Second appeal against a decree confirming title of plaintiffs to suit property and directing defendants to hand over possession. Appeal failed as defendants failed to prove adverse possession.
Second appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of Courts below confirmed.
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
DATE : 28.01.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
S.A.NO.1929 OF 1999
AND
C.M.P.NO.21295 OF 1999
Vs.
1. P.Velayudham
2. P.Ramasamy (Died)
.. Respondents/Responents/Plaintiffs
3. Adiammal
4. Kalaiarasi
5. Kalaiselvi
6. Rajasekar
(Respondents 3 to 6 are
brought on record as
legal heirs of the deceased
second respondent vide order
of the Court dated 16.12.2019
made in C.M.P.Nos. 14963,
14968 and 14971 of 2019
in S.A.No.No.1929 of 1999) ...Respondents
Prayer :- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.1996 made in A.S.No.63 of 1993 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1992 made in O.S.No.31 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.
This second appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.1996 made in A.S.No.63 of 1993 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1992 made in O.S.No.31 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Krishnagiri.
4.1. The entire suit property marked as ABCDEF also form part of Ettiyan kollai and they have been absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. Ettiyan Kollai comprised in survey No.3/1A1 and the same was purchased by the defendants' father Chinnapaiyan Egali from Kandasami Pillai, Govindaraju and others for valid sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- under the registered sale deed dated 02.02.1965. From the date of purchase, the defendants have been put in possession and enjoyment of the same. In fact, they also perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession for more than 50 years of unobjectionable possession and enjoyment. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit property and never in possession of the same and he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
"i) Whether the Court below had failed to appreciate that the appellants/defendants had perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession of the same for over the statutory period?
ii) Whether the Courts below had failed to properly identify the suit property as forming part of the land known as "Ettiyan Kollai" and in instead erroneously holding that the suit property is situated in the land known as "Aviar Punjai" or "Dhobi Inam Punjai", which land is actually situated further west of the suit property?
iii) Whether the Courts below had erred in holding that the appellants/defendants had failed to establish their continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property for over the statutory period, even since the date of their purchase under Ex.B.1 Sale deed in the year 1965, notwithstanding the failure of the plaintiffs to prove the alleged trespass by the appellants/defendants in the year 1987?
iv) Whether the Courts below had failed to appreciated the Commissioner's report as well as the oral and documentary evidence in the property perspective, which clearly establish the entitlement of the appellants/
defendants to the suit property by virtue of their long, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same, adverse to all, for over the statutory period?"
titled by adverse possession in respect of the suit property, for which also they did not file any evidence to show their continuous possession and enjoyment of the property more than 12 years. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly concluded that the defendants encroached the suit property and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession for over the statutory period.
Whether the Courts below failed to properly identify the suit property as forming part of the land known as 'Ettiyan Kollai'.
Whether the Courts below erred in holding that the appellants failed to establish continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Ammasi (Died) and others
P. Velayudham and others
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
