This appeal challenged a trial court dismissal in a suit for declaration of title and possession. The High Court held that the appellants failed to identify the property and prove their title, thereby dismissing the appeal.
The appeal suit was dismissed with no 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.
AS.No.589 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 24.11.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
AS.No.589 of 2011
(Through Video Conferencing)
13.Ashok Radj
Appellants
Vs
Respondents
AS.No.589 of 2011
Prayer:- This Appeal Suit has been filed, Section 96 of CPC, against the judgement and decree, dated 31.08.2007, made in OS.No.94 of 2000, by the Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Susindran For Respondents : M/S. SAI-RR1 to 4 RR5 to 11-Dispensed with
JUDGEMENT
AS.No.589 of 2011
said Somu Mudaliar under an oral arrangement, subsequent to the partition between the other co-sharers and the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are in management and enjoyment of the suit property, absolutely in so far as the Southern half portion is concerned. The co-sharers of Somu Mudaliar are entitled to the Northern portion. The 1st Plaintiff is the son of Somu Mudaliar and the 2nd Plaintiff is the only legal heir of one Govindaraj, a deceased son of Somu Mudaliar. The Plaintiffs 3 to 7 are the only legal heirs of the deceased Rajavel, another deceased son of Somu Mudaliar. Apart from the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 6 to 9 being his daughters, the Defendants 10 to 12 are the legal heirs of the deceased daughter of Somu Mudaliar viz. Vijayalakshmi. There is no other legal heirs to the deceased Somu Mudaliar. About 10 years ago, the 1st Defendant was inducted into the portion of the said property in so far as the Southern half portion is concerned and he had put up a temporary thatched house. It was agreed that the 1st Defendant shall vacate the property as and when required by the Plaintiffs. Apart from the Partition Deed, dated 14.12.1962, the Patta and the Tax Assessment of the suit property stand in the name of the 1st Plaintiff's father Somu Mudaliar. The 1st Defendant is a licensee and the other Defendants 2 to 5 have no right to be in possession. While so, the 1st Defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction, against the 1st Plaintiff and claimed the relief of title to the property by prescription, without admitting the title of the Plaintiffs. The 1st Defendant is liable to pay
AS.No.589 of 2011
mesne profits to the Plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. In such
circumstances, the suit had been filed, seeking reliefs, as stated above.
AS.No.589 of 2011
possession started adversely and continued to be so till date by prescription of title by adverse possession. The Plaintiff's grand father, Manickam Poulle lived and died in this property. Uthirapathi Pillai also died having lived for 85 years of age and he was born in the suit property on 19.3.1915. The 2nd Defendant also born on 15.04.1948 in the house at the suit property and he had constructed semi permanent structure, reconstructed and repaired the same. Uthirapathy also extended the area originally occupied. Electricity was done to the house in the year 1984 and drinking water pipeline was also done. The 2nd Defendant is a Government servant. In all his service records, his permanent address is shown to be the suit property. The 2nd Defendant and his predecessors have been in possession of the entire extent of 2 Ares 06 Centiares. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Since there is no license or permission, the question of mesne profits does not arise as the property is held by the Defendants 1 to 3 as prescriptive owners. In such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Additional Issue:-
AS.No.589 of 2011
1.
6.
PW.2 were examined. On the side of the Defendants Ex.B1 to Ex.B31 were marked and DW.1 to DW.4 were examined. Ex.X1 to X13 were marked. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, this Appeal Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs.
AS.No.589 of 2011
is not justified in holding that the 1st Defendant and his ancestors have occupied the suit property from the year 1915. The lower court failed to appreciate that the property was allotted to the share of the 1st Plaintiff's father, Somu Mudaliar as item 57, under Ex.A1, dated 14.12.1962. The lower court failed to note that the Plaintiffs have become the owners of the Souther portion of the Manaikar property alloted under Ex.A1.
AS.No.589 of 2011
AS.No.589 of 2011
16.In fine, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.
Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To
10.03.2022 A.A.NAKKIRAN, J. Srcm
Pre-Delivery Judgement in AS.No.589 of 2011
AS.No.589 of 2011
10.03.2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants have successfully identified the suit property and proved their title derived from a 1962 partition deed?
Whether the respondents have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's dismissal of the suit due to failure to prove title?
Uthandi Mudaliar and others
Panneer @ Panneerselvam and others
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
