Back
R. V. Raveendran & P. Sathasivam
Anathula Sudhakar - PETITIONER
Versus
P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors - RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 6191 of 2001
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6191 OF 2001
Decided On: 25/03/2008
Civil Procedure Code , 1908 - Section 100 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 41 - Section 123 – Property - Plaintiffs 1 and 2 claimed to be respective owners in possession of said two sites having purchased them under two registered sale deeds - Plaintiffs further claimed that said two sites were mutated in their names in municipal records - They alleged that, when they were digging trenches in order to commence construction, defendant interfered with said work - Plaintiffs, therefore, filed suit in file of Principal District Munsiff, Warangal, for a permanent injunction to restrain defendant from interfering with their possession - Defendant resisted suit - He claimed that suit property measuring 300 sq. yards in Premises was purchased by him under registered sale deed that he was put in possession of suit property that suit property had been transferred to his name in municipal records that he applied for and obtained sanction of a plan for construction of a building thereon and that he had also obtained a loan for such construction from Central Government by mortgaging said property - According to him, when he commenced construction in suit property, plaintiffs tried to interfere with his possession and filed a false suit claiming to be in possession – Held , High Court while reversing decision of first appellate court, examined various aspects relating to title and recorded findings relating to title - It held that gifting a property to a daughter or sister by way of could be done orally and did not require a registered instrument - Even though there was no independence evidence of oral gift except assertion, High Court, held that there was an oral gift in her favour - It also accepted evidence of PW3 and PW5 and plaintiffs, that negotiated for sale of plots representing that they belonged to his sister and that he attested sale deeds as a witness and identified as executant before Sub-Registrar and therefore, came to aid of plaintiffs was estopped from denying title of his sister - High Court in a second appeal arising from a suit for an injunction, could not have recorded such findings, in absence of pleadings and issue regarding title - Court are therefore of view that High Court exceeded its jurisdiction , firstly in re-examining questions of fact, secondly by going into questions which were not pleaded and which were not subject matter of any issue, thirdly by formulating questions of law which did not arise in second appeal, and lastly, by interfering with well reasoned judgment of first appellate court which held that plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT:
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. -- This appeal by special leave is by the defendant in a suit for permanent injunction. Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy were the plaintiffs in the said suit. Both are now no more. The Legal Representatives of Puli Chandra Reddy are Respondents 2 to 5 and Legal Representatives of Puli Buchi Reddy are Respondent 1 (i) to (iii). The suit related to two sites bearing no. 13/776/B and 13/776/C measuring 110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards in Matwada, Warangal town, together referred to as the 'suit property'.
2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 claimed to be the respective owners in possession of the said two sites having purchased them under two registered sale deeds dated 9.12.1968 (Exs.A1 and A2) from Rukminibai. The plaintiffs further claimed that the said two sites were mutated in their names in the municipal records. They alleged that on 3.5.1978, when they were digging trenches in order to commence construction, the defendant interfered with the said work. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed suit OS No.279 of 1978 in the file of Principal District Munsiff, Warangal, for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession.
3. Defendant resisted the suit. He claimed that suit property measuring 300 sq. yards in Premises No. 13/776 was purchased by him from K. V. Damodar Rao (brother of plaintiffs' vendor Rukminibai) under registered sale deed dated 7.11.1977 (Ex.B1); that he was put in possession of the suit property by Damodar Rao; that the suit property had been transferred to his name in the municipal records; that he applied for and obtained sanction of a plan for construction of a building thereon; and that he had also obtained a loan for such construction from the Central Government by mortgaging the said property. According to him, when he commenced construction in the suit property, the plaintiffs tried to interfere with his possession and filed a false suit claiming to be in possession.
4. The trial court framed the following issues - (i) whether the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit sites (house plots)? (ii) whether the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plots? (iii) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction; and (iv) to what relief.
5. The plaintiffs examined themselves as PW1 and PW2. They examined their vendor Rukminibai as PW4. Puli Malla Reddy and Vadula Ramachandram examined as PW3 and PW5, were the purchasers of two adjacent sites from Rukminibai. One of them (PW3) was the cousin of plaintiffs and was also the scribe and attestor in respect of the two sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs exhibited the two sale deeds dated 9.12.1968 in their favour as Ex.A1 and A2 and municipal demand notices and tax receipts, all of the year 1978 onwards, as Ex.A3 to A11. A plan showing the sites was marked as Ex.A12. Two letters said to have written by Damodar Rao were marked as Ex.A13 and A14. The sale deed executed by Rukminibai in favour of PW3 was marked as Ex.X1 and sale agreement in favour of PW5 was marked as Ex.X2. The defendant gave evidence as DW1 and examined his vendor Damodar Rao as DW2. He exhibited the certified copy of the sale deed dated 7.11.1977 in his favour as Ex.B1, a certified copy of mortgage deed executed by him in favour of Central Government as Ex.B2, the licence and sanctioned plan for construction of a house in the suit plot as Ex.B3 and B4 and the loan sanction proceedings as Ex.B5. He also exhibited a property tax receipt dated 12.2.1978 issued to Damodar Rao (Ex.B6), water charge bill dated 20.9.1978 for house No. 13/775 and 13/776 issued to Damodar Rao (Ex.B7), and property tax receipts dated 19.2.1972, 14.10.1973, 28.3.1970 and 13.11.1968 in the name of Damodar Rao (Ex. B8 to B11).
6. Th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
