In this second appeal under the Civil Procedure Code regarding a property dispute involving adverse possession, the High Court held that no substantial questions of law arose to interfere with the courts below' decision dismissing the appeal.
The Second Appeal is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 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.
S.A.No.208 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2023
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A.No.208 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.6057 of 2023
G.Christy
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Abdul Jabbar 2.Kalleri Yousuf 3.K.Thahirudheen 4.Abdul Kader 5.Puthiya Keloth Ummerkutty 6.Muhammed Ashraf 7.M.Abdul Salam 8.Suharabi 9.Mahamood 10.N.Abdul Latheef 11.Modavanakandy Basheer ... Respondents
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the judgement and decree passed by the XXIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Allikulam, Chennai, dated 29.04.2022 in A.S.No.53 of 2021 against O.S.No.36 of 2014, confirming the decree and judgement dated 14.12.2018 in O.S.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the 1st
1/4
S.A.No.208 of 2023
Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.Inamdar Ameenur Rahman for Caveator
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the occupant of a residential property who would
resist the suit in O.S.No.36 of 2014, with a plea of adverse possession and
she has lost her defence successively and concurrently before the Courts below.
2.Canvassing the case for the appellant, the learned counsel submitted that
appellant is in occupation of the property, to substantiate which she had produced few documents namely Ex.B1 to Ex.B17, all of, which are essentially documents showing possession.
3.It is not in dispute that the defendant is in possession, but what is significant is whether she has held the property nec vi, nec clam, nec precario vis-a-vis the title of the plaintiffs. As long as a hostile intent to
2/4
S.A.No.208 of 2023
hold the property against the title of the plaintiffs is not established, mere
possession cannot take the defendant ashore.
4.After carefully hearing the submissions of the counsel for the appellant / defendant and on a perusal of the judgements of the Courts below, this Court does not find any substantial questions of law for this Court to entertain this appeal.
5.Interjecting the proceedings, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs / Caveator informed the Court that the plaintiffs have taken possession of the property through the execution proceedings on 30.11.2022.
6.In fine, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.04.2023
Anu
Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking order
3/4
S.A.No.208 of 2023
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
Anu
To.
S.A.No.208 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.6057 of 2023
10.04.2023
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial questions of law exist to entertain this second appeal.
Whether the appellant's plea of adverse possession is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Christy
Abdul Jabbar
Kalleri Yousuf
K.Thahirudheen
Abdul Kader
Puthiya Keloth Ummerkutty
N.Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
