In a recent decision, the High Court of Madras sided with Rajesh Iyer in a long-standing land dispute involving properties in Avalpoondurai Village, Erode District. The court dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiffs, confirming the previous judgments that favored Iyer.
The case revolved around land ownership claims by the plaintiffs, who said that the properties originally belonged to the father of the second plaintiff, Muthu Kumar, through a sale agreement from 1937. They claimed they had been using the land continuously through family arrangements.
Rajesh Iyer argued that he bought part of the disputed land in 1982 through an unregistered sale agreement. He stated that he had been using the land ever since, supported by a land document (patta) given by the revenue authorities in 1996.
"Rajesh Iyer gained ownership through adverse possession," the court noted.
Evidence and Documentation: The court found that the plaintiffs didn't provide enough evidence to prove their claims of ownership and use of the land. The unregistered sale agreement, while not valid for transferring ownership, was accepted for proving use after Rajesh Iyer paid the required stamp duty penalty.
Patta and Possession: The court emphasized that the patta given to Rajesh Iyer in 1996 was important. Although patta alone doesn't give ownership, it supported Iyer's claim of using the land.
Construction and Encroachment: Reports from a court-appointed official showed that the plaintiffs had started new building work on the disputed land, which the court saw as an illegal takeover.
Justice P. Dhanabal dismissed the appeals, reinforcing the decisions of the lower courts. The court concluded that Rajesh Iyer's use of the land and the patta issued to him were enough reasons to rule in his favor.
"The plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration," the judgment stated.
The court decided in favor of Rajesh Iyer, confirming that his continued use of the land and the land document (patta) he received were sufficient to support his claim over the disputed property.
Disclaimer: The names used in this report are fictitious and have been added for privacy reasons.
