Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Sri. K.M. Krishna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Sri. Vinod Reddy & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 2010
Decided on : 06-10-2023
Adverse Possession – When in a suit simpliciter for a perpetual injunction based on title, defendant pleads perfection of his title by adverse possession against plaintiff or his predecessor, it cannot be said that there is any dispute about title of plaintiff – Plaintiff need not claim declaration of title in such a case as only issues involved in such a suit are whether plaintiff has proved that he was in possession on the date of institution of suit and whether defendant has proved that he has perfected his title by adverse possession – In case at hand, it was not necessary for appellant to claim declaration of ownership – There was no cloud on his title – Suit, as originally filed, was maintainable – Burden was on respondents to prove their plea of adverse possession, as there was a counter-claim seeking declaration of ownership based on adverse possession – Counter-claim is in nature of a cross-suit – High Court has not considered merits of suit and counter-claim – Regular second appeal remanded to High Court. (Paras 16, 17 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Original plaintiff has preferred this appeal for challenging judgment of High Court in a second appeal by which High Court has interfered and has set aside decree passed by first Appellate Court.
Findings of Court:
Normally, this Court should never fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of a case pending before High Courts, which are Constitutional Courts. But, in this case, Regular Second Appeal is of 2007. Therefore, High Court shall give necessary out-of-turn priority to disposal of Regular Second Appeal.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The original plaintiff has preferred this appeal for challenging the judgment of the High Court in a second appeal by which the High Court has interfered and has set aside the decree passed by the first Appellate Court.
PLAINT
2. The appellant filed a suit for a perpetual injunction in respect of the immovable property more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint (for short, ‘the suit property’). According to the appellant, he and his brothers succeeded to the suit property after the demise of his father. He claimed that the suit property was allotted to his share under a family settlement dated 25th April 1993, executed by and between him and his brothers. The appellant claims to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. The suit is founded on the cause of action that on 18th June 1994, the respondents tried to interfere with his possession of the suit property. Therefore, a suit simpliciter for injunction was filed by him.
WRITTEN STATEMENT CUM COUNTER-CLAIM
3. The respondents-defendants filed a written statement cum counter-claim accepting that the suit property was originally owned by Sri. Muniswamappa, the late father of the appellant. The respondents' contention in the written statement was that they, along with their family members, were continuously in possession of the suit property from 1978 and were storing firewood, bricks, and manure. According to their case, they have been uninterruptedly using the suit property since 1978, and they have done so with the knowledge of the appellant, his father and their other family members, including his brother M. Jayarama Reddy (for short, ‘Jayarama’). Therefore, the respondents claimed that they had perfected the title to the suit property by adverse possession.
4. Another contention raised by the respondents was that in the partition which took place after the death of the appellant’s father, the suit property was allotted to the share of Jayarama. In October 1983, the said Jayarama approached their mother and stated that if consideration was paid to him, the respondents could absolutely enjoy the suit property. According to the respondents, their mother paid a sum of Rs.5,500/- as a consideration to Jayarama who executed an agreement for sale in favour of their mother. It was also contended that in part performance for the agreement for sale, the respondents’ mother was put in possession of the suit property. It was contended in the written statement that the appellant had filed a suit in collusion with his brother Jayarama.
5. A counter-claim was made by the respondents claiming a declaration that they have perfected their title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. They also claimed that the family settlement dated 25th April 1993, relied upon by the appellant was void and non-est.
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT
6. The appellant applied on 11th November 1997, to amend the plaint for incorporating paragraph 4(a) and a prayer for declaration of ownership and possession. The Trial Court allowed the amendment by the order dated 04th June 1998. After the amendment was allowed, the respondents filed an additional written statement, contending that the appellant could not improve his case by amendment.
FINDINGS OF THE COURTS
7. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter-claim. In an appeal preferred by the appellant, the District Court interfered and decreed the suit filed by the appellant. In a second appeal preferred by the first respondent, the High Court interfered by holding that the amendment incorporating the prayer for declaration was barred by limitation and that the same would not relate back to the date of institution of the suit. Hence, the High Court dismissed the suit. The High Court did not consider any other issue.
SUBMISSIONS
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that all the material particulars regarding the appellant's title were already incorporated in the plaint
When there is a denial of title or a challenge raising a cloud, parties should file a suit for declaration of title, and adverse possession requires hostile possession denying the true owner's title.
The plaintiff's claim for possession, sought 29 years after the date of the registered sale deed, is barred by limitation and cannot be permitted.
The plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength, and in this case, the appellant failed to establish his possession of the suit property, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
Adverse Possession – Facts constituting ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by plaintiff – Plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to true owne....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for permanent injunction may not be legally sustainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title, especially when the plainti....
Revenue records do not confer title or prove possession against commissioner report and admissions showing physical division by road and fencing; injunction suit maintainable on possession without de....
Suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction is not maintainable and the First Appellate Court could not have decreed the suit of the plaintiff, when the defendants apart from denying the title and poss....
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
