Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, S. RAVI KUMAR, JJ.
Nakka Srinivas & Another - Appellants
Versus
Nakka Yadagiri & Others - Respondents
A.S. Nos. 862 of 2001,1641 of 1999, 1974 of 1999, 2395 of 1999, 1944 of 1999, 1958 of 1999, 2131 of 1999 & 1386 of 1999
Decided On : 28-04-2016
New Limitation Act – Article 65 – Seeking relief of eclaration that lay out obtained or constructions raised on the land is illegal and for a consequential injunction. Trial court dismissed this suit and aggrieved by dismissal of suit, plaintiffs therein preferred A.S.– O.S. was originally fled on 2-7-1981 which was registered as O.S. renumbered as O.S. and finally renumbered as O.S filed by N.Raghunandan and N.Jagan Mohan against N.Yadagiri and another seeking cancellation of sale deed in respect of 900 square yards of land and to declare the said document as illegal and void and for consequential injunction – Held, It is well settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is peaceful open and continuous and adverse to the interest of rue owner. Here Raghunandan and Jagan Mohan claimed possession basing on title. In case of recovery of possession based on right or title where defendant pleads adverse possession, the initial burden is on the defendant i.e., Yadagiri in this case – He clearly deposed in his evidence that he is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties from the date of family arrangement. Raghunandan as D.W.2 admitted in his evidence that Yadagiri is in possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.284 of Bagh Hayathnagar – Though recovery of possession is prayed for in respect of total plaint schedule properties, main controversy is only in respect of land in Survey No.284 of Bagh Hayathnagar. Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, was of the view that claim of both Raghunandan and Jagan Mohan is barred by time – Advocate for Raghunandan and Jagan Mohan contended that trial Court took that view relying on the old provisions of Limitation Act, but as per Article 65 of the new Limitation Act, suffice for Raghunandan and Jagan Mohan to prove their title and it is not necessary for them to show that they were in possession of the property twelve years prior to the institution of the suit. As already referred above, this proposition is not disputed by other side. Where recovery of possession is based on title and where opposite party pleads adverse possession the initial burden is on the opposite party to prove it and then the burden shifts on person who claims recovery of possession to rebut it. Article 65 of the Limitation Act deals with for recovery of immovable property based on title and Section 27 of the Limitation Act deals with extinguishment of right to property. It may be useful to examine both the above provisions – Order accordingly.
S. Ravi Kumar, J.
1. These appeals are filed challenging common judgment dated 3rd December, 1998 passed in O.S.Nos.2 of 1996, 69 of 1993, 70 of 1993, 50 of 1993, 71 of 1993, 3 of 1996, 1 of 1995 and 2 of 1995.
2. O.S.No.70 of 1993 is originally filed on 4-4-1980 which was registered as O.S.No.85 of 1980 renumbered as O.S.No.496 of 1982 again renumbered as O.S.No.214 of 1988 and finally numbered as O.S.No.70 of 1993 filed by N.Raghunandan and N.Jagan Mohan against N.Yadagiri seeking relief of eclaration that lay out obtained or constructions raised on the land admeasuring Ac.13-34 Guntas in S.No.284 and Ac.11-33 Guntas in S.No.285 is illegal and for a consequential injunction. Trial court dismissed this suit and aggrieved by dismissal of suit, plaintiffs therein preferred A.S.No.2395 of 1999.
3. O.S.No.50 of 1993 was originally fled on 2-7-1981 which was registered as O.S.No.172 of 1981 renumbered as O.S.No.221 of 1983 and finally renumbered as O.S.No.50 of 1993 filed by N.Raghunandan and N.Jagan Mohan against N.Yadagiri and another seeking cancellation of sale deed in respect of 900 square yards of land (equal to 752.49 square meters) in the eastern half of survey No.284 of Bagh Hayath Nagar village being document No.7557/79 dated 23-7-79 and to declare the said document as illegal and void and for consequential injunction. Trial court dismissed the suit, aggrieved by which, plaintiffs therein filed A.S.No.1944 of 1999.
4. O.S.No.69 of 1993 is originally filed on 24-9-1981 which was registered as O.S.No.995 of 1981 renumbered as O.S.No.304 of 1992 and again as O.S.No.196 of 1983 and finally as O.S.No.69 of 1993 also filed by Raghunandan and Jagan Mohan against Yadagiri and others for recovery of possession of Ac.0-04 ½ cents out of survey Nos.29, 51 to 55 and 69 of Saheb Kalan village appurtenant to Balaji Bavi; Ac.2-19 cents out of S.No.9 of Saheb Kalan village out of lands known as Bothalachilaka; Ac.6-37 Guntas (equivalent to Ac.6.92 ½ cents) which is eastern half portion of Survey No.284 of Bagh Hayath Nagar village and Ac.1.9 ½ Guntas (equivalent to Ac.1.23 ¾ cents of S.No.285 on eastern side and for mesne profits. Trial court dismissed the suit, aggrieved by which, plaintiffs therein preferred A.S.No.1386 of 1999.
5. O.S.No.71 of 1993 was originally filed on 2-7-1979 which was registered as O.S.No.617 of 1979 filed by one Koya Satyanarayana against N.Yadagiri and N.Raghunandan for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15-7-1967 in respect of Ac.3.23 Guntas of land in S.No.285 of Bagh Hayath Nagar and trial court dismissed the suit, aggrieved by which plaintiff therein filed A.S.No.1641 of 1999.
6. O.S.No.3 of 1996 was originally filed on 9-4-1986 and registered as O.S.No.147 of 1986 and renumbered as O.S.No.3 of 1996 filed by P.Varalaxmi and others against N.Raghunandan for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plot Nos.3 and 4 admeasuring 2852.44 square yards in S.No.285 of Bagh Hayath Nagar. Trial court decreed this suit, aggrieved by which, Raghunandan preferred A.S.No.1974 of 1999.
7. O.S.No.1 of 1995 was originally filed on 4-2-1987 and registered as O.S.No.50 of 1987 which was renumbered as O.S.No.1 of 1995 filed by one Dileep Champathirao Babde and another against Raghunandan and Jagan Mohan for perpetual injunction in respect of plot Nos.2C and 2D admeasuring 500 square yards in S.No.285 of Bagh Hayathnagar. Trial court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs therein, aggrieved by which, Raghunandan and Jagan Mohan preferred A.S.No.2131 of 1999.
8. O.S.No.2 of 1995 was originally filed on 11-4-1995 which was registered as O.S.No.124 of 1991 and renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 1995 filed by one A.Narender and another against N.Raghunandan and two others for perpetual injunction in respect of 363 square yards (0.03Guntas) in Survey No.285 of Bagh Hayathnagar for perpetual injunction and trial court granted decree in favour of plaintiffs, aggrieved by which Raghunandan preferred A.S.No.1958
gpt-4
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
