Supreme Court Restores Plaintiff's Possession Finding, Sets Aside High Court's Reappraisal of Title Evidence

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal by Ayyavu against the Madras High Court's allowance of a second appeal that had dislodged an earlier appellate finding in a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction to remove constructions and protect possession of a small disputed parcel. The appeal challenged the High Court's conclusion that the plaintiff's suit for injunction was unsustainable in the absence of a declaratory relief and that the plaintiff had not proved title to the disputed portion.

The Court allowed the civil appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal (MD) No. 437 of 2010 and restored the plaintiff's entitlement as found by the first Appellate Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had reappreciated findings of fact without pointing to perversity or misreading of evidence under Section 100 CPC and therefore committed an error. The Court noted that the sale deed (Exhibit-A1) contained definite boundaries and that the Commissioner’s Report supported the plaintiff’s case on possession. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The plaintiff and the defendants rest the case through Mariyammal. It is the case of the plaintiff that Mariyammal sold an extent of 21 cents within the boundaries described in the sale deed. As could be noted and appreciated from the Commissioner’s Report, one quarter of the cent is the disputed property. The High Court failed to appreciate that to deny enjoyment or actual possession of FGHI, the boundaries in the sale deed, play an important role. The Sale Deed-Exhibit-A1 does not reflect that Mariyammal retained a portion after selling 21 cents to the plaintiff. The defendants claimed that under a settlement deed, the disputed property stood vested in the Gram Panchayat. The fallacy noted by the High Court in the said contention is that the series of Exhibits – B1 to B8 cannot in the eyes of law be treated as lawfully conveying anything in favour of Gram Panchayat, much less the disputed extent that stood vested in the Gram Panchayat. The High Court ought to have accepted the plaintiff's case by appreciating the exhibits marked by both parties, who claimed through Mariyammal, and the description of the schedule property in Exhibit-A1 by juxtaposing the same with the Commissioner’s Report and plan drawn to sketch. Further, the framing of the suit was not an issue before the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court. Non-suiting the plaintiff on that ground is unsustainable. Having appreciated the Commissioner’s Report and juxtaposing the same with the findings of the first Appellate Court, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in deciding the findings of fact which do not suffer from perversity or misreading of evidence under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.” The Court therefore allowed the appeals and made no order as to costs.

Background The dispute arose from a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1988 by which the vendor Mariyammal was said to have sold land to the plaintiff. The plaint schedule comprised two items aggregating approximately 21 cents according to the plaintiff, while the vendor’s original holding had been about 23 cents. The plaintiff alleged that she constructed a residential building with Gram Panchayat permission and that respondent Nos.1–3 interfered with her peaceful possession by obstructing an area described as an “old well” of 1¼ cents and by erecting a compound wall. The defendants contested the plaintiff’s title to the disputed quarter cent, contending that Mariyammal had executed a settlement deed on 06.08.1998 by which 1¼ cents vested in the Gram Panchayat and that development work had lawfully affected the area.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 29.04.2004 holding that the disputed well fell outside the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff succeeded before the first Appellate Court, which found Exhibits B1–B8 inadequate to prove the Gram Panchayat’s title — in particular noting that Exhibit B8 lacked registration and proper proof of signatures — and relied on the Commissioner’s Report and the sale deed boundaries. The High Court, on second appeal, reversed the first Appellate Court, concluded that the plaintiff’s suit for injunction without a declaratory decree was unsustainable, and held that the plaintiff had failed to make good the alleged discrepancy in extent. The plaintiff obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court hearing, the plaintiff relied on the sale deed’s defined boundaries and the Commissioner’s Report (which the Court found dovetailed with the sale deed boundaries and plan). The defendants did not have counsel at the hearing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference amounted to impermissible reappraisal of evidence; it found the Panchayat’s reliance on an unregistered series of documents insufficient to oust the plaintiff’s claim and concluded that the plaintiff was not properly non-suited for failing to seek a declaratory decree. The final result was that the impugned High Court judgment was set aside and the civil appeals were allowed; there were no interim directions and no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 336; Civil Appeal Nos. (@ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 10838 – 10839 of 2022) Case Title: Ayyavu v. Prabha and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Not represented (no counsel appeared)