Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Potluri Somanath and Others - Appellants
Versus
Aluri Srinivasa Rao Died Per Lr and Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 1259 Of 2004
Decided On : 23-09-2024
Property - Joint Rights - CPC Sections 100, 14, 22, 33 - The court interpreted the necessity of parties in appeals, the bona fide purchaser doctrine, and the requirement for cancellation of sale deeds in property disputes, ultimately restoring the trial court's decree favoring joint rights.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of joint rights over a disputed property sold under two sale deeds to different purchasers. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court dismissed the suit, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court's judgment was found to be perverse due to misreading evidence and failing to recognize the necessity of all parties in the appeal, leading to the restoration of the trial court's decree.
Issues: Whether the Gram Panchayat was a necessary party, if a purchaser without verifying title can be bona fide, and if cancellation of sale deeds was necessary for a declaration of joint rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that all parties must be included in appeals, and a bona fide purchaser must demonstrate due diligence in verifying title, which the defendant failed to do.
Result: The Second Appeal is allowed, restoring the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT :
(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) :
O.S.No.96 of 1997 was tried and was disposed of by judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by learned Junior Civil Judge at Gannavaram on 18.08.2001. There were ten defendants in the said suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant No.2 alone preferred A.S.No.3 of 2002. Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada by judgment dated 16.08.2004 allowed the appeal and consequently set aside the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved plaintiffs preferred this appeal against the appellate Court judgment in terms of Section 100 C.P.C. There is sole respondent in this appeal and this respondent is defendant No.2 in the suit. Pending appeal he died. Appellant impleaded the legal representative of the deceased sole respondent arraying him as respondent No.2. Despite service of notice on respondent No.2, none entered appearance.
2. A learned Judge of this Court admitted this appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:
2. Whether a person who purchased the property without verifying the vendor’s title deeds can be a bona fide a purchaser?
3. Whether the plaintiff has to necessarily seek for cancellation of sale deed in a suit for declaration of joint right in the plaint schedule land?
3. On a memo filed for appellants the following additional substantial questions of law were also formulated on 22.03.2024:
2. Whether the first appellate Court got the jurisdiction to entertain the first appeal and set aside the trial Court judgment and decree in the absence of defendants 1 and 3 to 10, who remained ex parte in the suit, since the same is contrary to Order XLI Rules 14, 22 and 33 of C.P.C., is not such decree perverse? vide 2002 (06) 415 (DB).
4. Sri Radhakrishna and Sri M.Sri Atchyut, the learned counsels for appellants submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. Since none entered appearance for respondents, no arguments were submitted on their behalf.
5. Sri Vinod Babu and Sri Phanindra Babu are real brothers. Smt. Potluri Rajeswari is wife of Sri Vinod Babu. The appellants/plaintiffs are children of those spouses. The property in dispute is an extent of Ac.0.31 cents of dry land in Survey No.139/1 of China Avutapalli Village of Krishna District. Vivid description of it is in the plaint schedule. Surapaneni Anulatha and Surapaneni Vidyullatha are real sisters and are daughters of one Sri Surapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao. These two sisters’ maternal grandfather is Sri Maddineni Venkaiah. On 21.09.1971 the said Maddineni Venkaiah executed a registered Will under which he bequeathed certain properties to his granddaughters who are just referred above.
6. Surapaneni Anulatha and Surapaneni Vidyullatha executed two registered sale deeds on 22.01.1981. Ex.A.1 is one such registered sale deed. By this document they sold two items of immovable property to Smt. Potluri Rajeswari who is mother of the appellants/plaintiffs. Under the first item Ac.5.78½ cents of agricultural land spread over various different survey numbers was sold. Under item No.2 Ac.0.15½ cents out of Ac.0.31 cents in Survey No.139/1 was sold. It is referred therein that this Ac.0.31 cents is for joint way. Therefore, half of this which comes to Ac.0.15 ½ cents property was sold.
7. The other sale deed is Ex.A.2. Under this document Surapaneni Anulatha and Surapaneni Vidyullatha sold two items of property to Sri Potluri Phanindra Babu/defendant No.1 in the suit. Under item No.1 they sold Ac.2.54½ cents of land in various survey numbers. In item No.2 they sold Ac.0.15½ cents out of Ac.0.31 cents in R.S.No.139/1 to defend
The necessity of including all parties in appeals and the standards for determining bona fide purchasers were central to the court's decision.
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the transaction covered by Ex.A1 with reference to the claim of the 2nd appellant in O.S.No.431 of 1969 and also held the question of adver....
The plaintiff's earlier purchase and established possession outweigh subsequent claims of fraudulent title by defendants, affirming property rights under valid documentation.
Proper party inclusion is essential in property disputes, and claims of fraud must be substantiated by convincing evidence.
Plaintiffs must establish the identity of the property to succeed in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
Point of law - The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i....
The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plainti....
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
