A property title claim based on an earlier partition failed against an unchallenged family compromise. The court rejected the claims for declaration, cancellation, possession and damages, held the deed challenges time-barred, and upheld adverse possession. The suit was dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.
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.
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
1/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
.. Defendants
Prayer : Civil Suit filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to pass a decree and judgment against the defendants 1 to 3,
(a) for declaration of plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 title to the suit property ;
(b) to declare that the partition deed dated 01.05.1968 document No.1348 of 1968 and sale deeds dated 19.08.1972 document No.1518 of 1971 and 10.03.1976 document Nos.361 and 362 of 1976 executed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 interse are null and void as far as plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 are concerned ;
(c) consequently directing the defendants 1 to 3 to deliver/restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 ;
(d) directing the defendants to pay damages of Rs.10,00,100/-
(e) to pay the costs of the suit ; and
(f) granting such other relief or reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
| For Plaintiff | : | Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Raghu |
|---|---|---|
| For Defendants | : | Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari for DD 1 and 2 and Mr.R.Amizhdhu for D3 |
J U D G M E N T
The suit is for declaration of (i) the title of the plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 to the suit property ; and (ii) the partition deed dated 01.05.1968 document No.1348 of 1968 and sale deeds dated 19.08.1972 document No.1518 of 1971 and 10.03.1976 document Nos.361 and 362 of 1976 executed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 interse as null and void as far as plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 are concerned. The consequential direction sought for is to the defendants 1 to 3 to deliver/restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 and also a direction to the defendants to pay damages of Rs.10,00,100/-.
3/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
death of the said Annamalai Chettiar, who died in 1907, the family business and properties were managed and administered by the grandfather of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, namely, SA.RM.Ramasamy Chettiar. Thereafter, there was a partition among the family, which was reduced to writing and registered as Document No.789 of 1915. In the said partition, the properties described in the B Schedule were allotted to SA.RM.Ramasamy Chettiar's children. The plaintiffs and the defendants 4 to 6 (the seventh defendant is brought on record in the place of the deceased fifth defendant, for the sake of convenience, they are referred to as defendants 4 to 6) are the heirs of the said Ramasamy Chettiar, who died on 06.11.1913. According to the plaintiffs, by virtue of the said partition, the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6 became owners of the suit property. It is further stated that the said partition deed was acted upon by executing the release deeds in the year 1917, 1921 and 1927.
He had also executed a release deed favouring the plaintiffs' predecessors acknowledging and admitting their right, interest and title. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that S.A.Annamalai Chettiar
4/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
was in management and possession till 1960 and thereafter, he handed over the possession to S.A.P.Annamalai Chettiar, S/o.Palaniappan/second defendant's father on behalf of plaintiffs' predecessor. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the possession of Annamalai Chettiar, S/o.Palaniappan was only on behalf of plaintiffs predecessor and he did not have any ownership in the property. It is also admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 to 3 had filed suits in the City Civil Court, Chennai, against the third plaintiff for bare injunction in O.S.No.1574 of 2001 and 1575 of 2001. The third plaintiff, being the defendant in those suits, was contesting the said suits. However, later, the suits were withdrawn by the plaintiffs therein. The plaintiffs are tracing their source of title on the partition deed of the year 1915. Only after defendants 1 to 3 filed the suits before the City Civil Court, the intention of the parties was understood and hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking declaration that the alienation in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 are null and void. The plaintiffs are also claiming damages for use and occupation.
statement. The first defendant is the wife of S.A.P.Annamalai Chettiar, who is the son of SAP.Palaniappan Chettiar. The first defendant challenged the locus standi of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit and the 5/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
prayers sought for therein. The plaint refers to a release deed dated 03.12.1927, which was pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties in the suit in O.S.No.105 of 1925 by the S.A.Palaniappan Chettiar against SA.RM.Annamalai, Ramasamy and Chandramouli, who were minors. A compromise was arrived at between the parties, which was filed before the Subordinate Court, Devakottai in O.S.No.105 of 1925 and the same was also recorded on 08.03.1927. The said compromise was never challenged by any of the parties till today. As per the said compromise, the Rama Vilas Front Bungalow, which is the subject matter of the present suit, was handed over to the father-in-law of the first defendant, who is the plaintiff in that suit. In order to adjust an amount of Rs.40,000/-, the defendants therein, i.e., the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendants 4 to 6, had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of father-in-law of the first defendant. The said details were suppressed by the plaintiffs in the plaint.
suit property is in their possession and enjoyment. She claimed that she lived in that property along with her husband, which was subsequently, when partition of properties took place between her 6/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
husband and her son/the second defendant in the year 1968, allotted to her husband. A portion of the said property was sold by her husband to M/s.Kumudam Printers Private Limited/the third defendant, vide sale deed dated 19.08.1972, wherein, the third defendant constructed a bungalow in the year 1973-1974 to accommodate its Director. Though the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6 knew all these
facts, for attaining some financial mileage, the suit was instituted.
accepted the fact that they have already parted with the right over the suit schedule property and retained the balance of share allotted to them under the partition deed of the year 1915. Thus, the first
7/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
defendant stated that they have been in possession of the suit property from 1927 onwards without any interruption from any of the parties. She also had stated that they mutated the revenue records by paying taxes, electricity charges, property taxes, etc. The ancestors of the plaintiffs had also not challenged the same till the filing of the suit.
before the date of filing of the suit and the suit ought to have been filed within the period of limitation, even presuming that they had a right. Further, the plaintiffs challenged the documents of the year 8/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
1968, which are partition deed in Document No.1348 of 1968; sale deed in document No.1518 of 1972 and also sale deeds in Document Nos.361 and 362 of 1976. Such a challenge to those documents, which are more than four decades old, cannot be made as they are already
barred by limitation.
blackmail from the plaintiffs for financial gain and the same was withdrawn at the instance of the elders of the community, who had advised to do so. As the plaintiffs have not made out a case even by 9/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
pleading the same and by suppressing the actual facts, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of this suit.
10/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
had independently filed a written statement narrating the same facts. He had stated that of the entire extent of 24 grounds and 1500 sq.ft., an extent of 9 grounds and 1800 sq.ft. was sold to M/s.Kumudham Publishers by way of registered sale deed dated 19.08.1972. After purchase, the said company, being the rightful owner, had constructed a Bungalow in the year 1973-74. As the defendants 1 and 2 have been in absolute possession of the property from the year 1927 onwards by dealing with the same including effecting mutation of the revenue records, the plaintiffs cannot have any right in the property. The said 1927 compromise has been accepted and acted upon by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot change the same, after several decades. Repeating the same facts as that of the first defendant, the second defendant has stated that their possession of the suit schedule property is in the capacity of rightful owners based on the documents and the suit filed to disturb the same is not maintainable, particularly, when the same is barred by limitation.
has claimed title by adverse possession as could be seen from the conduct of the defendants' father ascertaining title adverse to the claim of the plaintiffs by dealing with the title to the suit property.
11/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thus, the third defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.
12/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
13/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
Issue Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 :
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
had released his interest ; by virtue of Ex.P.3 Annamalai Chettiar released his interest and by Ex.P.4, the defendants 1 to 3's predecessors-in-interest, namely, Palaniappan released his interest in respect of B Schedule properties including the suit schedule property. Hence, it is contended by the plaintiffs that the defendants have got no right or interest in respect of the suit property, which was described as B Schedule in the original partition and claimed that only the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6 are entitled for the same.
15/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
parties, which was reduced to writing under Ex.D.1 – Compromise Memo and a decree dated 08.03.1927 – Ex.D.2 in terms of the same was passed. As per the compromise, 1/5th of A schedule property was enjoyed by the plaintiffs. The other properties and claims, which were verified, checked and quantified at a sum of Rs.40,000/- payable to the plaintiff therein. Thus, the defendants therein agreed to transfer the Rama Vilas Bungalow, Vepery, Madras, in favour of the plaintiff therein by a registered deed, as the plaintiff therein had already been in possession of the suit property. Thus, compromising the said suit, the same was recorded on 08.03.1927, as per Ex.D.2 and the suit was dismissed (sic-disposed of). As the terms of the compromise were filed before the court with a clear understanding between the parties, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants 4 to 6 can challenge the same, as the same would operate as estoppel.
16/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
family from long-drawn litigation which would mar the unity of the
family. This is the reason why Courts are keen on upholding a family compromise, instead of disturbing them on technical or trivial grounds.
induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence. The said compromise is a bona fide one, which is recorded by the Court and there is no challenge to the same till today.
17/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
follows :
“42. Finally in a recent decision of this Court in S. Shanmugam Pillai case after an exhaustive consideration of the authorities on the subject it was observed as follows:
“Equitable principles such as estoppel, election, family settlement, etc. are not mere technical rules of evidence. They have an important purpose to serve in the administration of justice. The ultimate aim of the law is to secure justice. In the recent times in order to render justice between the parties, courts have been liberally relying on those principles. We would hesitate to narrow down their scope.
* * *
As observed by this Court in T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities case, that if a person having full knowledge of his right as a possible reversioner enters into a transaction which settles his claim as well as the claim of the opponents at the relevant time, he cannot be permitted to go back on that agreement when reversion actually falls open.”
In these circumstances there can be no doubt that even if the family settlement was not registered it would operate as a complete estoppel against Respondents 4 and 5. Respondent 1 as also the High Court, therefore, committed substantial error of law in not giving effect to the doctrine of estoppel as spelt out by this Court in so many cases. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon a number of authorities in
18/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
Rachbha v. Mt Mendha [AIR 1947 All 177] ; Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Smt Satyawati Sood [AIR 1972 Del 171] and some other authorities, which, in our opinion have no bearing on the issues to be decided in this case and it is therefore not necessary for us to refer to the same.
44. In view of our finding that the family settlement did not contravene any provision of the law but was a legally valid and binding settlement in accordance with the law, the view of Respondent 1 that it was against the provisions of the law was clearly wrong on a point of law and could not be sustained. Similarly, the view of the High Court that the compromise required registration was also wrong in view of the clear fact that the mutation petition filed before the Assistant Commissioner did not embody the terms of the family arrangement but was merely in the nature of a memorandum meant for the information of the court. The High Court further erred in law in not giving effect to the doctrine of estoppel which is always applied whenever any party to the valid family settlement tries to assail it. The High Court further erred in not considering the fact that even if the family arrangement was not registered it could be used for a collateral purpose, namely, for the purpose of showing the nature and character of possession of the parties in pursuance of the family settlement and also for the purpose of applying the rule of estoppel which flowed from the conduct of the parties who having taken benefit under the settlement keep their mouths shut for full seven years and later try to resile from the settlement. In Shyam Sunder v. Siya Ram [AIR 1973 All 382] it was clearly held by the Allahabad High Court that the compromise could have been taken into consideration as a piece of evidence even if it was not registered or for that matter as an evidence of an antecedent title. The High Court observed as follows:
19/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
“The decision in Ram Gopal v. Tulshi Ram [AIR 1928 All 641] is clear that such a recital can be relied upon as a piece of evidence.
* * *
It is clear, therefore, that the compromise can be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence.... To sum up, therefore, we are of the view that the compromise could have been relied upon as an admission of antecedent title.”
705 .
“12. Partition, unlike the sale or transfer which consists in its essence of a single act, is a continuing state of facts. It does not require any formality, and therefore if parties actually divide their estate and agree to hold in severalty, there is an end of the matter.
13. On its true construction, the document, Ext. P-12 as well as the subsequent confirmatory panch faisala, Ext. P-1 merely contain the recitals of a past event, namely, a decision arrived at between the parties as to the manner in which the
20/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
parties would enjoy the distinct items of joint family property in severalty. What follows in Ext. P-12 is a mere list of properties allotted at a partition and it cannot be construed to be an instrument of partition and therefore did not require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. That apart, the document could always be looked into for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of each item of property allotted to the members.
14. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The true and intrinsic character of the memorandum, Ext. P-12 as later confirmed by the panch faisala, Ext. P-1 was to record the settlement of family arrangement. The parties set up competing claims to the properties and there was an adjustment of the rights of the parties. By such an arrangement, it was intended to set at rest competing claims amongst various members of the family to secure peace and amity. The compromise was on the footing that there was an antecedent title of the parties to the properties and the settlement acknowledged and defined title of each of the parties. The principle governing this was laid down by the Judicial Committee in Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain 1911 SCC OnLine PC 14. Ameer Ali, J. delivering the judgment of the Privy Council quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment in Lalla Oudh Beharee Lall v. Mewa Koonwer (1868) 3 Agra HCR 82] : (Khunni Lal case)
“… ‘The true character of the transaction appears
to us to have been a settlement between the several members of the family of their disputes, each one relinquishing all claim in respect of all property in dispute other than that falling to his share, and recognising the right of the others as they had previously asserted it to the portion allotted to them respectively. It was in this light, rather than as conferring a new distinct title on each other, that the parties themselves seem to have
21/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
regarded the arrangement, and we think that it is the duty of the Courts to uphold and give full effect to such an arrangement.’ (Lalla Oudh Beharee Lall v. Mewa Koonwer, (1868) 3 Agra HCR 82].
15. This view was adopted by the Privy Council in subsequent decisions and the High Courts in India. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481. The true principle that emerges can be stated thus: If the arrangement of compromise is one under which a person having an absolute title to the property transfers his title in some of the items thereof to the others, the formalities prescribed by law have to be complied with, since the transferees derive their respective title through the transferor. If, on the other hand, the parties set up competing titles and the differences are resolved by the compromise, there is no question of one deriving title from the other, and therefore the arrangement does not fall within the mischief of Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act as no interest in property is created or declared by the document for the first time. As pointed out by this Court in Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481, it is assumed that the title had always resided in him or her so far as the property falling to his or her share is concerned and therefore no conveyance is necessary.”
reliance, was Thulasidhara V. Narayanappa reported in (2019) 6
SCC 409 and the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as
hereunder :
22/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
“9.5. As held by this Court in Subraya M.N. [Subraya M.N. v. Vittala M.N., (2016) 8 SCC 705 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 163] even without registration a written document of family settlement/ family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, even the plaintiff has also categorically admitted that the oral partition had taken place on 23-4-1971 and he also admitted that 3 to 4 panchayat people were also present. However, according to him, the same was not reduced in writing. Therefore, even accepting the case of the plaintiff that there was an oral partition on 23-41971, the document, Ext. D-4 dated 23-4-1971, to which he is also the signatory and all other family members are signatory, can be said to be a list of properties partitioned. Everybody got right/share as per the oral partition/partition. Therefore, the same even can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave/manifest error in not looking into and/or not considering the document Ext. D-4 dated 23-4-1971.”
said suit was the front part of Rama Vilas Front Bungalow, which is the subject matter of this suit. It was clearly written in the memorandum of compromise that in order to adjust the amount of Rs.40,000/payable to the plaintiff therein, the defendants therein, who are the ancestors of the plaintiffs herein, had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the grandfather of the second defendant. Admittedly, the
23/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
possession was with the grandfather of the second defendant herein and the same was confirmed in the compromise memo. Therefore, from the year 1927, from the date of compromise, the grandfather of the second defendant was in possession of the property, as the original owner and after the demise of the grandfather of the second defendant, the father of the second defendant took possession and in enjoyment of the property. The parents of the second defendant lived in the suit property. Subsequently, the father of the second defendant had partitioned the properties on 01.05.1968 under Ex.P.5, which is now under challenge. It is relevant to mention that the said partition deed is also a registered one, as per which, the suit schedule property was allotted to the father of the second defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 have also pleaded in the written statement that the revenue records, taxes, charges and other payables with respect to the suit schedule property were only paid by the father of the second defendant and mutation of documents was also effected.
property to an extent of 24 grounds and 1500 sq.ft. was sold by the father of the second defendant to M/s.Kumudam Printers (Private) Limited (subsequently merged with M/s.Kumudam Publications Pvt. 24/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
Ltd.), which is the third defendant herein, vide a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1972. The said third defendant also after purchase of the property had constructed a bungalow in the year 1973-1974 to accommodate its Director. The said fact is also known to the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6. Interestingly, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 that the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendants 4 to 6 had sold the remaining part of the property allotted to them by virtue of the partition deed of the year 1915, apart from the property conveyed to the grandfather of the second defendant by way of compromise decree. In the said sale deed dated 30.05.1932, which is marked as Ex.D.3, the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6, have specifically stated that all of them were residing at Kanadukathan, whereas, the vendors own and possess all that house and ground called Rama Vilas situate in Daley Road, Vepery, Madras. From the above recitals, it is clear that the ancestors have agreed and accepted in unequivocal terms that the land to an extent of 24 grounds and 1500 sq.ft. and the front bungalow of Rama Vilas was not possessed and owned by them and the land conveyed by way of sale deed alone was owned and possessed by them. Even in the schedule of the said sale deed, it was stated that,
“all that parcel of land with bungalow and outhouse boundary walls
25/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
excluding the southern side boundary wall and erection situate thereon and known as “Rama Vilas” situate in Daley Road on the South by S.A.Palaniappa Chettiar's Bungalow on East by C.R.Murugesa Mudaliar's vacant site and outhouse and on the West by C.V.Periayya Mudaliar's house ....”.
The above recitals in the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs ancestors as early as in the year 1932 establishes that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were already confirmed and accepted the fact that they had parted with their right over the schedule property and retained the property that was allotted to them in the partition deed of the year 1915. As the defendants 1 and 2 have been in enjoyment of the property through their ancestors from the year 1927 onwards, by dwelling there, by letting out a portion of the same to a Bank, by selling a portion of the property to the third defendant herein, transferring the names in the appropriate revenue registers and by paying all the municipal and corporation taxes, they have established their continuous and uninterpreted possession of the suit property.
26/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
miserably failed to establish their right or title over the suit property by independent evidence, as also by their act.
27/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
Issue No.3 :
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
suit property with the second defendant's father was as that of the Trustee and also having failed to establish the title for the suit property, the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6 are disentitled to claim recovery of possession of the same. Thus, the issue is answered against the plaintiffs.
Additional Issue No.1 :
29/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
Government of India and others, 2005-1-L.W. 730, sustained the
judgment and decree of the High Court which based, inter alia, on the plea of adverse possession. While doing so, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as follows :
"11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See : S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128).”
36. In Des Raj & Others V. Bhagar Ram (Dead) By LRs and
others, 2007-3-L.W. 429, the Hon'ble Apex Court, relying upon it is
earlier decisions in Saroop Singh V. Banto and others, (2005) 8
30/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
SCC 330 ; Govindammal V. R.Perumal Chettiar and Others, 2006
(11) Scale 452 and T.Anjanappa and Others V. Somalingappa an another, (2006) 7 SCC 570, reiterated that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner. In the instant case also, admittedly, the defendants 1 to 3 have been in possession. Even presuming that the plaintiffs had right and title over the property, the said defendants have been dealing with the property as that of an owner with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Therefore, even presuming that the registration of the suit property was not effected after the compromise, the defendants get the perfected title by adverse possession.
L.W. 680, this Court, relying upon a number of earlier decisions qua
adverse possession, held as follows :
"8. There is no statutory definition of adverse possession. Adverse possession refers to actual and exclusive possession coupled with intention to hold as owner. Adverse possession becomes hostile to the rightful owner when a person openly and continuously, possesses a land under a claim of right adverse to the title of the true owner for the statutory period. Adverse possession means a hostile possession which is express or implied in denial of the title of the true owner. Such possession must be actual and exclusive, under a claim of right, adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. Such possession, in denial of title of the true owner must be peaceful open and continuous . Mere possession without a claim of
31/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
right for over a long time is not sufficient to create adverse possession. A mere user of property cannot be taken as a definite assertion of proprietory right; there must be some definite quality in the possession, before it can be called adverse and there must be some fact of unequivocal character which may put the owner on guard. There can be no adverse possession if the person claiming does not know that he is enjoying somebody else's land. He must have the intention of using the property adversely against another having an interest in it. To summarise it, a person by holding possession of the property for the statutory period can acquire title only when his possession is: (1) under a claim of title, (2) hostile to the true owner, and (3) actual, open, uninterrupted, exclusive and continuous. ”
in the above judgments is taken into consideration, it has to be presumed that even the defendants 2 and 3 have established adverse possession to their respective suit schedule properties to the hostile interest of the plaintiffs and respondents 4 to 6. Thus, additional issue is answered in favour of the said defendants.
Issue No.7 : Whether the suit is maintainable ?
the year 1915 marked as Ex.P.1. Even when the defendants have filed
the written statement pointing out the compromise decree in O.S.No.105 of 1925 nothing has been filed by the plaintiffs by way of reply. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the said compromise entered into between the parties on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, was not acted upon. The contention of the plaintiffs is that
32/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
even presuming that the compromise memo is valid and admitted, as the plaintiffs had not executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2, as agreed in the compromise memo, the defendants 1 and 2 cannot claim any title. In this regard, as held supra even without registration the defendants 1 and 2 were allowed to be in possession even prior to 1925. The plaintiffs also had not challenged the compromise memo, in which, the plaintiffs' predecessor were parties. Thus, looking at any angle, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their case and hence, they are not entitled for a decree as
prayed for and the plaintiffs have been non-suited.
Issue Nos.4 and 8 :
be that there is no merit in the claim made by the plaintiffs and the suit is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, the suit
is dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
18.11.2019
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes gg
Witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs :
33/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
| P.W.1 | - Ramaiah |
|---|---|
| P.W.2 | - RM.RM.Chandra Mouli @ A.Chandramouli |
| P.W.3 | - RM.Chandramouli |
| Witnesses |
examined on behalf of defendants : |
| D.W.1 | - Dr.A.Jawahar Palaniappan |
| D.W.2 | - P.Varadarajan |
| Documents | marked on the side of the plaintiffs : |
| Ex.P.1 | 17.07.1915 – Partition Deed |
| Ex.P.2 | 02.08.1917 – Release Deed |
| Ex.P.3 | 02.12.1921 – Release Deed |
| Ex.P.4 | 03.02.1927 – Release Deed |
| Ex.P.5 | 01.05.1968 – Partition Deed |
| Ex.P.6 | 19.08.1972 – Sale Deed |
| Ex.P.7 | 10.03.1976 – Sale Deed |
| Ex.P.8 | 10.03.1976 – Sale Deed |
| Ex.P.9 | - - Plaint in O.S.No.1574/2001 |
| Ex.P.10 | - - Plaint in O.S.No.1575/2001 |
| Documents | marked on the side of the defendants : |
| Ex.D.1 | 07.03.1927 – Copy of the Joint Compromise Memo |
| Ex.D.2 | 08.03.1927 – Copy of the decree in O.S.No.105/1925 |
| Ex.D.3 | 30.05.1932 – Copy of the sale deed |
| Ex.D.4 | 19.09.1925-17.10.1925 – Suit Register Extract of O.S.No.105/1925 |
| Ex.D.5 | 07.08.2001 – Copy of the written statement filed in O.S.No.105/1925 |
| Ex.D.6 | 11.06.1941 – Copy of the sale deed in Doc.No.128/1941 |
| Ex.D.7 | 1927 - Extract of Accounts Book |
| Ex.D.8 | 31.03.1937 – Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.9 | 06.04.1937 – Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.10 | 07.05.1937 – Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.11 | 08.07.1937 – Letter from Rathna Sabapathy to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.12 | 13.07.1937 – Letter from Rathna Sabapathy to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.13 | 30.08.1937 – Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.14 | 01.09.1937 – House Tax Remitted by Kanakkupillai |
| Ex.D.15 | 16.11.1937 – Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.16 | 09.05.1937 - Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.17 | 08.06.1938 - Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.18 | 19.01.1939 - Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.19 | 13.06.1939 - Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.20 | 09.01.1940 - Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.21 | 05.08.1940 - Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.22 | 20.12.1940 - Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.23 | 05.01.1941 - Letter from Subbiah to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.24 | 16.05.1941 - Letter from Rathna Sabapathy to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.25 | 22.01.1942 - Letter from Rathna Sabapathy to S.A.P.Lakshmi Achi |
| Ex.D.26 | 23.05.1960 – Copy of registered sale deed |
| Ex.D.27 | 12.04.1973 – Building plan |
| Ex.D.28 | 30.07.1977 – Proceedings of P.A.(General) to the Collector of Madras |
| Ex.D.29 | 22.07.1980 – Birth Certificate of daughter of SAP Annamalai |
| Ex.D.30 | 17.03.1985 – Passport of SAP Annamalai |
| Ex.D.31 | 27.12.1985 – Passport of Kothai |
34/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
Ex.D.32 17.05.1988 – Building planning permit by MDA Ex.D.33 24.08.1989 – Copy of Probate order in OP No.327/1989 with registered Will of Lakshmi Achi Ex.D.34 01.08.1991 – Property tax assessment Ex.D.35 18.11.1991 – Letter from the Income Tax Department Ex.D.36 10.03.1992 – Receipt of MMWSSB for suit property Ex.D.37 12.03.1996 – MMWSSB Card Ex.D.38 07.07.1995 – Copy of Probate order in OP No.151/1995 with registered Will of SAP Annamalai Ex.D.39 28.03.1996 – Letter of Area Engineer II, MMWSSB for arrears Ex.D.40 June 1997 - Extract of permanent Land Register Ex.D.41 23.07.1997 – Letter from Indian Bank (tenant) Ex.D.42 06.09.2000 – Corporation of Chennai notice for revision of property tax Ex.D.43 20.08.2002 – Revised property tax notice by Corporation of Chennai Ex.D.44 14.01.2003 – Copy of registered Lease Deed by D2 Ex.D.45 11.11.2003 – Corporation of Chennai notice to D2 for revision of property tax Ex.D.46 05.07.2007 – Property tax assessment order in favour of D2 Ex.D.47 18.03.2010 – Property Tax Receipt issued to D2 18.11.2019
35/36
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
gg
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
C.S.No.1008 of 2008
18.11.2019
36/36
3 issues framed by the court
Could the plaintiffs establish title and invalidate subsequent deeds despite their predecessors' unchallenged family compromise?
Was the challenge to the partition and sale deeds barred by limitation?
Had the contesting defendants perfected title by adverse possession?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kale and others V. Deputy Director of Consolidation and othersRelied on¶131
Kale and others V. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1976 SC 807 · Who else cites this
Ram Charan Das V. Girija Nandini Devi and othersRelied on¶149
Ram Charan Das V. Girija Nandini Devi and others, AIR 1966 SC 323 · Who else cites this
Subraya M.N. V. Vittala M.N. and othersRelied on¶149
Subraya M.N. V. Vittala M.N. and others
Roshan Singh and others V. Zile Singh and othersRelied on¶151
Roshan Singh and others V. Zile Singh and others, 2018 (14) SCC 814 · Who else cites this
Thulasidhara V. NarayanappaRelied on¶167
Thulasidhara V. Narayanappa
Karnataka Board of Wakf V. Government of India and othersApplied¶211
2005-1-L.W. 730
Des Raj & Others V. Bhagar Ram (Dead) By LRs and othersApplied¶216
2007-3-L.W. 429
Saroop Singh V. Banto and othersReferred¶218
Saroop Singh V. Banto and others
Govindammal V. R.Perumal Chettiar and OthersReferred¶222
Govindammal V. R.Perumal Chettiar and Others
T.Anjanappa and Others V. Somalingappa an anotherReferred¶223
T.Anjanappa and Others V. Somalingappa an another, (2006) 7 SCC 570, · Who else cites this
Ponnaiyan V. Munian (died) and othersApplied¶224
Ponnaiyan V. Munian (died) and others
C.Ramaiah
RM.Chandramouli alias A.Chandramouli
RM.Chandramouli
A.Kothai Atchi
Dr.A.Jawahar Palaniappan
Kumudham Publications Pvt. Ltd.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
