Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Mathaluru Bajjappa - Appellant
Versus
Madamanchi Venkanna - Respondent
Decided On : 03-05-59
ADVERSE POSSESSION - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND POSSESSION - BURDEN OF PROOF - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 54 - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 91 - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 3 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, SECTION 100 - SECOND APPEAL - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT - CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING INTERFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property, claiming that they acquired the property by adverse possession. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs had neither title nor possession of the suit properties and that, therefore, the suit should be dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof resting on them to establish their title or the acquisition of right to the suit property by adverse possession. The court also found that the lower appellate court erred in its findings of fact and that such findings were unsustainable in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had discharged the burden of proof resting on them to establish their title or the acquisition of right to the suit property by adverse possession? 2. Whether the lower appellate court erred in its findings of fact?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving the title set up and also the right to eject the defendant from the suit land is, under law, heavily on the plaintiffs. 2. A plea of adverse possession requires specific and ought to be strictly scrutinized. 3. The plaintiffs failed to produce the patta which they claim their father had obtained, and under which their father got into possession of the suit lands. Any such patta would at least have served as some evidence of possession, although a patta by itself cannot be regarded as a document Or evidence of title or a title-deed. 4. The plaintiffs have totally failed to make out the title set up by them viz., acquisition for consideration of the suit land; they failed to produce either the patta said to have been issued in favour of their father or the patta said to have been issued in their favour after the death of their father; the suit lands which admittedly formed part of a single Survey No. 440-B was not shown to have been separated or partitioned or separately registered or that the same was in plaintiffs separate possession; no official documents such as adangals, or entries in the Revenue accounts have been produced by the plaintiffs to show that the property stood registered in their name or that they were in possession and enjoyment of the properties in their own right; no other evidence has been produced to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit lands and adversely to the real owner Boya Kristappa or to the mortgagee, namely, the defendant. 5. The lower appellate court erred in its findings of fact by relying on inadmissible evidence and by failing to consider relevant evidence.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed. The decree of the lower appellate court was set aside and the plaintiffs' suit was directed to be dismissed with costs throughout.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judges Court, Anantapur, confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges Court Anantapur in Original Suit No. 72 of 1953, decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit properties.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that they are the absolute owners of the property described in the schedule thereto, the same having been acquired by their late father Venkataramanappa for consideration, from one Boya Kristappa, that the patta of the lands was issued in his name some 35 years before suit, that the plaintiffs father and after his death, the mother of the plaintiffs as their guardian and subsequently on the plaintiffs attaining majority the plaintiffs themselves, were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in their own right, that the said possession and enjoyment during the said period about 35 years were open, adverse and peaceful and consequently whatever defect there might happen to be in the title set up namely of the "acquisition for consideration, they must be deemed to have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession.
( 3 ) IT is also alleged in plaint that the defendant obtained possession of the suit property, which consisted of about 40 acres of land, through court, by falsely and Fraudulently setting up his entitlement thereto, that the defendant had brought an order for valuation of the crops in the lands of the temple of Sri Rama to the extent of about 60 acres, in the same Survey No. 440-B in which the suit land is also included, and that under the cover of the order of Court "the defendant took away the crops from the suit land also on the ground that he was entitled to the same having given security". It is also claimed that the defendant had admitted the rights of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule lands in those proceedings. It is also alleged that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land, that his possession is, therefore, unlawful and no better than that of a trespasser. The plaintiffs prayed in the plaint for a decree declaring the plaintiffs absolute ownership of the suit land, for possession of the same by ejecting the defendant therefrom and for past and future mesne profits and costs.
( 4 ) THE defendant while denying generally the allegations in the plaint, contended, that the plaintiffs father did not acquire the suit land for consideration, that the defendant was not aware of any patta proceedings, that on looking into the digit it was found that the patta for the suit land stands in the name of Boya Kristappa, that the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs father and after him, their mother, were in possession of the suit land, is false, that Boya Kristappa the owner was in possession of the suit land throughout, that the plaintiffs had neither title to the suit land nor did they acquire any title by adverse possession, that Boya Kristappa had executed a mortgage in respect of the entire extent of 103 acres in Survey No. 440-B including the suit lands in favour of the defendant, that Boya Kristappa did not discharge the mortgage debt subsequently, that the defendant had to institute a suit O. S. No. 94/1950 for the recovery of the mortgage money, that the suit was contested by Boya Kristappa and was decreed, that the defendant brought the properties to sale and purchased the same in court auction, that long after the sale, the plaintiffs sought to get back the property, and instigated Boya Kristappa to file an application to set aside the sale in the execution proceedings, which ultimately terminated in the defendants favour, that during the pendency of those proceedings the second plaintiff stood surety in respect of the crops on the entire land of 103 acres, that the plaintiffs admitted in those proceedings that Boya Kristappa and subsequently the defendant we
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
