Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court

"Plea of acquiescence raised by the appellants, on the ground that the respondent was aware of the construction in 2011, cannot defeat a lawful claim, particularly when encroachment is established," Madras High Court, in a significant civil appellate ruling, held that a plea of acquiescence cannot be used to defeat a lawful claim for declaration of title and recovery of possession once an encroachment has been established through cogent evidence.

A bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that even if a plaintiff had knowledge of the defendant’s construction but failed to pursue a complaint due to reasons such as ill health, such conduct does not constitute legally sustainable acquiescence to the encroachment.

The dispute arose between the plaintiff (respondent) and the defendant (appellant) over a property in Vellore. The plaintiff claimed absolute title through a registered sale deed dated June 14, 2011 (Ex.A4), whereas the defendant asserted title based on a sale deed from 2010 (Ex.B4). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, claiming through his father, had encroached upon the suit property and put up an unlawful construction by manipulating revenue records and boundary descriptions.

The primary question before the court was whether the plaintiff had established a superior title through a consistent chain of documents. The court was also called upon to determine whether the Advocate Commissioner’s report sufficiently proved encroachment and whether the plaintiff’s alleged delay in pursuing a complaint against the construction amounted to acquiescence.

Superiority Of Registered Chain Of Title Over Inconsistent Boundary Descriptions

The Court noted that the respondent’s claim of title rested on a registered sale deed supported by a consistent chain of antecedent documents, including a Power of Attorney and prior sale deeds. The bench observed that the oral evidence of the witnesses corroborated the execution and validity of these documents. In contrast, the appellant’s title documents exhibited significant inconsistencies in boundary descriptions and lacked clarity regarding the precise extent of the property.

Court Accept Respondent's Title As Superior

The bench emphasized that the appellant’s contention regarding title tracing back to earlier transactions was not substantiated with cogent evidence relating specifically to the disputed portion. The court held that the trial court committed no misappreciation of evidence in accepting the respondent’s title as superior and granting a declaration to that effect.

"The Trial Court, in accepting the plaintiff/respondent’s title as superior, has not committed any misappreciation of evidence."

Evidentiary Value Of Advocate Commissioner’s Report In Determining Encroachment

Addressing the issue of encroachment, the High Court placed heavy reliance on the Advocate Commissioner’s report and sketch (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2). The Court noted that these documents clearly identified the suit property and indicated that the construction put up by the appellant extended into the respondent’s land. This finding was further bolstered by the oral testimony of the Panchayat President and other witnesses.

Commissioner's Report Constitutes Sufficient Basis For Finding Encroachment

While acknowledging the appellant's argument that a Commissioner’s report is generally corroborative, the Court held that when such a report is duly supported by other evidence on record, it constitutes a sufficient basis for a finding of encroachment. The Court found that the discrepancies in the appellant’s own boundary recitals further confirmed the factum of encroachment into the plaintiff’s land.

"Though it is contended that the Commissioner’s report is only corroborative, in the present case, it stands duly supported by other evidence on record."

Plea Of Acquiescence Ineffective Against Established Encroachment

A central point of the appellant’s defense was that the respondent had knowledge of the construction as early as 2011 and had failed to pursue a police complaint, which allegedly amounted to acquiescence. The Court rejected this argument, stating that a lawful claim cannot be defeated by a plea of acquiescence once the encroachment is factually established.

Failure To Pursue Complaint Does Not Non-Suit The Plaintiff

The bench observed that the respondent's explanation for not pursuing the complaint—namely, ill health—was sufficient to explain the delay. The Court held that such a failure is not a legally sustainable ground to infer acquiescence or to non-suit a plaintiff who holds valid title to the property.

"The plea of acquiescence... cannot defeat a lawful claim, particularly when encroachment is established. The Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in granting mandatory injunction."

Mandatory Injunction And Consequential Reliefs Sustained

The Court affirmed the grant of a mandatory injunction for the removal of the construction on the encroached portion. It held that once title and encroachment are established, the grant of a permanent injunction to protect the respondent's possession is a natural and consequential relief. Furthermore, the Court found the damages awarded by the trial court to be appropriate and commensurate with the nature of the encroachment.

The High Court concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate any merit in the appeal or any arbitrariness in the trial court's exercise of discretion. Confirming the judgment and decree of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mandatory injunction for removal of the encroaching construction.

Date of Decision: 30 April 2026