Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J.
Valeepu Juvvalamma – Petitioner
Versus
Mamidi Manikyam – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 156 of 2002
Decided On : 23-01-2023
ADVERSE POSSESSION - BURDEN OF PROOF - [ORDER 22 RULE 4 CPC] - SUIT ABATEMENT - [SECTION 100 CPC] - SCOPE OF SECOND APPEAL - [EXS.A1, A2] - REGISTERED SALE DEED - PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY - [EX.A3] - APPROVED BUILDING PLAN - BOUNDARIES - [ORDER 22 RULE 10A CPC] - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - SUMMARY: Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a vacant site. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision. The second defendant appealed, arguing that the first appellate court erred in considering the Advocate-Commissioner's report without examining the Commissioner, that the appeal abated due to the death of the first defendant, and that the plaintiff failed to prove his title. The High Court held that the first appellate court did not err in considering the Commissioner's report, that the appeal did not abate because the second defendant represented the estate of the deceased first defendant, and that the plaintiff proved his title through registered sale deeds and an approved building plan. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment of the first appellate court.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a vacant site. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision. The second defendant appealed, arguing that the first appellate court erred in considering the Advocate-Commissioner's report without examining the Commissioner, that the appeal abated due to the death of the first defendant, and that the plaintiff failed to prove his title.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the first appellate court did not err in considering the Commissioner's report, that the appeal did not abate because the second defendant represented the estate of the deceased first defendant, and that the plaintiff proved his title through registered sale deeds and an approved building plan.
Issues: 1. Whether the first appellate court erred in considering the Advocate-Commissioner's report without examining the Commissioner? 2. Whether the appeal abated due to the death of the first defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff proved his title?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the first appellate court did not err in considering the Commissioner's report because the report was part of the record and the plaintiff was not required to examine the Commissioner. 2. The High Court held that the appeal did not abate because the second defendant represented the estate of the deceased first defendant and the right to sue survived. 3. The High Court held that the plaintiff proved his title through registered sale deeds and an approved building plan, which created a presumption of validity in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment of the first appellate court.
JUDGMENT :
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J.
1. The 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 145 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif, Kothavalasa is the appellant. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Originally, the suit was filed by the respondent against the appellant and her husband (1st defendant) seeking relief of declaration of his title and consequential relief of permanent injunction, in respect of plaint schedule property, which is a vacant site to an extent of 4 yards x 2 yards with specific boundaries.
2. The appellant and the respondent herein after referred to as 2nd defendant and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants 1 and 2, seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction, in respect of plaint schedule vacant site, which is to an extent of 4 yards x 2 yards with specific boundaries. The plaint schedule is extracted here under:
PLAINT SCHEDULE
District : Vizianagaram
Mandal: Kottavalasa
Village: Tummikapalli
Class of Land: Vacant site Back yard of plaintiff’s house.
Extent: 4 yards x 2 yards = 8 sq. yards.
East: House and site of Mamidi Jaggarao.
South: Plaintiff’s house.
West: House and site of Valeepu Appalanaidu.
North: Public Rasta of 4 feet.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the vacant site described in the plaint schedule and marked as red in colour in the plaint plan attached to the plaint and the site to its south upto ‘Rajaveedhi’ originally belongs to one Vallepu Ramana Rao, who sold the said site including plaint schedule site to one Bobbari Lakshminarayana Rao under registered sale deed, dated 12.12.1983 (Ex.A2) and then said Bobbari Lakshminarayana Rao sold the entire site including plaint schedule site, under registered sale deed, dated 04.10.1989 (Ex.A1) to the plaintiff and delivered possession of the same. The plaintiff submits that he constructed house in the remaining site to the south of the plaint schedule site, as shown in the plaint plan and kept plaint schedule site vacant for the purpose of using it as back yard to his building and using the same by keeping his fire-wood and for bathing purpose. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that there is a public ‘Rasta’ of about 4 feet width, which runs from east to west to the north of the plaint schedule site and further north of the said public ‘Rasta’ and opposite to the plaintiff’s house and site, there is a house of one Pilla Ammanna and to the east of the house of Pilla Ammanna and to the north of the said ‘Rasta’ the defendants are having a site, in which they laid round hut. The plaintiff submits that the site of the defendants is not abutting the plaint schedule site, which is separated by a public ‘Rasta’ of 4 feet, which is also not opposite to the plaint schedule site, but the defendants are since some time proclaiming that they would trespass into the plaint schedule site though they are not having any manner of right. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction, in respect of plaint schedule site.
5. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff, by filing written statement, stating that the plaintiff is having his house towards north to ‘Rajaveedhi’ who constructed his house in the entire site, purchased by him from B. Lakshminarayana Rao, without leaving anything as a vacant site, due to that the plaintiff intentionally failed to mention in his plaint how much site he purchased from B. Lakshminarayana Rao and the plinth area with measurements of the house he constructed in such site, though the plaintiff is claiming that while constructing the house, he left vacant space of 12 feet east to west and 6 feet north to south. The specific contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff not left any site to the north of his house and made constructions in the entire site and there is no ‘Rasta’ on the north of the plaint schedule site. It is the contention of the defendants that to the north of site purchased by the plaintiff, there is a vacant
AI
A registered sale deed carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed, and the onus of proof is on the person challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that it is not valid i....
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove possession of the property as of the date of filing; failure to do so results in dismissal.
The court affirmed that in seeking an injunction over immovable property, examination of title is necessary if challenged by the opposing party.
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, and the plaintiff fails to prove lawful possession.
The court upheld that possession is key in injunction cases, reaffirming the presumption in favor of older title documents when evidence of possession is compelling.
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
