Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court, on November 26, 2024, dismissed a second appeal in the case of Sivanandam & Others v. Pappal & Another, affirming the plaintiffs' right to partition a jointly owned property. The court upheld judgments by the Sub Court, Mettur, and the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur, rejecting claims of adverse possession and exclusive ownership asserted by the defendants.

The suit involved a dispute among siblings over property jointly purchased through a registered sale deed dated February 15, 2002. The plaintiffs sought partition into three equal shares, claiming two-thirds of the property, while the defendant contended sole ownership, alleging she alone paid the purchase consideration. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, which was upheld on appeal, prompting the defendant’s legal heirs to approach the High Court.
    
The central legal issues were whether the defendant could claim adverse possession and whether the plaintiffs' right to the property had been extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. The High Court delved into evidence and legal principles to address these claims.

Adverse Possession and Extinguishment of Right: The defendant claimed adverse possession since 2002. However, the court noted her admission during trial that the plaintiffs resided in two of the houses on the disputed property. "Possession of one co-owner is deemed possession for all co-owners," the court emphasized. It ruled that the defendant failed to prove when possession became adverse to the plaintiffs, a critical requirement under Section 27 of the Limitation Act.

Claims of Sole Ownership: The court dismissed the defendant's assertion of sole payment of the purchase consideration, citing the absence of evidence. It underscored that the registered sale deed clearly showed joint ownership and barred oral evidence to contradict its terms under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Analysis of Evidence: The court observed that the defendant neither provided proof of exclusive payment nor initiated steps to recover contributions from the plaintiffs, as alleged. It referred to suggestions made by the defendant during cross-examination, which hinted that the purchase was facilitated by their father, further corroborating joint ownership.

Findings of the Lower Courts: Both the trial court and the appellate court found no merit in the defendant's claims and recognized the plaintiffs' entitlement to their share of the property. The appellate court observed that possession and payment of property taxes by the defendant did not negate joint ownership.
Rejecting the appellants’ arguments, the High Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts. It reiterated the principle that joint ownership and possession are protected unless unequivocal evidence proves adverse possession or exclusion.
 

Date of Decision: November 26, 2024