Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
Gorige Ailamma - Appellant
Vs.
Utkoori Somaiah - Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 1385, 1554 and 1665 of 2005
Decided On: 05.09.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Ramachandra Prasad
For Respondents/Defendant: K.B. Ramanna Dora
Headnote:
Transfer of property Act – Section 54 -Possession of property - Cross-examine and their evidence also shows that plaintiff sold property and that in revenue records - Peaceful possession - Over suit schedule lands - Appeals are common in nature they are being disposed of by this common judgment - Permanent injunction restraining defendants and their family members etc from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule lands is filed against judgment and decree is filed against the judgment and decree case of plaintiff in brief is that is owner of suit schedule lands and said lands are not fertile lands and that they were kept fallow and used as pasture lands for several decades - Income from those lands was very meager – So wanted to purchase lands at Eturnagaram - Accordingly migrated to village near Eturnagaram during year There obtained certain lands - It is his further case that had entrusted management of suit schedule lands to defendants on condition that would pay half of net produce excluding cultivation expenses and land revenue towards their remuneration - Accordingly he used to visit his village during harvest period and settle accounts and used to pay yield to defendants as per agreement - Held, Where in a case a person who enters into possession by virtue of agreement of sale and where terms and conditions have to be complied by both parties where total consideration of sale amount is not yet paid then possession of agreement holder would not become adverse - Thus possession of a lessee tenant or a licensee would not become adverse - allowed Similarly trustees guardians bailiffs or agents who are holding possession on behalf of original owner cannot set up adverse possession - But where a person claims title to property by way of purchase even if has failed to prove his purchase but once it is clear from evidence that denied title of original owner possession of person should be treated as adverse to original owner - It appears that even if person fails to prove his title as per law by not obtaining any registered sale deed and by not applying Act his long and continuous possession hostile possession denying title of owner is sufficient to prove that has proved adverse possession – Appeal allowed (Para 38)
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
1. Since the issues involved in all the Second Appeals are common in nature they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. SA No. 1385 of 2005 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2005 passed in A.S. No. 4 of 1998 by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 06.04.1998 passed in OS No. 48 of 1982 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal District has been reversed.
3. SA No. 1554 of 2005 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2005 passed in A.S. No. 6 of 1998 by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 06.04.1998 passed in OS No. 20 of 1988 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal District has been reversed.
4. SA No. 1665 of 2005 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2005 passed in A.S. No. 5 of 1998 by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 06.04.1998 passed in OS No. 123 of 1987 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal District has been reversed.
5. The plaintiff in OS No. 48 of 1982 namely Utkoori Somaiah shall be referred to as plaintiff for the sake of convenience.
6. Utkoori Somaiah filed the suit in OS No. 48 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Jangaon, on 28.04.1982 against Jookanti Ramaiah, Jookanti Beeraiah, Jookanti Chandraiah, Godige Siddaiah and Puligila Mallaiah for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property i.e., Sy. No. 336/B to an extent of Ac.2-28 gts., Sy. No. 339 to an extent of Ac. 10-06 gts., Sy. No. 340/B to an extent of Ac.4-11 gts., totally admeasuring Ac. 17-05 gts., situated at Mallampally village, Kodakandla Taluk, Warangal District. Subsequently, he has also filed OS No. 123 of 1987 against Jookanti Ramaiah, Gorige Siddaiah, Gorige Sathaiah, Gorige Komaraiah and Gorige Ailamma for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their family members etc., from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands. The first defendant in OS No. 123 of 1987 is the first defendant in OS No. 48 of 1982 and the second defendant in OS No. 123 of 1987 is the 4th defendant in OS No. 48 of 1982. The defendants 3 to 5 in OS No. 123 of 1987 are not parties in OS No. 48 of 1982. Gorige Ailamma, the 5th defendant in OS No. 123 of 1987 filed a suit in OS No. 20 of 1988 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the same land against one Utkoori Jayamma and Utkoori Somaiah the plaintiff in OS No. 48 of 1982 and 123 of 1987.
7. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is the owner of the suit schedule lands and the said lands are not fertile lands and that they were kept fallow and used as pasture lands for several decades. The income from those lands was very meager. So, he wanted to purchase lands at Eturnagaram. Accordingly, he migrated to Sangampally village near Eturnagaram during the year 1969-70. There he obtained certain lands. It is his further case that he had entrusted the management of the suit schedule lands to the defendants on condition that he would pay half of the net produce excluding the cultivation expenses and land revenue towards their remuneration, accordingly he used to visit his village during harvest period and settle the accounts and used to pay the yield to the defendants as per the agreement. It is his further case that during the year 1980 the defendants by influencing the Patwari got entered their names as occupants of the suit lands and the defendants are also not showing proper accounts. Therefore, he demanded the defendants to vacate the suit lands in the year 1981. Further, at the request of defendants he waited for some more period and the defendants evaded to meet the plaintiff and refused to vacate the lands. It is also his case that the defendants have managed the Patwari and got entries for the years even prior to 1973 and 197
