Second appeal by defendants challenging concurrent findings that plaintiffs proved title to suit item through a 1926 sale deed and family partition sketch, and that defendants' adverse possession claim failed for want of proof of hostile possession from a specific date. Appeal dismissed, judgments of the courts below confirmed.
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.855 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A.No.855 of 2016
Kesavalu Naidu (Died) 1.Lakshmikanthammal
2.Gunasekaran
3.Sumathi
4.Amutha Gajendiran (Died) 5.Krishnamoorthy ... Appellants/Appellants/defendant
(Appellants 1 to 5 impleaded as Lrs. of Keslavalu Naidu as per order in I.A.No.4 of 2008 and amended as per order in I.A.No.8/2009 dated 13.07.2009)
Vs
Kuppusamy Naidu (Died) 1.Narasimhalu Neelammal (Died) Sarojini (Died) ... Respondents/ Respondents/ Plaintiffs
(The 1 st respondent died pending appeal and the 2nd respondent has been recognized as the only legal heir for 1st respondent as per memo dated 02.08.2010 and amended as per order in I.A.No.12 of 2010 dated 10.11.2010.)
1\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.30 of 2005 dated 31.10.2013, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.398 of 1996 dated 27.10.2004, passed by the District Munsiff Court, Ponneri.
For Appellants : Mr. S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Thiyagarajan For Respondents : Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, senior counsel for Mr.M.Baskar
JUDGMENT
The appellants have filed this Second Appeals against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.30 of 2005 dated 31.10.2013, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.398 of 1996 dated 27.10.2004 passed by the District Munsiff Court, Ponneri.
as they are ranked in the suit.
2\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
O.S.No.398 of 1996 filed by the respondents, Kuppusamy Naidu and others, seeking declaration of rights in respect of the suit property and recovery of possession from the defendant, along with mesne profits. The first defendant contested the suit. The first plaintiff’s claim is that the suit property was originally purchased by Subba Reddy on 04.08.1984. After his demise, his wife, Seethammal, possessed and enjoyed the property. Subsequently, she conveyed the property to one Subba Naidu, who was the maternal grandfather of the first, third, and fourth plaintiffs, under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.1926. After this, Subba Naidu enjoyed the property along with other properties. Upon his death, he left behind his only daughter, Rajammal, the mother of the plaintiffs. Both Rajammal and Chengammal pre-deceased him. As a result, the first plaintiff took care of the entire property along with his maternal grandfather, who died 11 years before the suit, leaving the first, third, and fourth plaintiffs, his grandsons, as his legal heirs. Upon the death of Nathalla Subba Naidu, the first, third,
and fourth plaintiffs became the exclusive owners of the first item of the
3\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
suit property.
S.A. No.855 of 2016
defendants' father Chengama Naidu, and Chandrayya Naidu. Each branch was given one sketch, and in the document, the defendants’ father categorically admitted that suit item No.1 belonged to the first plaintiff.
5\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
November 1991, the plaintiffs have demanded the vacant portion by terminating the license, but the defendant evaded this and a notice was issued on 28.08.1992. In response, the defendant claimed title to the entire first item of the property. The defendant is, in fact, in unlawful possession of items 2 and 3 of the properties, leading to the filing of this suit.
relied upon by the plaintiffs, the learned trial Judge, after examining Ex.A5
6\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
(a xerox copy of the recorded partition details), as well as the admission made by the defendants that their father owned 10 cents of land lying to the East of the suit property, concluded that Ex.A5 was rightly brought into evidence. Therefore, the Trial Court found that the first item of the property differed. Further, the trial Court also determined that the defendant failed to prove that the suit property was joint family property or ancestral property. The remaining witnesses, DW.2 and DW.3, did not provide any testimony regarding the partition, nor did they produce any documents showing that the suit property was allotted to other sharers. Additionally, the defendants did not prove that the suit property was purchased by their father. Consequently, the trial Court concluded that the defendant failed to establish that the suit property belonged to the joint family property. On the other hand, the title deeds produced by the plaintiffs were marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
S.A. No.855 of 2016
proved that their grandfather had one daughter, Rajammal, who was the plaintiffs' mother, and this relationship was also not disputed by the defendant. Therefore, it was established that the plaintiffs and their mother derived title over the property from their maternal grandfather, and the suit property was allotted to the 1st plaintiff as part of the partition between the plaintiff and his sister. The sketch, Ex.A5, relied upon by the plaintiffs, also supported their claim. Thus, the learned trial judge concluded that the plaintiffs had proven their title to the suit property, and accordingly, the suit was decreed in plaintiffs' favour.
8\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
S.A. No.855 of 2016
property based on the title deeds. On the other hand, the defendants had failed to prove that they were the absolute owners of the property. Thus, the
findings of the trial Court were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
S.A. No.855 of 2016
belonged to the 1st plaintiff, as shown by the Western boundaries, was erroneous. The defendant further argued that the trial Court failed to consider that the defendant was not a party to Ex.A5 and that only a xerox copy of Ex.A5 was produced along with the plaint, with the original being introduced at the time of trial. As a result, the defendant was not given a proper opportunity to deny Ex.A5 when filing the written statement. The Court also allegedly failed to appreciate the defendant's claim of adverse possession, which was supported by tax receipts, and had not properly considered the defendant’s long-standing possession of the property. Therefore, the defendants pray for the findings of the first appellate Court to be set aside.
“(i). Whether the appellate Court is right in rendering the finding with respect to adverse possession based on the possession of the property for more than the statutory period, even without admitting the title of the respondents ? and
(ii). Whether the appellate Court is right in not accepting the
11\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
documents filed by the defendants in proof of their possession of the suit property for more than the statutory period and on the other hand, failed to consider that the plaintiffs have not filed any other documents in proof of their alleged possession of the suit property during the relevant period ?”
S.A. No.855 of 2016
allotted to the plaintiff. The defendants did not deny the parent document, Ex.A1, relied upon by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the title of the plaintiffs was
rightly confirmed by the trial court and does not require any interference by this Court.
13\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession concerning the suit property, specifically stating that the first item of the suit property, includes other items. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' title, and to prove their title, the plaintiffs relied Ex.A2 sale deeds. According to Ex.A2, from the original owner maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs, Subba Naidu, who had purchased the property in the year 1926. During life time of the death of Subba Naidu, his daughter was the plaintiffs' mother died predeceased him, leaving her children plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 as the rightful heirs on the death of Subba Naidu children his predeceased daughter became lawful owner of suit property. Following a partition, the first item of the property was allotted to the 1st plaintiff and not to plaintiffs 2 and 3. The defendant claimed title based on adverse possession, asserting themselves as the absolute owners of the property, while denying the plaintiffs' right and title over it. However, before the trial Court, the defendants failed to produce any relevant documents that they perfected title over the property.
14\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
been sufficiently proved. There were no specific details indicating from which date they allegedly enjoyed the property adversely to the knowledge of the true owner. In all respects, they failed to prove their claim, which requires no interference by this Court. Moreover, as per Ex.A5, the paternal grandfather of the defendants' branch divided the property, and Ex.A5 proves that the property belongs to the defendant branch. However, the suit property is from the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs, which is entirely distinct from the property covered under Ex.A5. The trial Court rightly appreciated this distinction, and no interference is required. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have a better title than the defendants, and the Courts below rightly granted relief in favor of the plaintiffs, which requires no interference by this Court. Therefore, the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
15\18
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order
S.A. No.855 of 2016
17.10.2024
rri
To
16\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
S.A.No.855 of 2016
17\18
S.A. No.855 of 2016
17.10.2024
18\18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court could find against the defendants' adverse possession claim without the plaintiffs admitting their title?
Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the defendants' possession documents while noting the plaintiffs lacked possession evidence for the relevant period?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kesavalu Naidu (Died) rep. by Lrs. Lakshmikanthammal, Gunasekaran, Sumathi and Krishnamoorthy
Kuppusamy Naidu (Died) rep. by legal heir Narasimhalu Neelammal Sarojini
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
