Dismissed

Subramaniyan v. Savithri (died)

Madras HC19 Oct 2024SA/415/2018

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS…

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Subramaniyan Vs Savithri (died) — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶248

can be inferred that any co-owner/sharer has ousted his cosharer. It depends upon the facts of each case. Long possession by itself is not a ground to oust a co-sharer but something more positive is required to be done. There must be a hostile open possession, and denial and repudiation of the rights of other coowners must be brought home. Service of notice by one co-sharer, for partition and possession, and inaction thereunder or failure to promptly file a suit thereafter, was not enough to establish such co-sharers ouster or adverse possession of the other co-owners. The onus to prove the adverse possession is on the person who raises the plea. A suit for possession based on title was filed by a person who had already proved his title in an earlier suit. In such circumstances, the onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession lies on the defendant. The defendant not having raised any plea of adverse possession, the suit is not time barred. In the absence of such a plea the possession of the defendant is devoid of the requisite animus so as to make his possession adverse for the purpose of commencement of the prescription period. Where a co-owner is claiming to have perfected his right on the basis of adverse possession, such a co-owner has to prove the ouster of other co-owner, to the knowledge of all concerned, only then he can claim to have perfected rights on the basis of adverse possession against a co-owner. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all the facts necessary to substantiate his claim of adverse possession. The correct legal position, therefore, is that possession of a property, belonging to several co-sharers, by one co-sharer shall be deemed to be possession on behalf of the other co-sharers unless there has been a clear ouster by denying the title of other co-sharers and mutation in the revenue record in the

Subramaniyan v. Savithri (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

G.Muralidharan Vs S. Madheshwaran

K.Selvaraj Vs Thangavelu

R.Surendran Vs Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Thirukoil

P.Appasamy Vs M Srinivasan

C. Nagappan Vs C. Mahendran

Subramaniyan v. Savithri (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

G.Muralidharan Vs S. Madheshwaran

K.Selvaraj Vs Thangavelu

R.Surendran Vs Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Thirukoil

P.Appasamy Vs M Srinivasan

C. Nagappan Vs C. Mahendran

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Coram

Kalarani Vs Kathirvel