Back
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
M. Anjaneyulu – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Mahaboob – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J.
1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 236 of 1998 filed in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty. He pleaded that he purchased the plaint schedule property on 20.11.1997 bearing Ward No. 9, D. No. 5-13, Dabada street, measuring East-West 66/2 feet and North-South 13 feet with specific boundaries in Pamidi Town of Ananthapur District from R.2 to R.4/D.1 to D.3 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. The appellant has pleaded that his vendors got the plaint schedule property under Registered Will dated 20.02.1959 executed by Smt. Bala Subbamma, who is said to be foster mother of one Smt. Saradamma mother of vendors of appellant herein. The plaint schedule property is said to be shown as item No. 1 in Ex.A.2 Will dated 20.02.1959. The appellant also stated that R.1/D.4 filed suit against R.4/D.3 Mr. K. Chandra Sekhar, for specific performance of contract on the basis of alleged agreement of sale dated 02.10.1983 in O.S. No. 39 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Gooty and obtained ex-parte decree of specific performance of agreem
Non-alienating coparceners are not bound by the alienation of the other co-owners.
Title and ownership claims in property disputes necessitate credible documentation; statutory presumptions apply to documents over 30 years old.
Parties must prove their title claims in property disputes, and long-standing adverse possession can extinguish demand for title.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such relief, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case.
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
