Arunachalam Vs Manickammal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Arunachalam Vs Manickammal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Substantial Question of Law (a): Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in granting injunction in favour of the respondents when they admitted that the appellant is a permissive occupant of the 'A' Schedule property. +3 more

Court's answer

On substantial question (a) and disposition of merits: the First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and injunction and dismissing the defendant's suit; there is no need to interfere, and the substantial questions of law were answered accordingly.

Ratio / Principle

On substantial question (b): the defendant failed to prove adverse possession. His possession, whatever its duration, originated in an entrustment for management out of trust and confidence by the plaintiffs' family residing about 50 km away; there is no clear evidence when his possession turned hostile or that any denial of title came to the notice of the true owners, and possession becomes adverse only if held in derogation of the owners' title with their notice — equity does not lie in favour of a person pleading adverse possession.

Key takeaways

Doctrinal basis for rejecting the plea: mutation of revenue records, payment of kist, custody of the original title deed, and mere long possession and enjoyment beyond the statutory period are not by themselves sufficient to constitute adverse possession; the limitation clock begins to run only when denial of title is conveyed to the real owner expressly or impliedly, and no such evidence existed here (adopting Karnataka Board of Wakf and Smt. Mamutha Bai).ratio¶15
Maintainability: the Second Appeal is barred by res judicata. The defendant, at whose instance joint trial was ordered with common evidence and common judgments below, appealed only against the reversal of the plaintiffs' suit and did not appeal against A.S.No.14 of 2010 dismissing his own suit; the contention of the respondents' counsel on res judicata (supported by Premier Tyres, Sri Gangai Vinayagar and Rajeshwari) was accepted as rightly made.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Single Bench: R. Sakthivel, J.; reserved 21.10.2024; pronounced 20.01.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:MHC:170) — S.A.No.273 of 2018 under Section 100 CPC, by the defendant against the First Appellate Court's common judgment dated 01.02.2012 in A.S.No.26 of 2011 reversing the Trial Court's decree of 22.12.2009 and restoring the plaintiffs' title (sale deed Ex-B.1 dated 05.12.1972 in favour of first plaintiff's husband Rathinam, who died in 1993) — DISMISSED, no costs; connected C.M.P.Nos.7071 of 2018 and 4910 of 2020 closed. HELD: (i) Adverse possession not established — the defendant's possession since 1973 was that of a manager/permissive possessor entrusted with the property out of trust by owners living 50 km away; the eastern boundary recited in the defendant's own 1985 purchase deed (Ex-A.1) described Rathinam's land, negativing animus till 1985; no evidence showed when possession turned hostile or that denial of title reached the owners. Mutation of revenue records, payment of kist, custody of the original title deed and mere long possession do not ripen into adverse possession unless denial of title is conveyed to the true owner expressly or impliedly, from when limitation begins (following Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779, and Smt. Mamutha Bai v. G. Ramakrishnan, 2024 (3) CTC 622). (ii) Independently, the Second Appeal was barred by res judicata: the suits were jointly tried with common evidence and common judgments, yet the defendant challenged only the reversal of the plaintiffs' suit and filed no appeal against A.S.No.14 of 2010 upholding dismissal of his own injunction suit (relying on Premier Tyres Ltd., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 146; Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple, (2015) 3 SCC 624; Rajeshwari, 2019 (1) CTC 781). (iii) Non-joinder of Rathinam's two daughters was not fatal — the suit was professedly for the benefit of all co-sharers (plaint para 3). Substantial questions of law answered accordingly; First Appellate Court's decree for declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs affirmed in effect.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Substantial Question of Law (a): Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in granting injunction in favour of the respondents when they admitted that the appellant is a permissive occupant of the 'A' Schedule property.¶7
The court held
On substantial question (a) and disposition of merits: the First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and injunction and dismissing the defendant's suit; there is no need to interfere, and the substantial questions of law were answered accordingly.ratio¶18
2.
Substantial Question of Law (b): Whether the appellant has proved that he perfected his title by adverse possession.¶7
The court held
On substantial question (b): the defendant failed to prove adverse possession. His possession, whatever its duration, originated in an entrustment for management out of trust and confidence by the plaintiffs' family residing about 50 km away; there is no clear evidence when his possession turned hostile or that any denial of title came to the notice of the true owners, and possession becomes adverse only if held in derogation of the owners' title with their notice — equity does not lie in favour of a person pleading adverse possession.ratio¶12
3.
Whether the Second Appeal is maintainable or barred by res judicata, the defendant having challenged only the reversal of the plaintiffs' suit while abstaining from appeal against A.S.No.14 of 2010 dismissing his own suit, both suits having been jointly tried and disposed of by common judgments.medium confidence¶16
The court held
Maintainability: the Second Appeal is barred by res judicata. The defendant, at whose instance joint trial was ordered with common evidence and common judgments below, appealed only against the reversal of the plaintiffs' suit and did not appeal against A.S.No.14 of 2010 dismissing his own suit; the contention of the respondents' counsel on res judicata (supported by Premier Tyres, Sri Gangai Vinayagar and Rajeshwari) was accepted as rightly made.ratio¶16
4.
Whether the plaintiffs' suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the two daughters of Rathinam.medium confidence¶4
The court held
Non-joinder: since the suit was filed for the benefit of all co-sharers, including the two daughters of Rathinam and the first plaintiff, as pleaded in plaint paragraph No.3, the plea that the two daughters were necessary parties is not sustainable.ratio¶17