Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
Potturi Saraswathi - Appellant
Versus
Vallabhaneni Veerabhadra Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 10-30-84
INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - TITLE - POSSESSION - PRIMA FACIE CASE - TERMS AND CONDITIONS - RECEIVER.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the daughter of the respondent, filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession of the suit schedule lands. An interim injunction was granted in her favor, but was later vacated by the lower court. The appellant appealed the lower court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had a prima facie case for title to the property, but that she had not established effective possession of the entire land as of the date of the suit. The court also found that the respondent had raised the crop on the land between June 1983 and December 1983, and that the appellant had carried away the crop. The court further found that the respondent had come back to possession of the land after the injunction was vacated.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had a prima facie case for title to the property? 2. Whether the appellant had established effective possession of the entire land as of the date of the suit? 3. Whether the respondent had raised the crop on the land between June 1983 and December 1983? 4. Whether the appellant had carried away the crop? 5. Whether the respondent had come back to possession of the land after the injunction was vacated?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant had a prima facie case for title to the property based on the following evidence: - The appellant had executed a registered sale deed and gift deed in respect of the property in 1971. - The respondent had accepted the sale and gift deeds before the Land Reforms Tribunal and obtained a benefit from the Tribunal in having his holding computed below the ceiling limit. - The respondent was estopped from pleading that the sale and gift were nominal and intended to bypass the provisions of the Land Ceiling Clause. 2. The court held that the appellant had not established effective possession of the entire land as of the date of the suit based on the following evidence: - The appellant did not obtain possession of the property until May 1983, according to her own admission. - There was no evidence of any special reason why the respondent would have surrendered possession to the appellant in May 1983. - The Commissioner's report showed that the land was contiguous and there were no demarcation bunds between each plot. - The Head Karnam and Assistant Karnam of the village gave affidavits supporting the respondent's case that he was in possession of the land. - The affidavits of the Agricultural officers and the cane Advisers supported the respondent's case that he raised the paddy-seedlings and ploughed the land and manured it between June and October, 1983. 3. The court held that the respondent had raised the crop on the land between June 1983 and December 1983 based on the following evidence: - The Commissioner's report showed that the land was ploughed and there were traces of pillipesara crop and paddy crop. - The affidavits of the Agricultural officers and the cane Advisers supported the respondent's case that he raised the paddy-seedlings and ploughed the land and manured it between June and October, 1983. 4. The court held that the appellant had carried away the crop based on the following evidence: - The appellant admitted that she cut, thrashed, and carried away the crop in part between 1-12-83 and 3-12-83. 5. The court held that the respondent had come back to possession of the land after the injunction was vacated based on the following evidence: - The respondent filed an affidavit stating that he took possession of the land with the standing crop of paddy and that he was now in possession.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to continue in possession as receiver and to deposit Rs 12. 000/- for the crop raised after June, 1984. The court also directed the respondent to deposit Rs 20,000/- on or before 30th November every year starting from the year 1985. In case of default, the court directed the lower court to appoint a receiver to auction the lease-hold interest between the parties.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff in 0 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 in favour of the appellant restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with the appellant s alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands
( 2 ) THE appellan is the daugh er of the respondent, she is a graduate in Medicine and a Med cal practioner at visakhapatnam. The appellant s husband is an engineer at Visakhapatnam. The appellant s brother one V. Gopalakrishna who is not a party to suit executed a registered sale deed on 14-9-1971 for a consideration of Rs. 24, 500/- in respect of A c 3-07 cents in R S No. 1007/2 of Vuyyuru village in Krishna district. On the same day he also exeandcuted a registered gift deed in favour of the appellant in respect of three items of property- (l) Ac 3-48 cents in R S No. 663 (2) Ac 2-62 cents in R S No. 664 and (3) A c 0-90 cents in R S No. 1007/2 at Vuyyur 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 resandpondent who is her father as per Ex A-3 dated 1-3-67 long before she acquired the properties under Ex A-1 and Ex A-2. Under that power of attorney the responanddent 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. 5-2-1981. 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 payandments 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 feit offended and volunandtarily 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 padd/ 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 isalso in possession. The appelandlant 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 her 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 P C. Though no police help was given she had harvested the paddy heaps and carted the paddy to the rice mill on bullock carts. The respondent also put in a petiandtion to the Tahsildar on 2-12-83. The 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 hay in the cus
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
