Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

53. In the backdrop of the aforestated facts, the present suit has been filed by the respondents claiming prescriptive title by adverse possession and moreso, the 7th respondent also claims so on the basis of the lease deed, which is alleged to have been entered into with respondents 1 to 6 through a registered lease deed in document No.306/2001 on 12.02.2001.

54. As already aforestated, there is no material evidencing the plea of adverse possession by respondents 1 to 6 or their predecessors in the earlier suit, which went in favour of the petitioner herein. For the first time, in the present suit, the plea of prescriptive title by adverse possession is taken by respondents 1 to 6. However, other than filing the suit, respondents 1 to 6 have not turned up before this Court to contest this revision and it is only the alleged lessee, viz., the 7th respondent, who is alleged to have taken the suit schedule property on lease from respondents 1 to 6, who has appeared before this Court to contest the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 11:07:41 am ) revision.

61. When the predecessors to respondents 1 to 6 and even respondents 1 to 6 could not claim any right over the said property by making claiming prescriptive title by adverse possession, more particularly after 30.09.1951, the 7th respondent, who is an alleged subsequent lessee under respondents 1 to 6, cannot claim https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 11:07:41 am ) prescriptive title over the suit schedule property on the plea of adverse possession, as the 7th respondent would not have a better right than his lessor, but his plea of limitation would have to fail in view of the amendment to Section 109 of the HR & CE Act.

70. In the present case, the predecessors of respondents 1 to 6 had litigated the issue in which the plea of adverse possession and prescriptive title were not taken in the earlier round of litigation and no records to substantiate the same have been filed. That being the case, respondents 1 to 6 are estopped from taking up the plea of adverse possession and prescriptive title in the present suit and the 7 th respondent cannot follow suit with the same plea of adverse possession on the basis of an alleged lease deed entered into between the 7 th respondent and respondents 1 to 6. Further, as stated above, when the plea of adverse possession was not taken by the predecessors of respondents 1 to 6, the 7th respondent does not have a better right than his lessor, viz., respondents 1 to 6 and, therefore, the present suit laid by the respondents is nothing but a clear abuse of process of court, which is aimed at prolonging and dragging on the litigation so as to frustrate the rightful ownership and title of the petitioner.

71. Applying the ratio laid down in Modi case (supra), re-litigation by filing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/07/2025 11:07:41 am ) the present suit by the respondents could only be held to be an abuse of process as there are no new materials or cause of action which could be derived at on the basis of the said materials and when the plea of adverse possession and prescriptive title not being available to the predecessors of respondents 1 to 6, by filing the present suit, neither respondents 1 to 6 nor the 7th respondent could take the plea of adverse possession and prescriptive title so as to maintain the suit.