Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and mandatory injunction to remove a staircase over a suit lane, claiming adverse possession and assignment. Both courts below rejected the claim for lack of proof of possession or actual assignment. The 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.(MD) No.394 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A. (MD) No.394 of 2008
1.Philominal
2.Harichandran
3.K.Ramkumar
... Appellants
-vs-
1.Tmt.Arokia Mary (died)
3.The Tahsildar, Dindigul, Office at Taluk Office, Dindigul Town.
_____________ Page 1 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
6.Messiyas
7.Betsi Clara 8.Jansirani 9.Saranya 10.Esther
... Respondents
(Respondents 4 to 10 are brought on record as L.Rs.of the deceased 1st Respondent)
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 21.08.2003, passed in A.S.No.227 of 1999 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24.02.1999, passed in O.S.No.1535 of 1991 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Ramesh, for Mrs.V.Srimathi. Respondent 1 : Died For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.SRA.Ramchandran, Addl.Govt.Pleader.
For Respondents 4 to 10 : Mr.T.R.Subramanian
_____________ Page 2 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title and for mandatory injunction to remove the staircase put up by the first defendant in the suit property. The plaintiffs also sought for injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
Page 3 of 9
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
more than 40 years with property tax assessment in their name and they acquired title by prescription. It was also claimed that the first defendant made an attempt to put up a staircase in the suit lane and hence initially the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. Pending suit, the first defendant had put up a staircase in the suit lane portion. Therefore, the prayer for mandatory injunction was also included, seeking removal of the staircase put up by the defendant.
Page 4 of 9
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
been under the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the defendant. On these pleadings, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.
_____________ Page 5 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
assignment of suit site to the plaintiff and the said document has not been properly taken into consideration by both the Courts below. The learned counsel further submitted that an order for eviction of the plaintiff was passed by the revenue officials and on appeal filed by the plaintiff, the District Revenue Officer passed an order, allowing the appeal in favour of the plaintiff and had these documents been taken into consideration properly, the Courts below would not have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove her continuous possession over the suit property.
Page 6 of 9
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
Dindigul Municipality. Both the Courts below, on perusal of the resolution, found that the description of the property was not clearly mentioned in the document with measurements. Ex.A-7 is the recommendation passed by the Tahsildar and as per the said order, the Tahsildar recommended for assignment of land to the first plaintiff's husband to an extent of 898 sq.ft. However, there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the suit lane portion falls within the extent mentioned in the said order. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the property mentioned in Ex.A-7 was assigned in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also failed to produce the order passed by the revenue department for eviction of the plaintiff. Therefore, whether the order passed by the revenue department is in respect of the suit lane portion or not is not at all proved before the Court. In such circumstances, the order passed by appellate authority allowing the appeal in favour of the plaintiff will not support the case of the appellant. The trial Court also observed that the plaintiff failed to produce clean copy of Ex.A-9, the order passed by the District Revenue Officer. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that Ex.A-9 was relating to the suit lane portion. The other documents, namely, house tax receipts, relied on by the plaintiff, as Exs.A-3 to A-5 were said to be of the year 1987 and 1988. The suit had been filed in the year 1991. Hence, there is no concrete evidence available on record to
Page 7 of 9
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
suggest that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit lane portion for more than the statutory period to claim adverse possession against the Government. In such circumstances, both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, negatived the claim of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said factual findings, reached by the Courts below. Finding no substantial question of law arising for consideration, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
12.07.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
dixit
To:
_____________ Page 8 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dixit
S.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008
12.07.2024
_____________ Page 9 of 9_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs proved exclusive possession of the suit lane for the statutory period to claim title by adverse possession against the Government.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Philominal
Harichandran
K.Ramkumar
Tmt.Arokia Mary (died)
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its District Collector, Dindigul
The Tahsildar, Dindigul
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
