Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Pidathala Girijamba W/o Venkataramana – Appellant
Versus
T.H. Nageswara Rao S/o Late T.G. Bhaskara Rao – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 422 of 2024
Decided On : 02-08-2024
Property - Title and Possession - CPC Section 100, 103 - The court examined the limitations on second appeals, emphasizing the necessity of a substantial question of law for jurisdiction, and upheld the lower courts' findings on title and possession based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of property, claiming rights through a sale deed executed by their predecessor. The defendants contested the suit, arguing lack of title and possession rights.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming their title and right to possession, which was upheld by the appellate court, dismissing the defendants' claims regarding limitations and title.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the plaintiffs had valid title and right to possession, and whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had established their title through valid documentation and that the defendants' claims were unfounded, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
1. The unsuccessful 1st defendant has filed the present Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2023 in Appeal Suit No. 6 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri reversing the judgment and Decree dated 6.8.2018 in O.S. No. 441 of 2005 on the file of Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri.
2. The parties in this second appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that One Hebbar Lakshmamma filed the suit in O.S. No. 31 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif, Penukonda, for specific performance of agreement of sale against Matta Surya and Hebbar Chalapathi (plaintiff’s grandfather). The said suit ended in compromise and compromise decree dated 27.2.1945 was passed with a condition to execute registered sale deed in favour of Hebbar Lakshmamma on payment of Rs.1,500/- by her within one year from the date of the said decree and that Hebbar Lakshmamma has got only limited rights of enjoyment over the property during her life time without alienation and the said property should devolve on her sons with absolute rights after her death. In pursuance of the said compromise decree dated 27.02.1945, Hebbar Lakshmamma paid consideration and obtained registered sale deed dated 06.04.1946 in her favour.
4. It is further stated that one Hebbar Prakash Rao is the son of Hebbar Lakshmamma and they lived together. While Hebbar Prakash Rao was addicted to vices and making efforts to alienate the property, Hebbar Lakshmamma to preserve the property executed settlement deed dated 26.08.1950 in favour of her daughter-in-law namely Hebbar Prasannamba with limited rights of enjoyment during her life time and the property should devolve on her children after the death of Hebbar Prasannamba. Further, Hebbar Lakshmamma, her son Prakash Rao and daughter-in-law namely Hebbar Prasannamba for their legal necessities and for the benefit of joint family sold the plaint schedule property to T.H. Bhaskar Rao (plaintiffs father) under the registered sale deed dated 09.09.1952/Ex.A-3 for valid consideration and delivered possession of the property.
5. While the matter stood thus, the defendants No. 1 and 2 and T.H. Rama Murthy filed a suit in O.S. No. 36 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Penukonda against the plaintiffs' father T.H. Bhaskara Rao for declaration of their title, delivery of possession and mesne profits. The said suit was decreed on 30.06.1980 wherein the appeal was preferred by T.H. Bhaskara Rao in AS No. 155 of 1980 was dismissed on 30.09.1986 and Second Appeal No. 197 of 1987 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, AP, Hyderabad was also dismissed on 20.07.1994. It is further stated that during the pendency of the appeal, defendants No. 1 and 2 recovered possession of the suit property from T.H. Bhaskara Rao and mesne profits from him. Subsequently, Hebbar Lakshmamma died on 14.05.1994 and on the death of Hebbar Lakshmamma, T.H. Bhaskara Rao became entitled to the suit property with absolute rights. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in S.A. No. 197 of 1987 dated 20.7.1994 that the defendants are bound to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Further, T.H. Bhaskara Rao died on 17.04.1997 leaving behind the plaintiffs No. and 2 as his legal heirs. Though the plaintiffs made efforts for amicable settlement, the defendants postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The possession of the defendants over the suit property is unlawful and hence, they are bound to pay past and future mesne profits. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit.
6. The 1st defendant has resisted the suit by way of his written statement. The 2nd defendant has remained ex-parte.
7. The 1st defendant in his written statement denying the averments of the plaint except admitting certain facts i.e. (a) D-1 states that T.H. Prakash Rao ha
AI
The court reaffirmed that a second appeal requires a substantial question of law, and upheld the findings of title and possession based on the evidence presented.
The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership and complying with the rules of non-joinder of parties and limitation in civil suits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents' claim of possession and tenancy was contradictory and not supported by evidence, and that the decree obtained by the first re....
Sale - Validity - Defendants were not interested or they did not try to bring their case before court and lead evidence in support of their case to with respect to sale deed being sham, bogus or frau....
The plaintiffs' suit was barred by law of limitation and estoppel, and the substantial questions of law raised by the plaintiffs were rejected.
The High Court's review in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-assess factual findings or interfere with the first appellate court's discreti....
A suit for possession is not barred by limitation if prior litigation has affected the rights of the parties involved. Ownership established through a Will takes precedence over claims of co-ownershi....
The possession of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest should be considered as the possession of the plaintiffs for the purpose of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, and the sale of immovable prop....
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
