Madras High Court
P.T.Chandrasekaran vs The Special Deputy Collector ... on 9 December, 2021
AS.No.201 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20.01.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
A.S.No.201 of 2016
and
C.M.P No.3001 of 2016
1.P.T.Chandrasekaran
2.P.T.Vijayalakshmi
3.P.T.Vivekanandan
4.P.T.Sethumadhavan ...Appellants
Vs
1. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A)
Tamilnadu Urban Development
Project III
Chennai at Poonamallee,
Chennai-600 056.
2. C.S.Premkumar (died)
3. P.Gnanasundari
4. P.Krishnakumar
5. D.Rani
6. P.Sasikumar
7. P.Sampath Kumar ...Respondents
(R3 to R7 were brought on record as
L.Rs of the deceased 2nd respondent
vide Court order dated 9.12.2021,
made in CMP Nos.16957 & 16963
of 2021 in A.S No.201 of 2016)
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.201 of 2016
Prayer:- This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 of Code of
Civil Procedure r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the fair and
decreetal order dated 06.08.2015 passed in L.A.O.P No.90 of 2013 by the
VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : M/s.Srinath Sridevan
For Respondents : Mr.Tamil Nidhi
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Mr.R.Krishnasamy for R3 to R7
JUDGMENT
(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing)
This appeal has been filed challenging the fair and decreetal order
dated 06.08.2015 made in L.A.O.P No.90 of 2013, by the VI Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. A reference has been filed by the 1st respondent/Special Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Ubran Development Project III,
Poonamalee, Chennai, under Section 22(3) of the Tamilnadu Highways
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.201 of 2016
Act 2001, to decide the apportionment of compensation amount with
regard to the land acquired for construction of Railways over bridge in
GNT Road, in Award No.1 of 2011 dated 15.07.2011. The appellants are
the claimants 2 to 5 and the 2nd respondent is the 1st claimant in the said
LAOP.
3. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, held that only the 2nd
respondent/1st claimant is entitled to receive the compensation amount as
per the norms passed by the Referring Officer in Award No.1/2011, dated
15.07.2011 and the appellants / claimants 2 to 5 are not entitled to claim
the award amount. Challenging the above fair and decreetal order, the
present appeal has been filed by the appellants / claimants 2 to 5.
4. The case of the appellants/claimants 2 to 5 is that the property
under reference is originally belonged to the uncle of the claimants 2 to 5
namely, P.C.T.Sambandham, who is none other than the elder brother of
the claimants' father Thayumanavan. The claimants 2 to 5 are in exclusive
possession and enjoyment of the property from the year 1982, while their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.201 of 2016
father was alive and even after the demise of their father, they have been
continuing their occupation in the acquired land and in the remaining
property. The 1st respondent / 1st claimant had never been in possession
of the acquired land. The claimants 2 to 5 have mortgaged the property
twice in 1995 and again in 2001 and exercised their right over the acquired
land. Hence, the 1st claimant is not entitled to receive the compensation.
The Court below, without considering the documents filed by the
appellants to show that they have prescribed the title by way of adverse
possession, has passed a fair and decreetal order in favour of the 2nd
respondent/1st claimant. Challenging the same, the appellants are before
this Court.
5. Pending this appeal, since the 2nd respondent/1st claimant died,
his legal heirs were impleaded as the respondents 3 to 7.
6. This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as
the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.201 of 2016
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
appellants have prescribed their title by way of adverse possession since
1982 and to prove the said contention, the appellants have filed the
documents in Ex.C8 to Ex.C18, but the same has not been considered by
the Court below. Eventhough it is alleged by the 2nd respondent/1st
claimant that he has given permission to the appellants to reside in the
property, the same has not been proved by him. The onus is on the 1st
claimant to prove that he has given permission to reside. The 1st claimant
had never been in possession of the suit property. Further, he would
submit that the appellants have mortgaged the property after they became
the absolute owners of the property. Therefore, the findings of the Court
below that the 1st claimant had perfected his title over the acquired land
and is entitled to receive the compensation amount are erroneous in law
and therefore, the fair and decreetal order passed by the Court below needs
interference by this Court and hence, he prays to allow this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7 would submit that
as per the settlement deed Ex.C1, the 2nd respondent/1st claimant is the
owner of the property and his title was also admitted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.201 of 2016
appellants/claimants 2 to 5. But, the appellants are in possession of the
suit property without the knowledge of the true owner and therefore, they
are not entitled to claim title by way of adverse possession. He would rely
on the decisions reported in (i) (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 705
[Dagadabai (dead) by Legal Representatives vs. Abbas Alias Gulab
Rustum Pinjari] and (ii) (2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 756
[Mallikarjunaiah vs. Nanjaiah and others) and hence, the award passed
by the trial Court is in accordance with law.
9. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and
also perused the materials placed on record. For the sake of convenience,
the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.
10. The point for consideration is, as to whether the impugned fair
and decreetal order of the Court below is sustainable or not?
11. On a perusal of Ex.C1, settlement deed dated 28.08.1980, it
reveals that the acquired land was settled in favour of the 1st claimant,
namely, C.S.Premkumar, by one P.C.Thirugnana Sambanda Muadaliar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.201 of 2016
who is his uncle. The said fact has also been admitted by the claimants 2
to 5. To prove the contention raised by the claimants 2 to 5 that they had
perfected their title by adverse possession, they have filed Ex.C8 to
Ex.C18. Even though the claimants 2 to 5 have marked the aforesaid
documents, they have failed to prove that they are in possession and
enjoyment of the acquired land without the knowledge of the true owner.
Further, with regard to the contention of the claimants 2 to 5 that they have
mortgaged the acquired land, they ought to have been proved under what
right they have mortgaged the said property. But, they have miserably
failed to do so. Moreover, the claimants 2 to 5 have not filed any
documents viz., tax receipts and water tax receipts to prove their claim that
they had perfected their title by adverse possession.
12. At the same time, the 1st claimant has marked Ex.C1, settlement
deed and Ex.C2, patta and other documents to prove his claim that he is the
owner of the acquired land. Though the 1st claimant is the owner of the
property and it was also admitted by the claimants 2 to 5, but claiming
right over the property without proving their title by adverse possession, is
not correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.201 of 2016
13. In view of the above, this Court finds that the learned VI
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after a careful perusal of the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, has rightly come to
a conclusion that the 1st claimant is entitled for the compensation of
award amount and hence, the order passed by the Court below does not
warrants any interference by this Court and the present appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
14. In fine, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
uma
To
1. The VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2The Record Keeper, VR Section,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.201 of 2016
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
uma
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
A.S.No.201 of 2016
and
C.M.P No.3001 of 2016
13.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
