9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of title and possession. 2. Adverse possession. 3. Identity of the property. 4. Admissibility of evidence given by Power of Attorney Holder. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Declaration of Title and Possession: The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property, claiming ownership through a registered sale deed dated 24.9.1990. The defendants contested this, denying the plaintiff's ownership and claiming the property belonged to their grandfather, asserting they had perfected their title through adverse possession. The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, held that the plaintiff had established his title to the property. This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Court, leading to the defendants' second appeal. 2. Adverse Possession: The defendants claimed they had perfected their title by adverse possession, having lived on the property for over thirty years. However, the courts found that the defendants failed to establish this claim with cogent evidence. The courts noted that the defendants' mother had previously filed a suit for declaration and injunction on the grounds of adverse possession, which was dismissed. This dismissal implied an acknowledgment of the plaintiff's title to the property. Consequently, the courts concluded that the defendants' adverse possession claim lacked merit. 3. Identity of the Property: The defendants argued that there was a discrepancy in the property boundaries as described in the sale deed and the plaint schedule. However, the court found this contention to be without substance. The court noted that the identity of the property was clearly established through documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed (Ex. P4) and the admission of the first defendant regarding the plaintiff's purchase of the property. The court held that the boundaries' discrepancy did not undermine the plaintiff's established title. 4. Admissibility of Evidence Given by Power of Attorney Holder: The defendants contended that the plaintiff did not personally testify and instead relied on evidence presented by his Power of Attorney Holder, which they argued should be disregarded based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Limited and Ors. The court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision was context-specific, addressing the competence of a Power of Attorney Holder to testify on matters requiring personal knowledge of the principal. However, in this case, the plaintiff's title was established through documentary evidence, which did not require personal knowledge. The court emphasized that the Power of Attorney Holder could present and prove documents, and the plaintiff's title was substantiated by examining the executant of the sale deed. Thus, the evidence provided by the Power of Attorney Holder was deemed admissible. Conclusion: The High Court rejected the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The plaintiff's title to the property was established through documentary evidence, and the defendants failed to prove their adverse possession claim. The court also upheld the admissibility of evidence presented by the Power of Attorney Holder, noting that the plaintiff's case did not rely on matters requiring personal knowledge. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
|
