Balasubramanian v. Seethapathy -died

Madras HC1 Sept 2021SA/969/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding possession of land acquired under Land Reforms, the Court held that although the plaintiff's purchase violated assignment time limits, the alienation is not automatically void until the assigning authority cancels it. The appellants, having no title, could not claim possession.

What the court decided

AI extract

Balasubramanian Vs Seethapathy -died — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶55

It is for the Government to act. If it does not it is not open to the plaintiff to act highhandedly commit trespass and apply for protection. He must establish a legal right to be in possession. Merely because there has been an alleged contravention of the terms of the assignment, it cannot mean that any third party can encroach upon or commit trespass in respect of the property, subject matter of such assignment. The standing order clearly provides that in the event of non-observance of the terms of the assignment, the grant will be liable to be resumed by the government, who will be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the land. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, mean that the plaintiff can enter, take possession and put up construction. His possession, in my view, cannot be protected. The plaintiff must prove that he was in possession of the suit property in his own right. Absolutely, no, document has been produced to show that the suit property was in his possession in his own right. In such a situation it is well established that possessory right cannot be recognised. We should also notice that the plaintiff had attempted to tamper with the existing state of things. The Commissioner has clearly reported that in the stone inscription of the house in B schedule property the year of construction has been corrected as 1971 from 1981, Instead of reprimanding the plaintiff for tampering with or creating evidence, the lower appellate Court has put this factor as something in favour of the plaintiff. That is to say, the lower appellate Court has observed that the plaintiffs possession is established from 1981. Such an attitude, in my view, was not all justified. Somebody who encroaches upon another person's property and puts up construction in a high handed manner, cannot seek the protection of the Court. This will be placing a premium on illegality. The further reasoning by the lower appellate Court that the Commissioner has found plaintiffs possession and therefore it must be

Balasubramanian v. Seethapathy -died

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramamoorthy Vs Ganesan

Tmt Marimuthu Ammal Died Vs a.Venkatesan

P.Deivasigamani Vs T.Venkatesan

Palaneeswari Vs a.Krishnamoorthy

Kuppusami Vs Krishnamurthy

Balasubramanian v. Seethapathy -died

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramamoorthy Vs Ganesan

Tmt Marimuthu Ammal Died Vs a.Venkatesan

P.Deivasigamani Vs T.Venkatesan

Palaneeswari Vs a.Krishnamoorthy

Kuppusami Vs Krishnamurthy

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

V.Subramani Vs v.Perumal