ELUMALAI NAICKER AND ANR. v. CHANDRAN NAICKER INSC 1128

Case Name Elumalai Naicker & Anr vs Chandran Naicker

Facts The wife (second plaintiff) had purchased two parcels of lands (1.75 acres and 60 cents, which were itemized as (1) and (2)) under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1977 from one Ratnavelu, who had purchased it in the year 1972. In 1981, the defendant (second plaintiff's brother) asked to live on 60 cents of the land (item (2)) and promised to tend fruit trees on the balance of it (item (1)). He constructed a thatched hut on item (2) with the permission of the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff alleged title over both items of land and stated that the defendant was a permissive possessor. The defendant maintained:

He had possessed item (2) since 1970, openly, peacefully, and continuously. He claimed title by adverse possession. He built a hut, planted trees, and paid taxes upon item (2) since 1972-73. He did not deny the second plaintiff's ownership of item (1). On 16.07.1990, the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. However, on 28.06.1991, the first appellate court reversed the same holding that the defendant had perfected his title to item (2) by adverse possession. The High Court confirmed this judgment on 12.10.2001. Issue Whether the second plaintiff had proved her title and possession of item (2) or whether the defendant had perfected his title to item (2) by adverse possession.

Reasoning Possession and Adverse Possession:

The first appellate court held that the defendant was in open, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of item (2) since 1970. The plaintiffs could not prove that the second plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy item (2) only in 1981. On item (2), the defendant paid house taxes for the hut and was entered in revenue records as owner. Facts Found: First appellate court found on admissions and documentary evidence tax receipts and revenue records. The High Court confirmed them to be in agreement with evidence. Rule of Law:

For adverse possession, it must be continuous, open, and hostile to the true owner. The defendant satisfied these conditions for item (2) as of the date of the suit. Conclusion The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact by the first appellate court were correct and called for no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, and the defendant's title to item (2) was affirmed by adverse possession.