Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
POTTURI SARASWATI - Appellant
Versus
VALLBHANENI VEERABHADRA RAO - Respondent
Decided On : 01-01-85
INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - TITLE - BURDEN OF PROOF - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 6 - Where the question of title is either implicit or can be gone into incidentally in the suit for perpetual injunction, there is no reason as to why the question of prima facie title cannot be gone into in an application under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. filed in such a suit.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-appellant, the daughter of the respondent-defendant, filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession of the suit schedule lands. The appellant claimed ownership of the lands based on a sale deed and a gift deed executed in her favor by her brother in 1971. The respondent contended that the sale and gift deeds were nominal and intended to avoid the provisions of the A. P. Agricultural Land Ceilings Act, 1972. The appellant also sought an interim injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had prima facie proved her title to the property but that she had not established effective physical possession of the entire land as on the date of the suit. The court found that the respondent had raised the crop on the land between June and December 1983 and that the appellant had carried away part of the crop in December 1983. The court also found that the respondent had come back to possession after the injunction was vacated.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had prima facie proved her title to the property? 2. Whether the appellant had established effective physical possession of the entire land as on the date of the suit? 3. Whether the respondent was entitled to continue in possession of the land as a Receiver?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant had prima facie proved her title to the property based on the sale deed and gift deed executed in her favor in 1971. 2. The court held that the appellant had not established effective physical possession of the entire land as on the date of the suit. The court found that the respondent had raised the crop on the land between June and December 1983 and that the appellant had carried away part of the crop in December 1983. 3. The court held that the respondent was entitled to continue in possession of the land as a Receiver and directed him to deposit Rs. 12,000/- for the crop raised after June 1984 and Rs. 20,000/- on or before 30th November every year for the future years.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed to the extent mentioned above and dismissed in other respects. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 169/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada against an order passed in i. A. No. 376/84 refusing to grant temporary injunction infavour of the appellant restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with the appellant s alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands.
( 2 ) THE appellant is the daughter of the respondent. She is a graduate in medicine and a medical practitioner at Visakhapatnam. The appellant s husband is an engineer at Visakhapatnam. The appellant s brother one V. Gopala Krishna, who is not a party to the suit executed a registered sale deed on 14-9-1971 for a consideration of Rs. 24, 500/- in respect of ac. 3-07 cents in R. S No. 1007/2, of Vuyyuru village in Krishna District. On the same day he also executed a registered gift deed in favour of the appellant in respect of three items of property- (1) Ac. 3-48 cents in R. S. No. 663 ; (2) Ac. 2-62 cents in R. S. No. 664 and (3) Ac. 0-90 cents in R. S. No. 1007/2 at Vuyyuru village, in all Ac. 7-00. The total extent covered by the above sale deeds, the certified copy of which is marked as ex. A-1 and by the gift deed, the certified copy of which is marked as ex. A-2 is ac. 10-07 cents. According to the appellant she executed a general power of attorney in favour of the respondent who is her father as per ex. A-3, dt. 1-3-67 long before she acquired the properties under Exs. A-1 and A-2. Under that power of attorney the respondent was authorised to manage certain other property of ac. 5-00 previously belonging to the appellant which she sold on 25-6-1970 for a sum of Rs. 38, 000/- According to the appellant, the respondent was not properly accounting for the income from the land covered by Exs. A-1 and A-2 and that therefore she came to Vuyyuru and cancelled the power of attorney by executing a separate deed of cancellation Ex. B-3, dt. 5-2-81. In that cancellation deed it was stated that the plaintiff-appellant decided to look after her properties personally. After the cancellation of the power of attorney; it is the case of the appellant that she was persistently requesting the respondent to render a complete account but the respondent only made a few payments without rendering a complete account. It is the further case of the appellant that during May, 1983 she came to Vuyyuru and made a demand from the respondent for submitting his accounts upon which the respondent is stated to have felt offended and voluntarily handed over possession to the appellant so that she could cultivate the land from June, 1983. The appellant s specific case is that she accordingly took possession in May, 1983 and got the lands ploughed transplanted, manured with the assistance of sri Y. Baburao and paddy crop was raised in the entire extent of ac. 10-07 cents. The revenue records show that the appellant is the owner and that she is also in possession. The appellant is said to have got the paddy crop cut, harvested and heaped in the lands and during the time of thrashing, it is stated, that the respondent who is the father was trying to obstruct her and her husband from removing the paddy. On 1-12-83 she put in a petition before the Executive Magistrate as per Ex. A-10 for an order under section 144, Cr. PC. Though no police help was given she had harvested the paddy heaped and carted the paddy to the rice mill on bullock carts. The respondent also put in a petition to the Tahsildar on 2-12-83. Executive magistrate passed an order on 3-12-83 as per Ex. A-19 prohibiting either party to enter the land for a period of one week with effect from 9. 50 p. m. on 3. 12. 83. The said order is said to have been served on the appellant on 4-12-83 at 10. 15 p. m. while she was at the thrashing floor with her labourers. At that time about 70 bags of paddy were gathered on the thrashing floor. She endorsed on the order served on her that she was leaving the thrashed paddy and the h
AI
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
