Second appeal dismissed. Court held adverse possession plea cannot be used as a sword to declare title where patta was granted to respondent temple after notice. Plaintiffs failed to prove implicit admission of respondent's title or continuous possession with animus.
Second appeal dismissed with costs. Connection miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 13.03.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.29 of 2004
Vs.
Prayer:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge Court, Dharapuram made in A.S.No.39/94 dated 14.02.1995 against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam, made in O.S. No.106/93 dated 29.11.1993.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Saravanan for M/s.V.P.Senguttuvel For R1 and R2 : Mrs.A.Madhumathi,AGP (CS) For R3 : Set ex-parte vide order dated 13.03.2018
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.1995 passed in dated A.S.No.39/94, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1993 passed in O.S. No.106/93 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam.
the suit for appropriate reliefs.
“Whether the plaintiff's claim for adverse possession based on documents traceable to the year 1959 would get disrupted by the issue of patta in favour of the defendants in the year 1986?”
plaintiffs that the patta had been granted in respect of the abovesaid extent by the authorities concerned under the Inam Abolition Act after due enquiry. It is thus found that the plaintiffs are put on notice about the proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned under the Inam Abolition Act and accordingly based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties and as the plaintiffs were able to establish a valid claim only to the extent of 4.97 acres in the suit survey number, the patta had been granted only with reference to the abovesaid extent in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly the authorities concerned had granted the patta in respect of the suit property in favour of the third defendant's temple.
plaintiffs, though they would claim that the suit property has been the subject matter of the partition deeds dated 14.3.47 and 6.4.48, according to them, the authorities concerned under the Inam Abolition Act, after due enquiry, had granted patta to them only in respect of the extent of 4.97 acres in the suit survey number. It is however pleaded by them that though they had been granted and allotted the suit property by way of the partition deeds abovestated, the authorities concerned failed to take into consideration the same and erroneously granted the patta in favour of the third defendant temple. Such being the pleas set out in the plaint, it is found that as rightly determined by the first appellate court, the plaintiffs are put on notice about the proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned under the Inam Abolition Act and in such view of the matter, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to argue that no notice had been given to them before issuing the patta in respect of the suit property in favour of the third defendant temple. On the other hand, their pleas by itself would go to reveal that they were aware of the proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned under the Inam Abolition Act and based on the materials placed by them, it is found that they had been granted patta only in respect of the extent of 4.97 acres. Such being the position, it is found that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to plead that, as such, the suit property had been allotted to them by way of the above said partition deeds.
plaintiffs being aware of the proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned under the Inam Abolition Act, cannot now complain that the patta had been erroneously granted in favour of the third defendant temple without the issuance of any notice to them. The said plea of the plaintiffs has been rightly negatived by the first appellate Court.
the suit property on their own by asserting title on themselves, it is found that the plaintiffs cannot be declared to have prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. As rightly found by the first appellate Court, merely on the failure of the third defendant temple to produce the documents of possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as such, that by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and accordingly it is found that plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their plea of prescriptive title to the suit property as per the principles of law governing the proof of adverse possession and in such view of the matter, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal is answered against the plaintiffs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sli
To
S.A.No.29 of 2004
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff's claim for adverse possession based on documents traceable to 1959 would get disrupted by the issue of patta in favour of the defendants in 1986?
Whether adverse possession plea can be used as a sword for claiming title via declaration suit rather than as a shield?
Whether plaintiffs established title by open, continuous, long and uninterrupted enjoyment of the suit property beyond statutory period with animus against respondents?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurdwara sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat Villae Sirthala and anotherFollowed¶15
(2014)1 SCC 669 · Who else cites this
K.Saraswathy Vs. The State of Tamil NaduFollowed¶44
2010 (4) CTC 161
Kanagambaram Ammal Vs. Kakammal and othersFollowed¶44
2004 (4) CTC 596
R.Sulochana Devi Vs. D.M.Sujatha and othersFollowed¶44
2004 (5) CTC 108
B.Parvathy Vs. Ramakrishna MissionFollowed¶44
2001-3-LW 182
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subbiyan
Kumarasamy
The Commissioner, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai
The Deputy Commissioner, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Erode
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vaidhyanathaswaraswami Temple, Vellakkovil
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
