Madras High Court
Jayaprahas vs Mavelraj on 1 April, 2024
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.NO.1002 OF 2001
1.Jayaprahas
2.Rathinamalai Ammal(died)
3.Lalithamani(died)
4.Vijayamani
5.Premalatha
6.Niranjana Devi :Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
(Second appellant died and appellants 3 to 6 who are already on
record are the Legal representatives of the deceased second
appellant is recorded vide memo in U.S.R.NO.2671 if 2017, dated
14.6.2017 vide order of this Court made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.7631 to
7633 of 2017 in S.A.No.1002 of 2001, dated 25.10.2017)
.vs.
1.Mavelraj
2.Ramamurthy
3.Rama Sethu
4.Krishnasamy
5.Pudupatti Kammavar Sangam,
represented by its President,
Pudupatti,
Vilathikulam Taluk.
6.S.Mani Pandian(died)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
7.M.Mani Mala
8.Nirmala
(Respondents 6 to 8 are brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased third appellant as per order of this Court made in
C.M.P(MD)Nos.7631 to 7633 of 2017 in S.A.No.1002 of 2001)
:Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.246 of 1998,
dated 27.1.2000 on the file of Sub Court, Kovilpatti confirming the
judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1 of 1995, dated
20.07.1995,on the file of District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam.
For Appellant-1 :Mrs.Jessi Jeevi Priya
For Appellant :No appearance
4 to 6
For Respondents :No appearance
1 to 5
For Respondent-6 :Died
For Respondents :Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan
7 and 8
JUDGMENT
*************
The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The suit is for
declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory
injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court.The first
appeal filed by the appellants/Plaintiffs also dismissed. Aggrieved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
2.According to the appellants/plaintiffs, their father Mari
Pandi Nadar purchased the suit item No.1 under a sale deed,
dated 19.09.1959. From the date of purchase, the appellants and
their predecessor in interest Mari Pandi Nadar have been in
possession and enjoyment of the second schedule ‘ABCD’
compound wall continuously without any interruption and hence,
they acquired adverse title over the same. It was claimed by the
appellants that the respondents without having any manner of
right, had put up construction over the second schedule compound
wall in and around 1988. Therefore, the appellants were
constrained to file the suit for declaration of their adverse title
over the suit second schedule property with the consequential
relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The
appellants also claim adverse title over the suit third schedule
property shown as ‘BCDE’ on the west of the second schedule
compound wall. The suit was also laid for the relief of declaration
of appellants adverse title over the suit third schedule property and
for consequential relief of mandatory injunction and for permanent
injunction.
3.The respondents herein filed their written statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
denying the right and possession of the appellants over the suit
properties. It was claimed by the respondents that they have got
right over the strip of land which lies on further west of the suit
second schedule compound wall and hence, the claim of adverse
title over the suit second and third schedule properties is not
sustainable. The respondents also claimed long and uninterrupted
possession of the second and third schedule of properties for more
than the statutory period. On these pleasdings, the respondents
sought for dismissal of the suit.
4.Before the trial Court, the first appellant was examined as
P.W.1 and one Ramasamy Nadar was examined as P.W.2. On behalf
of the appellants/plaintiffs, ten documents were marked as Ex.A1
to Ex.A10. The first respondent was examined as D.W.1 and two
other witnesses were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3. On behalf of
the respondents Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked. The Advocate
Commissioner’s Report, Plan and FMB Sketch relating to Village
S.No.94 were marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
5.The trial Court, on appreciation of both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion
that the appellants/Plaintiffs who failed to prove their adverse title
over the suit properties, were not entitled for any relief and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an
appeal in A.S.NO.246 of 1998, on the file of Sub-Court, Kovilpatti
and the same was dismissed, confirming the findings of the trial
Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this
Court.
6.At the time of admission, this Court formulated the
following substantial question of law, by order, dated 30.07.2001:
‘’When the four boundaries of the suit property are well-
defined, have not the Courts below erred in law in not applying the
principle that when the boundaries are definite and clear, they
will prevail over the actual extent?’’
7.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
when four boundaries of the suit properties are well defined under
the title documents of the appellants/plaintiffs, the same will
prevail over the dispute in extent. The learned counsel submitted
that the Courts below failed to take into consideration that the
appellants purchased the suit properties under Ex.A1 with four
well defined boundaries and therefore, they are entitled to the
properties covered under Ex.A1. The learned counsel also by
taking this Court to the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, submitted
that the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
over the suit properties from the date of purchase under Ex.A1
have been clearly proved by the plaintiffs and both the Courts
below over-looked the oral evidence of witnesses.
8.A reading of the plaint prayer would indicate that the
appellants sought for declaration of adverse title over the suit
second and third schedule properties and for consequential reliefs
of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. It is not the
case of the appellants that they purchased the suit item No.2 and 3
under Ex.A1. A perusal of Ex.A1would suggest that the appellants
father Mari Pandi Nadar purchased the properties on the west of
Pannaipettai Compound wall.This Pannaipettai Compound wall is
described as suit second scehdule property. Therefore a perusal of
the boundary description in appellants’ title documents would
suggest that the disputed second schedule compound wall was not
purchased by the appellants and it was only shown as eastern
boundary of the property covered under Ex.A1. In order to
establish the adverse title, the person claiming adverse title
should lead unimpeachable evidence to show his or her
uninterrupted possession for more than the statutory period. In
order to prove the adverse possession, the appellants examined
P.W.2, an independent witness and his evidence is not useful to
prove the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants over the suit compound wall. The interested testimony of
P.W.1 is not sufficient to hold that the appellants proved adverse
title over the suit compound wall. Therefore, I hold that the
appellants failed to prove adverse title over the suit second
schedule property.
9.Though the learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that in view of the boundaries mentioned under Ex.A1, the
appellants can claim title over the property which lies on the west
of Pannaipettai compound wall, in the plaint averments, the
appellants only claimed adverse title over the suit third schedule
property. There is no plea by the appellants that they have got title
over the suit third schedule property under Ex.A1. But,it is settled
law that there cannot be any evidence without plea. The appellants/
Plaintiffs have approached the Court with specific plea that they
have got adverse title over the suit third schedule property and
now they cannot turn around and say that in view of well-settled
proposition that boundaries will prevail over the disputed extent,
the title of the appellants shall be upheld on the basis of boundary
description under Ex.A1.
10.Thus, both the Courts below came to the factual
conclusion that the appellants/plaintiffs failed to establish their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
adverse title over suit item 2 and 3 and hence, dismissed the suit.
The appellants are unable to point out any perversity in the said
factual conclusion reached by the Courts below.
11.In view of the discussions made earlier, the substantial
questions of law formulated is answered against the appellants
and as a consequence, the Second Appeal stands fails and the
same stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
01.04.2024
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
To
1.The Sub-Judge,
Kovilpatti.
2.The District Munsif,
Vilathikulam.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
S.A.NO.1002 OF 2001
01.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
