From Melbourne, He Claimed a Chennai Property by Adverse Possession. The Madras High Court Refused Him an Injunction.

A man living in Melbourne, Australia sued through a special power of attorney, saying his grandfather, his father and then he had held a property in Chennai for decades, and that the heirs of the owner had abandoned it. Buyers had bought the larger property for Rs 40.01 crore in October 2025 in a sale run by a court-appointed commissioner. On 22 September 2026 the Madras High Court refused to protect his claimed possession or to stop the buyers acting on their registered deed. Adverse possession, the court said, has to be proved at trial.

The case

The order is in O.A. Nos. 408 and 409 of 2026 in C.S. No. 106 of 2026, Hari Shankar Nandakumar v. M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Realty & 16 Others, on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi passed it on 22 September 2026. It runs to 13 pages.

The cause title gives the plaintiff's address in Egmore, Chennai and his present residence in Rockbank, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. He appears through a special power of attorney holder in Chennai. The defendants are the buying firm and its partners, the heirs of the original purchaser, the court-appointed commissioner and the plaintiff's own tenant.

The plaintiff's case

On the plaintiff's account (paragraphs 2 to 7):

• One Narain Singh Ganshamsingh bought the larger property under a sale deed of 22 June 1961 and leased it to Parvathy Industries Limited, where the plaintiff's grandfather was a director. The plaintiff admits he does not have the lease deed and does not know if it was renewed.
• After Narain Singh died, his heirs "allegedly abandoned" the property. Parvathy Industries stayed. From 1 April 1997 a partnership of the grandfather and others ran the business there, and the grandfather carried on alone after the partnership ended.
• A rent case, RCOP No. 1353 of 2002, filed by one of the heirs in the Court of Small Causes, was dismissed for default on 7 November 2003.
• The grandfather died on 11 February 2005 and the father on 28 May 2008. The plaintiff says he let the property to one tenant from 2012 to 2023 and to another from September 2023.
• The heirs had settled their own suit, C.S. No. 1242 of 1992, by a compromise decree of 22 September 1997. A commissioner was appointed to sell the property. Public notices in January 2025 offered it "as is where is" and recorded that it was occupied by third parties. The buyers' offer of Rs 40,01,00,000 was accepted and the sale deed was registered on 14 October 2025 at the Sowcarpet Sub-Registrar's office.

He asked for an injunction protecting his possession, and another stopping the buyers from acting on the sale deed.

The buyers said the plaintiff is not in possession, has no title, and has produced no document fixing the date on which his possession turned hostile to the owners (paragraph 8).

What the court held

• The test. Adverse possession "is not established merely by showing long possession". It needs possession that is "actual, open, continuous, exclusive and hostile to the true owner", to the owner's knowledge, for the period the law sets, and "the precise point of time" from which it became hostile (paragraph 11).
• The plaintiff's own chain. His possession began under a lease he cannot produce. Whether the possession of a company, a firm, a grandfather, a father and a grandson can be added together, whether it was continuous and when it turned hostile "are all substantial questions requiring evidence" (paragraph 12).
• Silence is not surrender. "Mere inaction" by the heirs does not prove adverse possession, and a rent case dismissed for default is not a finding that the other side owns the property (paragraph 13).
• The registered deed. A sale deed executed through a sale process that came out of the court's own proceedings cannot be set aside in a summary way. Stopping the buyers from "acting in furtherance" of it would work against a registered conveyance before trial (paragraph 14).
• Possession through a tenant. The plaintiff claims possession through his tenant, and the buyers dispute it. Who is in "actual and settled possession" cannot be decided on rival affidavits (paragraph 15).

Both applications were dismissed. The court said the dismissal will not influence the trial, left all issues open, and asked the parties to help dispose of the suit fast (paragraph 16).

What it means for an NRI owner

Most NRI owners meet adverse possession as the defence of someone living in their flat. This case runs the other way: the person abroad is the one claiming it, through a power of attorney and a tenant. The court applied the same test to him that it applies to any occupier.

For an owner, the order confirms three points the court stated. Long occupation by someone else does not by itself transfer title. An owner's inaction is not proof of hostile possession. And a registered sale deed stands until a trial court decides otherwise. The Supreme Court's September rulings on the date possession turns hostile and on long occupation set out the same test. Our guides on managing tenants from abroad and an empty flat in India cover the records that show who holds a property and on what terms.

This is an interim order. Title and possession will be decided at trial in C.S. No. 106 of 2026. A claim over your own property belongs with a lawyer who can read the deeds and the possession record.

FAQ

What did the Madras High Court decide on 22 September 2026? It dismissed two applications for temporary injunctions by a Melbourne resident claiming a Chennai property by adverse possession. All issues are left open for the trial.

Who is the NRI in this case? The plaintiff. The cause title gives his present residence in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and he sued through a special power of attorney holder in Chennai.

Why did the court refuse the injunctions? Because adverse possession needs proof of hostile possession from a precise date, the plaintiff's possession began under a lease he could not produce, possession through his tenant was disputed, and the buyers hold a registered sale deed from a court-supervised sale.

Does an owner's silence for years hand over title? The court held that "mere inaction" by the owners does not by itself establish adverse possession.

How was the property sold? Through a commissioner appointed under a 1997 compromise decree among the original purchaser's heirs. The buyers' Rs 40.01 crore offer was accepted and the sale deed was registered on 14 October 2025.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• Hari Shankar Nandakumar v. M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Realty & 16 Others, O.A. Nos. 408 and 409 of 2026 in C.S. No. 106 of 2026, Madras High Court, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi J, order dated 22 September 2026, 13 pages. Full text, carrying the mhc.tn.gov.in/judis footer on every page, read on 30 September 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75159290/
• Indian Kanoon titles the case "Riddhi Siddhi Reddy"; the cause title in the order reads M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Realty. We use the cause title.