M.DURAI versus MADHU AND ORS.

The High Court formulated a wrong question regarding burden of proof. Under Limitation Act, 1963, once plaintiff proves title, burden shifts to defendants. Impugned judgment cannot be sustained; matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration.

Parties: Appellant Plaintiff: M. Durai; Respondents Defendants: Madhu and Ors.
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 11 January 2007
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 16.2.1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 671/1987
Outcome: Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of Second Appeal after formulating an appropriate substantial question of law.
Legal Topics: Adverse Possession, Burden of Proof

Property Law Limitation Law Adverse Possession Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

M. Durai

Appellant Plaintiff

Madhu and Ors.

Respondents Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 16.2.1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 671/1987

Legal Issues

1 Whether the burden of proof for adverse possession lies on plaintiff or defendant under Limitation Act, 1963
2 Whether the defendants perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of Second Appeal after formulating an appropriate substantial question of law.

Orders

The impugned judgment is set aside; the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of Second Appeal.