Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
M. Narayanaswamy Naidu – Appellant
Versus
A.barathamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023 in A.S.No.58 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chittoor, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 11.09.2023 in O.S.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
2. The appellant herein is the 7th defendant and the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 6 & 8 to 13 herein are the defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 13 in O.S.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. It is to be noted here that during the pendency of the first appeal, the 2nd respondent therein died and the respondents 14 to 18 are added as legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, with a prayer for division of item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties and to allot 1/16th share to the 1st plaintiff and 5/16th share to the 2nd plaintiff and to put separate possession of the same and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 5 and 6 from in any way making cons
A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC requires substantial questions of law; mere disagreements with lower court findings do not suffice.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can only be admitted if substantial questions of law arise; in this case, no such questions were found.
The sale deed executed by defendants in favor of the 4th defendant was invalid to the extent of the plaintiff's undivided share in the property.
The possession of property by a co-owner does not amount to adverse possession against other co-owners unless clear ouster is proven.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between ancestral property and self-acquired property in a partition suit, and the requirement for evidence to support claims of jo....
Parties must prove their title claims in property disputes, and long-standing adverse possession can extinguish demand for title.
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
