Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
B.Narayanamma - Appellant
Versus
Ramaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 09-10-75
ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED LEASE DEEDS - COLLATERAL PURPOSE - ADVERSE POSSESSION - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 53-A - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of suit property, alleging that they inherited the property from their deceased husband/father, who had purchased it from the defendant under a registered sale deed. The defendant denied the sale, claiming that the sale deed was not acted upon and that the consideration was a loan. He also claimed title by adverse possession and relied on an unregistered agreement to repurchase the property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the sale deed was genuine and that the plaintiffs had come into possession of the property. It also found that the lease deeds executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiffs were admissible in evidence to show the nature of possession, even though they were not registered. The trial court rejected the defendant's claim of adverse possession. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the lease deeds were not admissible in evidence and that the defendant had proved his title by adverse possession.
Issues: 1. Whether unregistered lease deeds are admissible in evidence to show the nature of possession? 2. Whether the defendant had acquired title to the property by adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Unregistered lease deeds are admissible in evidence to show the nature of possession, even though they cannot be used to prove title or any rights under them. 2. The defendant's possession was permissive in nature, as he had entered into possession under the lease deeds. Therefore, he could not acquire title to the property by adverse possession.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the observations made by the High Court.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs (six in number) In the suit are the appellants In the second appeal. The 1st defendant alone is the respondent. The suit is filed for a declaration of the plaintiff s title to the suit property of an extent of Ac. 25-48 cents in Kapatralla village, Kurnool District and to recover possession of the same and damages for use and occupation and future profits. The suit was filed on 20-2-1968 In the District Munsif s Court dhone and subsequently transferred to the District Munsif s Court, Pattikonda and re-numbered as O. S. No. 4 of 1970 on the file of that Court.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs the suit property belonged to one Pedda kowiutlayya, who was the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 6. The 1st plaintiff is his second wife. The 2nd pfaintiff is his son by his first wife. Kowlatlayya died in the year 1965 and after his death the plaintiffs became entitled to the suit property.
( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that kowlutlayya purchased the suit property from the 1st defendant under Ex. A-4 dated 7-5-1948 registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 500/- and took possession of it and subsequently leased out the land to the 1st defendant under lease deeds, Exs. A-3. A-2 and A-1 dated 17-3-1961, 26-3-1963 and 5-1-1965 respectively each for two years. After the death of Kowiutlayya the 1st defendant failed to pay the rent of Rs. 75/- stipulated in the lease deeds and refused to deliver possession.
( 4 ) THE 2nd defendant in the suit Is a cousin of the 1st defendant, who, It appears executed a registered cowl in favour of defendants 2 to 6 for one year for the suit land. There was no contest in the suit by them. It is only the 1st defendant who contested the suit. He denied that he was a tenant of Kowiutlayya According to him the sale deed ex. A-4 executed by him in favour of kowiutlayya was not acted upon. The sum of Rs. 500/- mentioned as consideration in the sale deed was the sum borrowed by the |st defendant from Kowiutlayya, kowlutlayya, never came Into possession of the suit land. The 1st defendant also pleaded chat Kowlutlavya executed an agreement, Ex. B-2 dated 8-5-1948 (one day after Ex. A-4) and on the basis of It he is entitled tc resist the claim of the plaintiffs as provided under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The 1st defendant also claimed that he perfected his title by adverse possession and enjoyment by denying the execution of the lease deeds. Exs A-1 to A-3.
( 5 ) IT may be noted that Exs. A-l to a-3 were for two years each and there- fore they require registration for their validity. The trial Court found that their execution has been satisfactorily proved and therefore they are true. On the question of their admisslbility in evidence for want of registration, the trial court found that they are admissible In evidence for the collateral purpose of showing the nature of possession. The plaintiffs denied that Pedda Kowlutlayya executed Ex B-2 agreement in favour of the 1st defendant. An objection was also taken for its admissibility on the ground of non-registration. This objection was over-ruled by the trial Court on the ground that Ex. B-2 does not by Itself create any right in respect of the land and as such It does not require registration. But, however, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there Is no satisfactory proof regarding the execution of ex. B-2 by Pedda Kowlutlayya and therefore held that Ex. B-2 Is not true. The trial Court also negatived the contention of the 1st defendant that Kowlutlayya never came Into possession of the suit land as per Ex. A-4. According to the plaintiffs after Kowlutlayya obtained possession of the suit land in pursuance of his purchase under Ex. A. 4 sale deed, he kept the land fallow before he leased it out to the 1st defendant under Exs,a-1 to A-3. To come to the conclusion that in pursuance of Ex. A-4 sale deed Pedda kowlutlayya came into possession of the suit land, the tria
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
