{"id":27442,"date":"1996-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996"},"modified":"2016-04-20T01:54:31","modified_gmt":"2016-04-19T20:24:31","slug":"navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996<\/div>\n
Bench: N.P. Singh, K. Venkataswami<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAVANEETHAMMAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nARJUNA CHETTY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nN.P. SINGH, K. VENKATASWAMI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The  plaintiff  Who  filed\t a  suit  on  13.6.1962\t for
\ndeclaration of\ther title  to  the  suit  property  and\t for
\nrecovery of  possession is  the appellant  herein. The\tsuit
\nproperty is  an extent\tof 1.13\t acre out  of 3.39  acres in
\nSurvey No.  330\/2 in  Ulli Village,  Gudiyatham Taluk. North
\nArcot  District,   Tamil  Nadu.\t It  was  purchased  by\t the
\nplaintiff under\t registered sale  deed dated  21.3.1957 from
\none  Mohd.   Ghouse.  The  respondent  herein  who  was\t the
\ndefendent in the suit admittedly was let in to possession of
\nthe suit property along with the  balance of above-mentioned
\nSurvey 330\/2 as a tenant under a registered Lease deed dated
\n1.4.1935 The   vendor of the plaintiff after the sale issued
\na notice   to the defendant on 16.4.1957 intimating the fact
\nof  sale to the plaiantiff. The defendant in his reply dated
\n27.4.1957 denied  his status  as lessee and his liability to
\npay rent.  He set up title in himself to  the suit property.
\nThe plaintiff  on his  part issued  a\tnotice on  10.5.1957
\nintimating the\tdefendant about\t her   purchase and  calling
\nupon him  to pay  rent in  future  as a lessee. As defendant
\nset up title in himself, the   plaintiff was obliged to file
\nthe suit as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
     The suit  was resisted  on the  ground  resisted on the
\nground that  after the\texpiry of  the registered  lease, he
\nsurrendered possession\tof the\tsuit property  to  the\tthen
\nlandlord  and\tthereafter,  since  it\twas  under  nobody’s
\noccupation, he\tentered possession  in his own right and not
\nas a  lessee and  he has not even paid rent to anybody after
\nthe   after  the expiration of lease. Further it was alleged
\nthat he\t has plaintiff’s suit for recovery of possession was
\nbarred by  limitation. The Trial Court framed as many as six
\nissues and  after examining  three witnesses  on the side of
\nthe   plaintiff and  five  witnesses  on  the  side  of\t the
\ndefendant and  after perusing 13 documents filed on the side
\nof the\tplaintiff and  21 documents filed on the side of the
\ndefendant, it  found that  the plea  of\t surrender  was\t not
\nestablished and defendant did not prescribe title by adverse
\npossession. Accepting  the case\t of the plaintiff, the trial
\ncourt decreed  the suit\t declaring that\t the  plaintiff\t was
\nentitled to  the suit property and directed the defendant to
\nsurrender possession without any let or hindrance.\n<\/p>\n
     The defendant  aggrieved  by  the\tdecree\tagainst\t him
\npreferred  an  appeal  to  the\tlearned\t Subordinate  Judge,
\nTirupattur. Unfortunately, on account of certain lapses, The
\nHigh Court  was\t compelled  to\tremand\tthe  matter  to\t the
\nAppellate  Court   on  three  occasions\t Finally  the  First
\nAppellate court\t by  it\t s  detailed  judgment\ton  9.9.1976
\nconfirmed the  decree of  the Trial Court and  dismissed the
\nappeal preferred by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     Still aggrieved, the defendant preferred second  appeal
\nNo. 1801\/76  in the  Madras High  Court. The  learned Single
\nJudge of  the Madras High Court found  that the\t Court below
\nfailed to  come to  correct conclusion\ton the\tbasis of the
\nevidence both oral and documentary placed before them and in
\na way  gone into  the evidence\tonceover  and  reversed\t the
\nfindings  rendered  by\tthe  Court  below  and\tconsequently
\nallowed the  Second Appeal.  dismissed the suit filed by the
\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved\t by the\t judgment of  the  High\t Court,\t the
\npresent appeal\thas been filed by the plaintiff appellant by
\nSpecial Leave.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. K. Rajendra Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for
\nthe appellant  submitted that  the High\t Court exceeded\t its
\njurisdiction  under   Section  100   CPC  in  reversing\t the
\nconcurrent findings  of the  Courts below. He also submitted
\nthat the  High Court went wrong\t     in\t placing the onus of
\nproof regarding the character of possession of the suit land
\nby the\tdefendant, on  the  plaintiff  when  admittedly\t the
\ndefendant was  let into\t the possession\t as a tenant under a
\nregistered lease  deed of  the year  1935. The\tHigh  Court,
\naccording to the learned counsel ought not to have discussed
\nthe issue  of adverse  possession with\treference to Article
\n139 of\tthe old\t Limitation Act,  1908 as  no such  plea was
\ntaken in  the written  statement nor  any issue\t was  framed
\nconcerning that.  He further  invited our  attention to\t the
\nwell founded reasoning and the concurrent findings supported
\nby evidence, of the lower Appellate Court which did not call
\nfor any\t interference by the High Court while exercising the
\njurisdiction under section  100 C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. R.  Sundarvardhan, Sr.\t Counsel appearing  for\t the
\ndefendant-respondent strongly  supported the judgment of the
\nHigh Court  mainly on  the basis  of Article  139 of the old
\nLimitation Act\twhich corresponds  to Article  67 of the new
\nLimitation Act,\t 1963. According to the learned Sr. Counsel,
\nit is an admitted fact that after the expiry of the lease in
\nthe year  1938, the  defendant never  paid any\trent for his
\ncontinued possession in the suit property and in the absence
\nof  any\t  exercise  of\townership  by  the  landlord  for  a
\ncontinuous   period of\tover  twelve  years,  the  defendant
\nprescribed title  by   adverse possession.  He\talso  placed
\nreliance on  the fact  of payment of kists (land revenue) to
\nthe suit  land by  the defendant. He submitted that the High
\nCourt has  given good  reasons for interfering under section
\n100 CPC\t stating that  the findings  rendered by  the  Court
\nbelow were not based on materials to sustain those  findings
\nand therefore,\tit must\t be taken  that\t the  findings\twere
\nrendered by  court below  based on no evidence. According to
\nthe learned  counsel on\t the admitted  facts of\t this  case,
\nnamely, that neither the lessor nor his legal representative
\nhaving not  claimed any\t rent continuously   for a period of
\ntwelve years  after the\t expiry of the lease, Section 116 of
\nthe Transfer  of Property  Act would  not come to the aid of
\nthe lessor  or his  successors in  interest when  the tenant
\ninvokes the aid of Article 139 of the old Limitation Act. He
\nwants the  Court  to  look  into  Article  139\tof  the\t old
\nLimitation Act\talone for counting the\tperiod of limitation
\nimply from the expiry of the  date of the lease ignoring the
\nhard fact  that the defendant continued\t after the expiry of
\nlease either  as tenant\t holding over  or  as  a  tenant  by
\nsufferance.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Rajendra   Chowdary,\tlearned\t  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant     in  reply\t submitted  that  in  terms  of\t the
\nregistered  lease   deed,  the\t lessee\/defendant\/respondent
\nherein was  bound to  pay the  kists for  the suit  land and
\ntherefore, the\tpayment of  kists after\t the expiry  of\t the
\nlease will  not make  any difference  in the  case. He\talso
\ncontended that\tthe defendant  for the\tfirst  time  set  up
\nhostile title  in himself  only on  27.4.1957 in  his  reply
\nnotice. The suit filed in 1962 is well within time.\n<\/p>\n
     We have considered the rival submission.
\n     Before  discussing\t  the  merits  of  respective  rival
\nsubmission, it\tis necessary  to bear in mind that the\tcase
\nset  up\t  by  the   defendant\t  in  the  Trial  Court\t was
\nprescription  of   title   by\tadverse\t  possession   after
\nsurrendering the  suit land  and again re-entering the same.
\nNo plea\t contending that  the suit  was barred under Article
\n139 of the old Limitation Act was taken by the\tdefendant in
\nthe trial  court. Therefore,  there  was  no  necessity\t for
\nframing any  issue or  letting\tin  oral  evidence  on\tthat
\naspect. This  aspect assumes  importance in  considering the
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court,  time\twithout\t number,  pointed  out\tthat
\ninterference with  the concurrent  findings  of\t the  courts
\nbelow by  the High  Court under\t Section  100  CPC  must  be
\navoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case,
\nthe High  Court\t is  not  expected  to\tre-appreciating\t the
\nevidence just to replace the findings for the lower courts.\n<\/p>\n
      Let us see whether the High Court on the facts of\t his
\ncase  has   exceeded  its   jurisdiction  in  reversing\t the
\nfindings of the lower Appellate Court by re-appreciating the
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
     Before the Trial Court, the crucial issue was regarding
\nadverse possession.  On that  issue, the  Trial Court  found
\nthat as\t the tenant\/defendant  came into  possession of\t the
\nland only  in pursuance\t of the\t lease\tdeed, his possession
\nwas merely  a permissive  one. It   was\t further found\tthat
\nthere was  no evidence\tbefore the  Trial Court to show that
\nprior to  the date  of Exbt. A-6 (reply by defendant) he had
\nnever claimed  independent   title to  the suit property and
\nhad brought  that animus  to the notices to the land-lord or
\nthe successors\tin title.  The Trial  Court also  noticed an
\nimportant fact and observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “In the  writte  statement,  it  is
\n     stated that after the expiry of the
\n     lease period  mentioned under Exbt.
\n     A-3, he  had surrendered possession
\n     of the  land and  that he again got
\n     the possession  of the  land in his
\n     own independant right and from that
\n     date  onwards,   he  has\tbeen  in
\n     possession of the land continuously
\n     uninterruptedly as the owner of the
\n     lands. This claim\thas been given a
\n     go-by by him in his deposition.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Trial\tCourt also  found that\tin as  much  as\t the
\ndefendant asserted  his independant  right in  the  land  in
\nhimself only  under Ext. A-6 dated 27.4.1957, his possession
\nwas not\t adverse to  the owners of the land as the suit came
\nto be filed within five years thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
     The First\tAppellate  Court  framed  the  question\t for
\nconsideration on ramand as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Whether,\thaving\t regard\t to  the
\n     evidence, oral  or documentary  and
\n     the probabilities\tof  the\t   case,
\n     there  could  be  an  inference  of
\n     implied assent  by the land-lord to
\n     the continuance  in  possession  by
\n     the tenant after the termination of
\n     the term under  Exbt. A-3”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In discussing the oral evidence, the first appellate
\ncourt held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Before\tadvertising    to    the
\n     arguments\tof  counsel  appear  for
\n     both parties. I would like to refer
\n     to the  oral evidence in this case,
\n     plaintiff’s vendor\t Mohamed  Ghouse
\n     Sahib was\texamined as P.W.I. He is
\n     a retired\tPost Master  and is aged
\n     about  70\t years.\t  His\tdefinite
\n     testimony is  that after the demise
\n     of\t Samad\tSahib,\the  (P.W.I)  and
\n     Khader Sahib were collecting rents,
\n     that the\tthere  were rent arrears
\n     to\t the   extent  of   Rs.200\/-  or
\n     Rs.250\/-, that  they gave notice to
\n     the  defendant   and   that   after
\n     receipt   of    the   notice,   the
\n     defendant was  paying some\t amounts
\n     in\t instalments.\the  denied  that
\n     after  the\t  expiry  of  the  lease
\n     period in\tEx. A-3,  the  defendant
\n     surrendered   possession\tof   the
\n     property  and   that  because   the
\n     property remained\tunoccupied,  the
\n     defendant trespassed upon the lands
\n     As rightly\t pointed    out\t by  the
\n     learned counsel  for the plaintiff,
\n     the evidence  of P.W. 1 with regard
\n     to the  collection of  rents by him
\n     and Khader\t Sahib\tand  payment  of
\n     some amount  by  the  defendant  in
\n     instalment\t  was not  challenged at
\n     all in  cross-examination. In  this
\n     connection. I  may\t point\tout  the
\n     admission of the defendant as D.W.2
\n     that there is no enmity between him
\n     and P.W.1.\t In the\t absence of  any
\n     motive. I\tdo not\tunderstand as to
\n     why  P.W.1\t who  is  a  respectable
\n     witness should  come and make false
\n     statement in  Court so  far as this
\n     aspect of\tthe case is concerned. I
\n     see no  valid reason  to disbelieve
\n     him in this respect.”\n<\/p>\n
     Again in  para 12,\t the lower  Appellate Court  held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     “No doubt,\t the defendant\tas D.W.2
\n     would  say\t that  there  is  enmity
\n     between him  and P.W.2. But on this
\n     ground alone, the evidence of P.W.2
\n     that he  had seen\tP.W.1 and Khader
\n     Sahib at the village when coming to
\n     collect\trents(elicited\t  during
\n     cross-examination)\t  cannot      be
\n     rejected  as  false.  His\tevidence
\n     when considered alongwith the other
\n     circumstance in  this case\t appears
\n     to\t  me\tquite\t probable    and
\n     acceptable.   P.W.3,   Veeraraghava
\n     Pillai  is\t  the  husband\t of  the
\n     plaintiff\tand   karnam   of   Ulli
\n     village for more than 30 years. His
\n     definite  testimony   is  that  the
\n     defendant was  a  tenant\t holding
\n     over of this land.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On a  perusal of the lower Appellate Court judgment, we
\nfind hat findings rendered by the lower Appellate court were
\nvery well  based on  materials\tplaced\tbefore\tit  and\t the
\ncontrary  conclusion  reached  by  the\tHigh  Court  is\t not
\nsustainable. The  lower Appellate  court in its judgment has
\nappreciated all\t relevant oral\tand documentary evidence and
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “On the  side of  the defendant, we
\n     have the  evidence of  D.Ws. 1 to 5
\n     of them  D.W.1 is\tthe Hand Writing
\n     Expert\tHe  was\t  examined  with
\n     reference to  Ex. A-4. His evidence
\n     is not  relevant  for  our\t present
\n     limited enquiry. D.W. 3 Ramakrishan
\n     is\t a  resident  of  Ulli\tvillage.
\n     D.W.4 Mahadevan  is a  resident  of
\n     Gopampatti. D.W. 5 Karunagaran is a
\n     contractor\t  by\tprofession    at
\n     Gudiyatham. There\tthree  witnesses
\n     claim to  own lands  near the  suit
\n     property. They   would say that the
\n     defendant has  been  in  possession
\n     and enjoyment  of the suit land for
\n     the last  32 to  35 years. But they
\n     are not  in a position to say as to
\n     in\t what\tcapacity  the  defendant
\n     entered  into  possession\tof  this
\n     property. Their  evidence that  the
\n     defendant\t  is\tin    continuous
\n     possession\t and  enjoyment\t of  the
\n     suit lands\t is of\tno  significance
\n     because the  admitted case\t of  the
\n     plaintiff\tis that the defendant is
\n     in possession  from 1935  but as  a
\n     tenant holding  over. The\tevidence
\n     of\t  defendant   as   D.W.2   would
\n     certainly\tthrow\tsome  light   in
\n     deciding\tthe issue before us. For
\n     better appreciation  I would prefer
\n     to extract\t the relevant  on by the
\n     plaintiff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “One Sahib\t leased out the property
\n     to\t me  for  three\t years\tunder  a
\n     registered lease deed. I cultivated
\n     the land for tow years. I the third
\n     year the  Sahib took  me to P.W.3’s
\n     house. My\tfather\taccompanied  me.
\n     P.W.3’s father  told  me  that  the
\n     Sahib  would  not\tcome  thereafter
\n     and the  lease deed  was  cancelled
\n     and that  thereafter  I could enjoy
\n     the land and I need not worry since
\n     the former’s  son.\t P.W.3\twas  the
\n     village karnam.  Thereafter, I  was
\n     enjoying  the   land  without   any
\n     interruption.  The\t    lessor,   my
\n     father and\t P.W. 3’s father went to
\n     P.W.3 fathers’s house. At that time
\n     P.W.3 was the village karnam. I was
\n     sent for  about for  or five  hours
\n     later. P.W.  3 was\t not present  at
\n     the time.\tHis father  told    that
\n     they had  decided\tthat  the  lease
\n     period  had   expired     and  that
\n     thereafter I  could enjoy\tthe land
\n     as my  own without\t paying rent  to
\n     anybody and  I should pay the kists
\n     my self. At that time, including me
\n     only four\t‘ persons  were present.
\n     The Sahib\twas  then  present.  The
\n     incident\ttook\tplace\tat   the
\n     beginning of  the third lease year.
\n     I was  not asked to give any amount
\n     in\t  pursuance of the decision. The
\n     entire land  is wet  land. Even  at
\n     that time\tthe land  was worth  two
\n     thousand  rupees.\tI  so  not  know
\n     whether my\t father gave  any amount
\n     in pursuance   of\tthe decision.  I
\n     did not   ask  him about  it. I did
\n     not give  the rent\t for  the  third
\n     year.  From   the\t date\tof   the
\n     registered\t lease\t deed  I  am  in
\n     continuous\t   possession\t     and
\n     enjoyment\tof   the  land.\t Due  to
\n     forget fulness  I have   not stated
\n     the above\tincident in  my\t written
\n     statement and  also to  my\t counsel
\n     who gave  the reply  notice:  I did
\n     not tell him that I had surrendered
\n     possession\t  of\tthe   land   and
\n     thereafter the land was in nobody’s
\n     possession for some time and that I
\n     again got\tinto possession\t of  the
\n     land”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Again in  paragraph 18,  the learned  Subordinate Judge
\nheld  as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     ” As  already stated,  in the reply
\n     notice Ex.\t A-6  the  defendant  is
\n     silent  about  his\t induction  into
\n     possession\t of the suit property at
\n     any time  as a  lessee, any alleged
\n     surrender or his occupation finding
\n     the property  lying unoccupied.  In
\n     his written  statement his specific
\n     case is  that at  the end\tof  term
\n     under     Ex.A-3\the   surrendered
\n     possession of the suit property and
\n     that     thereafter   he\twas   in
\n     possession of  the property  in his
\n     own right.\t A third  case\twas  put
\n     forward during  the  trial\t through
\n     the mouth\tof  the\t   defendant  as
\n     D.W.2, I  have already  adverted to
\n     his evidence  in this respect. That
\n     would show\t that even at the end of
\n     the second\t year i.e.  in the  year
\n     1937 and before the commencement of
\n     the third\tyear, he  was  taken  to
\n     P.W. 3’s  father’s house\tby  some
\n     Sahib  that  his  father  was  also
\n     present and  that he  was\tinformed
\n     that the  lease was  cancelled  and
\n     that he  could enjoy the land as he
\n     liked. It\thas to\tbe noted    that
\n     even  according   to   D.W.2   this
\n     property was  worth   Rs.2000\/-  at
\n     that time.\t It is\thighly\tunlikely
\n     that no   prudent\tman  would  have
\n     given  up\t his  right  in\t such  a
\n     valuable  property\t  in  favour  of
\n     another   person\twithout\t     any
\n     consideration. It\tis not\tthe case
\n     of the  defendant that  he had done
\n     some services  to the family of the
\n     original owners of this property or
\n     that he  paid some\t   consideration
\n     towards the  value of this property
\n     and   that\t   because    of    such
\n     consideration, he\twas orally asked
\n     by the  Sahib to  enjoy the land as
\n     his own.  When in\tthe   year 1935,
\n     the defendant  and Samad Sahib have
\n     taken the\t precaution  of\t getting
\n     lease  deed   registered,\t it   is
\n     unlikely that  the defendant  would
\n     have failed  to obtain something in
\n     writing  when  as\talleged\t by  him
\n     (D.W.2. the   Sahib  asked\t him  to
\n     enjoy the\tland as\t he liked saying
\n     that the  lease was  cancelled.  As
\n     already stated  the case set out by
\n     the defendant  in his  reply notice
\n     is\t that\tthe  property\tremained
\n     unoccupied and  that so  he entered
\n     into possession  and  occupied  it.
\n     Having regard  to these  facts  and
\n     having regard  to the  evidence  of
\n     P.Ws. 1  to 3  with regard\t to  the
\n     collection\t  of   rents   and   the
\n     property  as   a  tenant  and  also
\n     having regard  to the probabilities
\n     and circumstances\tof this\t case, I
\n     find no difficulty in coming to the
\n     conclusion that  there should  have
\n     been  an\timplied\t assent\t by  the
\n     landlord  to   the\t continuance  in
\n     possession by  the defendant  after
\n     termination of  the term  under Ex.
\n     A-3″.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the light of these findings of the courts below, the
\nHigh Court on re-appreciation of evidence
\nfound as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Thus there  is nothing  as and  by
\n     way of  evidence which can be taken
\n     to support\t the contention\t of  the
\n     respondent that there was a tenancy
\n     after the\texpiry of  the\toriginal
\n     tenancy  in the year 1938”
\n     “I have discussed the facts to show
\n     that  there  are  no  materials  to
\n     support the  findings of  the lower
\n     Appellate Court  that there  was  a
\n     continuation of  tenancy after  the
\n     expiry of the original lease.”
\n      “That there must be some act which
\n     evidence the lessor being agreeable
\n     to the  tenant being  in possession
\n     of the  property leased  so  as  to
\n     infer an  assent. In the absence of
\n     such a  conduct in\t the present, it
\n     is\t not   possible\t to   draw   the
\n     inference that there was any assent
\n     on the part of the plaintiff to the
\n     defendant continuing  in possession
\n     of the property.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In our  considered view  the lower\t Appellate Court has
\nfairly appreciated  the evidence in the above background and
\nhas reached  the conclusion  that the suit was not barred by
\nLimitation. Even assuming that another view is possible on a
\nre-appreciation of  the same  evidence, that should not have
\nbeen done  by the  High Court  as it cannot be said that the
\nview taken  by the  First Appellate  Court was\tbased on  no
\nmaterial.\n<\/p>\n
     Article 139 of the old Limitation Act reads as follows:
\nArticle 139\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————
\nDescription of\t     Period of\t   Time from which
\nsuit\t\t     limitation\t   period begins to
\n\t\t\t\t   run\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————<\/p>\n
\nBy a landlord\t     Twelve years  When a tenancy is\nto recover\t\t\t   determined.\npossession from\na tenant\n<\/pre>\n
——————————————————\n<\/p>\n
     The date on which the tenancy is determined will be the
\ndate from which the period of limitation would\tbegin to run
\nfor the purpose of Article 139 of the  old Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
     One mode  of determining  tenancy under\tTransfer  of
\nProperty Act  is by  way of surrender by the tenant. We have
\nseen on\t facts that  an attempt\t  was made by the defendant-
\nrespondent that\t he had surrendered the\t suit property after
\nthe expiry  of the  lease and thereafter re-entered the suit
\nland and  continued in possession in his own right. However,
\nthis case was not  accepted by the trial court as well as by
\nthe appellate\tcourt  for well-founded\t reasons as  noticed
\nabove. That   being  the  position  the\t possession  by\t the
\ndefendant on the fact as found by the First Appellate Court,
\nin  this  case,\t after\tthe  expiry  of\t the  lease  further
\ncontinuance was only  permissive and will not give cause for
\nprescribing title  by adverse  possession. Further,  for the
\nfirst time,  while replying  to the  notice by the vendor of
\nthe plaintiff,\tthe defendant openly set up a  hostile title
\nand the\t suit having  been filed within five years therefrom
\nis not barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
     In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the
\nHigh Court was not justified in interfering with the
\njudgments of the courts below. Consequently, the appeal
\nis allowed. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996 Bench: N.P. Singh, K. Venkataswami PETITIONER: NAVANEETHAMMAL Vs. RESPONDENT: ARJUNA CHETTY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/09\/1996 BENCH: N.P. SINGH, K. VENKATASWAMI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T The plaintiff Who filed a suit on 13.6.1962 for declaration of her […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27442","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNavaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-19T20:24:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-19T20:24:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3497,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996\",\"name\":\"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-19T20:24:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-19T20:24:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-19T20:24:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996"},"wordCount":3497,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996","name":"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-19T20:24:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navaneethammal-vs-arjuna-chetty-on-6-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27442","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27442"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27442\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}