Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
Girajala Subbarao and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Kamireddi Satyanarayana and Ors. - Respondent
AS No. 149 of 1994
Decided On : 02.06.2014
Civil Law – Civil Suit – Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession – Decreed – Challenged – Appellant is the plaintiff in the above suit. Originally the suit was filed as OS on the file of the Subordinate Judge, it was later transferred to the Court of the II Addl. District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry and renumbered as OS No. 37 of 199 said suit was filed for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of plaint A and B schedule properties and to hold the sale deed Ex.A3 dated 23.1.1981 as void and for costs At the time of the filing of the suit, item No. 1 of plaint A schedule is in possession of 1st defendant/1st respondent; item Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint A schedule were in possession of defendant Nos. 2 and 3; and plaint B schedule/house was in possession of 2nd defendant Pending appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives are brought on record as appellants Nos. 2 to 7. The 3rd respondent died pending appeal and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives 2nd respondent also died pending appeal and respondent Nos. 7 to 13 were brought on record as his legal representatives –Held, It is well-recognised proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owners title must be peaceful, open and continuous possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the formers hostile action no dispute that had died even by the date of Ex.A1 Settlement Deed although the date of her death is not exactly known. PW1 stated in his evidence that she might have died in 1952. had no right to seek maintenance from or his estate under the law unlike who had such a right being the second wife of. Therefore, the life estate given to under Ex.A2 would continue to be a life estate till her death and under Ex.A1 the Settlement Deed dated 25.2.1957, it would vest in the plaintiff thereafter – Appeal is partly allowed
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.11.1993 in OS No. 37 of 1990 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry. The appellant is the plaintiff in the above suit. Originally the suit was filed as OS No. 214 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry. It was later transferred to the Court of the II Addl. District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry and renumbered as OS No. 37 of 1990.
2. The said suit was filed for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and to hold the sale deed Ex.A3 dated 23.1.1981 as void and for costs.
3. At the time of the filing of the suit, item No. 1 of plaint 'A' schedule is in possession of 1st defendant/1st respondent; item Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint 'A' schedule were in possession of defendant Nos. 2 and 3; and plaint 'B' schedule/house was in possession of 2nd defendant.
4. Pending appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives are brought on record as appellants Nos. 2 to 7. The 3rd respondent died pending appeal and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The 2nd respondent also died pending appeal and respondent Nos. 7 to 13 were brought on record as his legal representatives.
5. One Pemmanaboina Nagamma (for short, 'Nagamma') was the second wife of one Pemmanaboina Chowdarayya (for short, 'Chowdarayya'). The said Chowdarayya died leaving behind Nagamma and a son by name Pemmanaboina Suryanarayana Murthy (for short, 'Suryanarayana'), born through his first wife. The said Suryanarayana married one Pemmanaboina Subbayamma (for short, 'Subbayamma'). The appellant/plaintiff is the brother of the said Subbayamma. One Girijala Chinnamma (for short, 'Chinnamma') was the sister of Chowdarayya. The plaint schedule properties are the properties of Chowdarayya.
6. Subbayamma executed a registered Settlement Deed Ex.A2 dated 8.9.1939 in favour of Nagamma and Chinnamma giving them a life estate in respect of plaint schedule properties. Subbayamma subsequently executed Ex.A1 registered Settlement Deed dated 25.2.1957 giving vested remainder therein to the plaintiff after the demise of Nagamma and Chinnamma. On 25.10.1985, Subbayamma died. Nagamma sold item No. 1 of plaint 'A' schedule property to 1st defendant under Ex.A3 registered sale deed dated 23.1.1981. In 1981, the said Nagamma died. It is not disputed that Chinnamma also died although the date of her death is not proved.
7. The plaintiff filed the suit contending that once Subbayamma succeeded to the properties of Suryanarayana on his death, she executed Ex.A2 Settlement Deed dated 8.9.1939 and under the said deed, item No. 1 of plaint 'A' schedule property was settled on Nagamma for her lifetime and item Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule house were settled on Chinnamma for her lifetime; that after the death of Nagamma and Chinnamma, they would devolve upon plaintiff since under Ex.A1 dated 25.2.1957 the vested remainder in these properties were settled on him by Subbayamma (to take effect after the death of Nagamma and Chinnamma). He contended that Nagamma had no right to alienate item No. 1 of plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of 1st defendant under Ex.A3 dated 23.1.1981, since she had only a limited estate therein under Ex.A2 dated 8.9.1939 and therefore, the sale deed is void and does not him. He therefore contended that since under Ex.A1 Settlement Deed dated 25.2.1957, the vested remainder in item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of plaint schedule were settled, on him by Subbayamma, he is entitled for recovery of possession thereof from the defendants.
8. The 1st defendant filed a written statement admitting that the properties originally belong to Chowdarayya and also admitted the relationship between the parties but contended that item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property was given by Subbayamma to Nagamma for her maintenance; that Ex.
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
