Back
1992 Supreme(AP) 292
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Siva Nagayya - Appellant
Versus
Ahmed Khan - Respondent
Decided On : 05-19-92
To establish adverse possession, the claimant must show continuous, open, and exclusive possession of the property for the statutory period, with the intention to possess the property as their own.
Headnote:
ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 27 - ADVERSE POSSESSION - REQUIREMENTS - CONTINUOUS, OPEN, AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION FOR THE STATUTORY PERIOD - PLAINTIFF'S POSSESSION OF THE DISPUTED LAND FOR OVER 40 YEARS - RAISING OF MANGO TREES AND ASSERTION OF OWNERSHIP RIGHTS - HELD TO BE ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of a disputed land, alleging that he and his father-in-law had been in possession for over 45 years, planting mango trees, digging a well, and constructing a house. The defendants, including government officials, claimed that the land was government property and that the plaintiff had encroached on it.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court found that the plaintiff had been in continuous, open, and exclusive possession of the disputed land for over 40 years, raising a mango garden and asserting ownership rights. The court held that the plaintiff had acquired title to the land by adverse possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession. 2. Whether the plaintiff's possession was continuous, open, and exclusive for the statutory period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession, as he had been in continuous, open, and exclusive possession for over 40 years. The court relied on evidence such as the plaintiff's planting of mango trees, construction of a house, and assertion of ownership rights, as well as the lack of evidence to the contrary from the defendants.
Final Decision: The second appeals filed by the defendants were dismissed, upholding the lower appellate court's decision that the plaintiff had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession.
( 1 ) THE Second Appeal, S. A. No. 273/90 is preferred by defendants 3 to 9, 11 to 14,16 and 18 to 22 and the Second Appeal No. 610/90 is preferred by defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 25 of 1976, arise out of the judgment in A. S. No. 108/78. As parties are common and common question arises for consideration in both these second appeals and they are being disposed of together by a common judgment.
( 2 ) THE first respondent in both the second appeals viz. Ahmed Khan is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 25/76 on the file of the District Munsif, Vikarabad. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and pattedar and is in possession of the land bearing S. No. 39 at Manneguda Village. He and prior to him his father-in-law, Jarawar Khan were in possession and enjoyment of the said land for more than 45 years. About 45 years back the plaintiff planted 200 mango trees, dug a well and constructed a house in the said land and subsequently raised two huts for his farm servants. While so, on 12. 4. 76 the second defendant accompanied by the Revenue Inspector and two police constables came to the land and demolished one house belonging to the plaintiffs. The Writ appeal w. A. No. 326/76 preferred by the plaintiff against the dismissal order of W. P. No. 1336/76 was dismissed on21. 4. 1976 with a direction to the second defendant not to evict the plaintiff for a period of three months to enable the plaintiff to issue notice under Section 80 CPC for filling the suit. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the plaintiff issued a notice to the Collector, i. e. the first defendant and the Tahsildar, the second defendant. The Tahsildar, sent a reply stating that it is a government land and that the suit land of 0. 39 cts. is covered by Survey nos. 51 /2 and 51/3. According to the plaintiff even assuming that the suit land belongs to the government, the plaintiff has perfected his title by prescription as he was in actual, uninterrupted, open and adverse possession since last 45 years. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the above suit for declaration of title and possession, and also for perpetual injunction from interferingby the defendants. Subsequent to the filling of the suit, as defendants 3 to 17 encroached on 600 Sq. Yards the plaint was amended claiming further relief of ejectment of defendants 3 to 17.
( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed one written statement and the defendants 3 to 16 filed separate written statement. Their case is that the plaintiff is the owner and pattedar of the land bearing S. No. 39 of Manneguda village but its ex tent is only ac. 9. 22 guntas. The disputed 0. 39 gts. constitute survey numbers 51/2 and 51/3 which is jarib land belonging to the government and that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the said area of 0. 39 gts. in question. It was further stated that when the shop owners of Manneguda village requested to provide government land for their shops the land bearing S. Nos. 51/2 and 51/3 was selected for providing to the shop owners. The plaintiff filed a petition stating that the land which was proposed to be given to the shop owners is in his possession and enjoyment and requested to sanction patta in his favour. In spite of notice in respect of his claim, he did not produce any documentary evidence. The defendants 3 to 16 stated that the land is a government land and that they have denied the adverse possession of the plaintiff and that they have been permitted by the revenue authorities to construct the houses. They are in possession and enjoyment of about 20 guntas since more than 40 years as absolute owners.
( 4 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the trial Court framed appropriate issues and held on the main issue that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and did not prove that he acquired title by adverse possession, and the suit was accordingly dismissed. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed on 31. 12. 75.
( 5 ) THE High Court in
