Second appeal by defendants against appellate decree in a partition suit. The court upheld the first appellate court's finding that no adverse possession lies between co-owners without an ouster plea, found no substantial question of law, and dismissed the appeal at admission stage.
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.170 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
S.A.(MD)No.170 of 2025 and
C.M.P(MD)No.6461 of 2025
... Appellants
Vs.
P.Karuppannan ... Respondent
Prayer: The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2024 passed in A.S.No. 18 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur by reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2017 made in O.S.No.158 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Suresh
1/4
S.A.(MD)No.170 of 2025
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2024 passed in A.S.No.18 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur, by reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2017 made in O.S.No.158 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur.
2.1. There was no question adverse possession between the Co-owners and only plea of ouster is permissible. There was no pleading of ouster. There was no evidence to sustain the plea of ouster.
2/4
S.A.(MD)No.170 of 2025
2.2. Long possession of the property by one of the Co-owner is not a ground to uphold the plea of the adverse possession on the principle that possession of one of the Co-owners is always deemed to be possession by the other Co-owner.
2.3. The learned 1st Appellate Judge as a final court of fact and law, correctly appreciated the above law and facts and declined to accept the plea of the adverse possession raised by the appellant. This Court finds neither any perversity nor mis-application of law in the impugned judgment of the learned 1st Appellate Judge.
22.04.2025
NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm
3/4
S.A.(MD)No.170 of 2025
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
rgm
To
S.A.(MD)No.170 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.6461 of 2025
22.04.2025
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendants' plea of adverse possession against a co-owner could be sustained in absence of pleading and evidence of ouster.
Whether the first appellate court's rejection of the adverse possession plea suffered from perversity or misapplication of law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1. K.P.Ramasamy 2. R.Saravanan 3. R.Rajaprabhu 4. Rajapriya
P.Karuppannan
K.K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
