Plaintiff sued for declaration of prescriptive title by adverse possession over a vacant site and consequential injunction. Trial court dismissed the suit for want of proof of 12 years' possession; first appellate court confirmed. High Court dismissed the second appeal, finding no substantial question of law.
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.59 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.59 of 2024
R.Karthikumar … Appellant
Vs .
1.Boobalakrishnan
2.NEPC India Ltd,
Formerly Known as NEPC Micon Ltd, Chennai, Rep. by it's power agent N.Padmanaban
S/o. P.Narayanan, B-4, Aadithya Apartment, Trichy Road, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore. . .. Respondents
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to allow the Second Appeal with Costs by setting aside the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.5 of 2015 on the file of Sub Court, Udumalaipettai dated 25.10.2017 and confirming the judgment and decree in O.S No.81 of 2011 dated 07.10.2014 on the file of District Munsif Court, Udumalaipettai.
For Appellants : M/s.A.Sivaji
1/8
S.A.No.59 of 2024
JUDGEMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the
appellant before this Court. The facts are briefly set out herein below
and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.
the District Munsif Court, Udumalaipettai to declare his prescriptive title over the B schedule properties by way of adverse possession and for a consequential permanent injunction.
2/8
S.A.No.59 of 2024
sale deed dated 23.11.2010. The suit property have been described as a vacant site within specified boundaries.
the north of the A schedule property and there was no demarcation between the two properties. Though the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant would mention a mamool pathway, there is no cart track to reach the suit property. The 2nd defendant had not taken possession of the suit property and it was lying fallow.
3/8
S.A.No.59 of 2024
property) and the trees are aged over 9 years. The plaintiff had also laid an underground pipeline and drip irrigation for the entire A and B schedule properties (suit property).
the suit property from 04.09.1998. The 2nd defendant had purchased the suit property in the year 1995 and from the date of their purchase, they have kept the lands fallow. Since he has been in the enjoyment of the property for over 12 years, the plaintiff wanted to establish his title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and therefore the suit had been filed.
dismissed the suit stating that the plaintiff who claims to be in possession of the B schedule properties (suit property) since the year
4/8
S.A.No.59 of 2024
1998 has not proved the same. The 1st defendant appears to have purchased the suit property in the year 2010 under Ex.A.15 and since the plaintiff had not proved his continuous possession of the property for over 12 years, the suit had been dismissed.
prescriptive title. The plaintiff's case is that from 04.09.1998 he has been occupying the B schedule properties which is the suit property
5/8
S.A.No.59 of 2024
and has annexed the B schedule property with the A schedule property and enjoying the same as a single property. The plaintiff has raised gooseberry in the said property. Even going by the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff who states that he has been raising gooseberry in the suit property has himself admitted that the age of the tree is about 9 years. The plaintiff had not filed any revenue document to show his enjoyment of the suit property for over 12 years. The plaintiff had filed Ex.A.15 which is the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Therefore, it is clear that the 2nd defendant had exercised their rights as a owner and sold the suit property in the year 2010 to the 1st defendant. The suit property is a vacant site. Therefore, title follows possession.
6/8
S.A.No.59 of 2024
Courts below have rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Further, the appellant has not made out any substantial question of law that requires the re-consideration of this Court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
24.01.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No shr
To
1. The Sub Court, Udumalaipettai.
7/8
S.A.No.59 of 2024
P.T.ASHA, J.,
shr
S.A.No.59 of 2024
24.01.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Did the plaintiff prove continuous adverse possession of the B schedule property for over 12 years to claim prescriptive title?
Was there any substantial question of law justifying reconsideration in the second appeal?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Karthikumar
Boobalakrishnan
NEPC India Ltd, formerly known as NEPC Micon Ltd, Chennai, Rep. by its power agent N.Padmanaban
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
