JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the vendor of immovable property under an oral sale is entitled to claim a charge under Sec. 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act for the unpaid purchase money against the vendee after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the oral sale when the vendee has acquired title by adverse possession?

( 2 ) THE above question has arisen in a reference under Sec. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act which was disposed of in Op. No. 21/81 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali. The contest was between the two respondents before the lower court of whom M. Lakshmidevamma was the first claimant while her brother, J. Chandrasekhara Reddy was the second claimant.

( 3 ) 2. 36 Hectares of land was acquired in the village of Leguntapadu in Nellore District by a notification published on 16-10-1979 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation payable according to the award was a sum of Rs. 67,035. 76. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dt. 11-3-1981 for the said sum in favour of the rightful owner and made a reference on 14-4-1981 to the Civil Court under sec. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and meanwhile deposited the amount in the civil court. He pointed out that the acquired land stands registered in the name of the 2nd claimant Sri J. Chandrasekhara Reddy but the land is in the possession of the first claimant who has been paying taxes from 1970 onwards as per Exs. A-1 to A-7. He pointed out that the 2nd claimant gave a statement on 1-12-1980 (Ex. A-12) earlier to the effect that he has orally sold the property to the three sons of the first claimant in 1953 but that subsequently he claimed that the title continued to be vested in himself and that he was entitled to the entire claims that the property was sold to her sons orally in 1953 for Rs. 1,20,000/- and that subsequently in the family partition in 1970 Ac. 5-80 cents inclusive of this property was allotted to the first claimant and that she claimed to be the owner. After the reference the claimants filed their respective claims statements before the Sub-Court, Kavali. The first claimant M. Lakshmidevamma examined herself as RW. 1 and filed Exs. A-1 to A-13 while the 2nd claimant examined himself as RW. 2 but did not file any documentary evidence.

( 4 ) ON a consideration of the above material, Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the 2nd claimant had only agreed to sell the acquired land to the sons of the 1st claimant, the patta continued to be in the name of the 2nd claimant who took promissory notes for the balance of consideration, that the partition in the family of the 1st claimant allotting the acquired property to the 1st claimant was not binding on the 2nd claimant and that the sons of the 1st claimant could not claim the entire compensation without paying the balance of consideration to the 2nd claimant. He therefore held that no title passed to the 1st claimant or to her sons and that she has no right to put forward any claim. He further held that the 1st claimant or her sons are entitled only to the amount that may be left over after the 2nd claimant is paid the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 50,000/- plus expenses which he had incurred by filing suits for realising the balance sale consideration. The remaining amount above mentioned can be paid to the 1st claimant only if her sons filed affidavits admitting that they are not interested in the said sum. The learned subordinate Judge rejected the contention of the 1st claimant that the title of the 2nd claimant stood extinguished by adverse possession in view of sec. 27 of the Limitation Act, in as much as the 2nd claimant took promissory notes which still remained unpaid as proceedings are pending in courts for recovery of the balance amount. In the result the learned Subordinate Judge directed in the first instance the payment of Rs. 50,000/- plus costs incurred by the 2nd c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document