Ravi v. Vijayalakshmi

tenancy was terminated. The appellant/4^thdefendant is liable to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession. The suit for declaring the title and vacant possession was allowed by the trial Court on the strength of evidence given by the power agent of the plaintiff/1^strespondent and the documents relied by the plaintiff/1^strespondent.

5. The case of the appellant/ 4^thdefendant that he had been in occupation of the premises for a long time excluding the lawful owner and had perfected title by adverse possession, was rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed stating that the trial Court ought to have seen that there is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff derived lawful title from defendants 1 to 3 to sustain the suit for declaration of title and possession. While predecessor in title namely the defendants 1 to 3 themselves have lost their right for recovery of possession and not placed any document to claim title over the property, Ex.A1 alleged sale deed will not confer any title to the first respondent/plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/4^thdefendant submits that the appellant/4^thdefendant has produced Exs.B1 to B8 which would show that the appellant/4^thdefendant is in continuous possession of the property from 1991 and as a matter of fact the father of the appellant/4^th

3/8

defendant who came into possession of the property as early as 1947 and there was no claim over the property by any person till the alleged notice for attornment of tenancy issued in the year 2013. While so, the long and undisturbed possession of the appellant/4^thdefendant in exclusion of all others including the true owners confers protection to the appellant/4^th defendant to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. The alleged partition deed marked as Ex.A17 dated 04.02.1981 without disclosing the source of title to divide the property itself clearly shows that neither the plaintiff/1^strespondent nor her Vendor had title in the property.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff defending the trial Court judgement and decree submit that though the appellant/4^thdefendant claims that his father came into possession of the property as early as 1947 and he had been in possession from 2011 without any disturbance. The document filed and relied by the appellant/4^thdefendant is the assessment of VAT, insurance policy and the renewal letter issued by the Labour Officer and other Government Department which only show that he had been in occupation of the premises from 2011 and not from 1947 as pleaded.

8. That apart, the appellant/4^thdefendant has not placed any evidence

4/8

to show that he had been in possession of the property excluding the owner of the property and he cannot find any fault with some lacuna in the partition deed omitting to mention the source of title in the partition deed and tried to claim adverse possession.

9. Heard the counsels and the records perused. 10.The suit for declaration of title and possession is begged on the partition deed dated 04.02.1981, which is registered document entered between the defendants 1 to 3 and the sale deed dated 23.05.2013 marked as Ex.A1 entered between the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff/1^st respondent.

11. It is the case of the plaintiff/1^strespondent that soon after the purchase, the appellant who was a tenant in the premises was informed about transfer of title and request to attorn the tenancy. The request was made orally as well as through notice. It is admitted that notice was delivered to the appellant/4^thdefendant, but no reply was given by him for the said notice. This fact is proved through Exs.A4 to A9. While the fact being so, the plea of adverse possession is raised only after litigation commenced initially by way of filing rent control proceedings in HRCOP.No.15 of 2024. Since the title deed is denied by the appellant/4^thdefendant in the said rent control proceedings, the purchaser of the property has instituted the present

5/8

suit for declaration of title as well as possession.

12. Per contra, to prove the plea of adverse possession, the appellant/4^thdefendant had mounted the witness box and marked eight exhibits. Neither his oral evidence nor the documentary evidence establishes the fact that he had declared his possession adverse to the owner of the property and his possession was continuous and undisturbed for a period of more than 12 years, to hold he had perfected title by adverse possession.

13. Once a party in occupation of the premises been adverse possession, he must first establish that he came in occupation of the premises not as a permissive occupant or as a tenant or with knowledge and consent of the owner. Thereafter he has to also establish that his possession was peaceful and undisturbed ousting the claim or right of any other person in the property and the said ouster was public and open. The triple conditions for adverse possession which is well established and popularly known as nec vi, nec clam nec precario is absent in this Case. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the suit which is based on title document.

14. The appellant/4^thdefendant who had not even care to reply to the notice to attorn the tenancy, had belatedly, taken plea of adverse possession, However, to support the said plea the evidence adduced by him is found

6/8

inadequate to hold open, continues and hostile. Therefore, this Court finds no reasons to interfere in the finding of the trial Court.

15. As a result, appeal stands dismissed and the Judgement of the trial court is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.07.2025

Index :Yes/No. Neutral citation :Yes/No. Vv

To,

1. The Principal District Judge at Puducherry.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

Vv

7/8

AS No.592 of 2022 and

CMP.No.22748 of 2022

17.07.2025

8/8