Survey No.314. From the survey plan, it is demonstrated that the property in Survey No.314/3 is not a square plot. The northern boundary of Survey No.314/3 is Survey No.314/2 and Survey No.315. Thus, the entire properties of defendant's predecessor-in-interest in Survey No.314/2 and the property of plaintiff in Survey No.315 lie on the northern side of 4 acres and 90 cents. It is apparent that the plaintiff has acquired only half of Survey No.314/3. The property purchased by the plaintiff under Ex.A3 is only undivided ½ share in Survey No.314/3. However, only after the purchase, the half of entire extent namely 2 acres and 45 cents came to the plaintiff. However, for plaintiff's 2 acres and 45 cents in Survey No.314/3, the northern boundary is Survey No.315. Similarly, a portion in Survey No.314/3 lies on the south of Survey No.314/2 which belong to the defendant. Without considering or taking note of the fact that the properties in Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 were described with reference to the entire extent of 4 acres and 90 cents, the Court below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has admitted the enjoyment of the defendant over the suit property which is the northern part of Survey No.314/3. It is not in dispute that the defendant is the owner of an extent of 1 acre 15 cents in Survey No.314/2. The defendant himself admitted that he has no document to show that he is entitled to the property in Survey No.314/3. Now, it is also not in dispute that the plaintiff alone has purchased the property in Survey No.314/3. Even though the properties purchased by the plaintiff was an undivided ½ share, out of the total extent of 4 acres and 90 cents in Survey No.413/3, subsequently the plaintiff was given patta in respect of an extent of 2 acres and 45 cents in Survey No.314/3. This 2 acres and 45 cents has also been subdivided as Survey No.314/3B. Separate patta has been given to the plaintiff after sub-division and the defendant does not have any patta or revenue record to show that he has obtained patta or in enjoyment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ over any portion of land in Survey No.314 / 3. Strangely, the defendant has encroached into the northern part of Survey No.314/3

Chandran v. Ramu Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Vr.Al.Alagappan Vs Sp.Meenakshi Sundaram

The Correspondent Vs Nirmala Jesu

Sulthan Beevi, Vs v.a.M.K.Syed Ahamed

Mebal Kumari Vs Thanka Nadar

Chandran v. Ramu Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Vr.Al.Alagappan Vs Sp.Meenakshi Sundaram

The Correspondent Vs Nirmala Jesu

Sulthan Beevi, Vs v.a.M.K.Syed Ahamed

Mebal Kumari Vs Thanka Nadar

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

G.Abdul Aziz(Died) Vs Sophia Bibi(Died)