Petition for leave to challenge an 1871 decree over property. The court held that a long-established title cannot be disturbed after 153 years and relied on a five-judge bench decision on the scope of Section 265 CPC 1859, dismissing the petition.
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.
CMP.No.7335 of 2024 in OSA.Sr.No.18904 of 2024
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to challenge a decree granted on the original side of this Court on 12th July 1871.
2. It is the claim of the petitioner that only recently it was discovered
that a portion of the property which has been declared as belonging to the respondents in the said decree, actually belongs to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner.
3. Be that as it may, the decree itself is 153 years old. Such a long established title cannot be permitted to be disturbed at the instance of a successor in interest after several years. A five Judge Bench of this Court in Muttuchidambara Vs. Karuppa reported in ILR 7 MADRAS 382 while answering a reference on the scope of Section 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1859 (Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908) observed that long established titles cannot be allowed to be disturbed by reexamining a settled position of law.
1/3
4.
4. The said principle would apply to the case on hand also and we do
not think we can re-examine the settled title which was declared even in the
year 1871 precisely 153 years old.
5. Hence, this petition is dismissed .
(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.)
27.03.2024
dsa
2/3
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J
dsa
CMP.No.7335 of 2024 in OSA.Sr.No.18904 of 2024
27-03-2024
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave should be granted to challenge a 153-year-old decree on the ground that part of the property declared to belong to the respondents belongs to the petitioner's predecessor.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muttuchidambara Vs. KaruppaRelied on¶3
ILR 7 MADRAS 382
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Subramanian
R. Sakthivel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
