Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1645 (MAD)

Chinnakannu @ Subbammal v. Nagannan

2019-06-13

T.RAVINDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet dated 23.08.2018 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.288 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet, dated 12.12.2012.) 1. In this Second Appeal challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2018 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed in O.S.No.288 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court. 3. The plaintiffs have laid the suit against the defendants for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. 4. The plaintiffs claim title to the suit property through Ramasamy Naicker and Ragupathy Naicker by virtue of the title deeds dated 01.02.1928 and 30.09.1931 marked as Exs.A1 and A2. According to the plaintiff, they had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by virtue of the abovesaid title deeds and enjoying the same by obtaining the patta, etc., and it is further pleaded by them that the suit property had been let out to the defendants for rent and the defendants, without any entitlement, had proceeded with the construction of the new house in the suit property and thereby attempting to challenge the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and therefore, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to levy the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs. 5. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs suit contending that they are not in the occupation of the suit property on the basis of rental arrangement as put forth by the plaintiffs and contended that the plaintiffs have to establish that they have title to the suit property as put forth in the plaint and according to the defendants, they had put up the superstructure in the suit property and enjoying the same for several years and accordingly have prescribed title to the suit property and the plaintiffs, therefore, are not entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs as prayed for. 6. In support of the plaintiffs' case P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. 6. In support of the plaintiffs' case P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiffs' case and granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants. 8. The plaintiffs claim title to the suit property as the legal heirs of Ramasamy Naicker and Ragupathy Naicker by virtue of the title deeds marked as Exs.A1 and A2. On a perusal of the recitals contained in Exs.A1 and A2 and when it is seen that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Ramasamy Naicker and Ragupathy Naicker as put forth by them, accordingly, the courts below are found to be fully justified and correct in upholding the plaintiffs' claim of title to the suit property based on Exs.A1 and A2. 9. As rightly found and determined by the courts below, the defendants have not, in particular, challenged the claim of title of the plaintiffs to the suit property. They would only plead that it is for the plaintiffs to establish their claim of title to the suit property with acceptable materials. Furthermore, the defendants have also not projected any claim of title through title deeds in respect of the suit property on their part. On the other hand, as could be seen from the plea projected by the defendants in the written statement, it is found that they have only taken the plea of adverse title for sustaining their claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit property. By adopting the abovesaid plea of adverse possession, it is evident that, impliedly, thereby, the defendants have admitted the claim of title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. 10. As abovenoted, considering the title deeds marked as Exs.A1 and A2 and when it is seen that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Ramasamy Naicker and Ragupathy Naicker, in such view of the matter, the courts below are right in accepting the plaintiffs claim of title to the suit property. 11. The defendants have denied the rental arrangement projected by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. 11. The defendants have denied the rental arrangement projected by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. No doubt, P.W.1, examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, is unable to throw a clear picture on the rental arrangement said to have been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, qua the suit property. Be that as it may, when it is found that it is only the plaintiffs who have title to the suit property and when it is further found that the defendants have not put forth any specific claim of title to the suit property on any mode other than the plea of the adverse possession, in such view of the matter, when the plaintiffs' title to the suit property is found to be tenable as determined by the courts below, in such view of the matter, the plaintiffs being the lawful owners of the suit property are found to be entitled to secure the possession of the suit property from the defendants as determined by the courts below. 12. In the light of the abovesaid position, the only point that requires to be determined in this matter is whether the defendants have prescribed title to the suit property by way of the adverse possession on account of the alleged continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit is found to have been laid by the plaintiffs during the year 2006. The defendants have set out adverse title for sustaining their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In this connection, the defendants rely upon the house tax receipts and current consumption receipts marked as Exs.B1 to B10. Of the said documents, Exs.B2 to B10 are found to have emanated after the institution of the suit. Therefore, the only document Ex.B1 is found to be prior to the institution of the suit. On the basis of the said document, the defendants are attempting to sustain their plea of adverse title. Of the said documents, Exs.B2 to B10 are found to have emanated after the institution of the suit. Therefore, the only document Ex.B1 is found to be prior to the institution of the suit. On the basis of the said document, the defendants are attempting to sustain their plea of adverse title. However, as rightly found and determined by the courts below, when the defendants have not come forward as to when from their title has become adverse to the plaintiffs and the defendants have failed to establish their alleged claim of adverse title to the suit property as prescribed under law by placing acceptable and reliable materials for more than the statutory period and when the documents projected by the defendants are found to have come into existence after the institution of the suit, barring Ex.B1, in such view of the matter, the courts below are totally justified in not accepting the claim of adverse title projected by the defendants in respect of the suit property. No reason is warranted to interfere with the abovesaid determination of the courts below. 13. The defendants have also taken the plea of acquiescence contending that to the knowledge of the plaintiffs they have put up the construction in the suit property. However, when it is found that the plaintiffs have levied the suit on coming to know of the unlawful construction endeavoured to be put up by the defendants in the suit property without any authority, within the time allowed by law, in such view of the matter, the plea of acquiescence projected by the defendants cannot be countenanced and rightly found to be rejected by the courts below. 14. The courts below are found to have analysed, appreciated and assessed the materials placed on record and determined the issues correctly by holding that it is only the plaintiffs who have title to the suit property and entitled to obtain the reliefs prayed for in the suit and rightly determined that the defendants have no semblance of right to the suit property whatsoever and the abovesaid determination does not warrant any interference and in all when it is found that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.