SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Kar) 67

Karnataka High Court
Judges : G.N.Sabhahit
LAXIMIBAI - Appellant
Versus
THOREPPA - Respondent
Second Appeal 891 Of 1975
Decided On : 03/08/1982

Adverse possession can lead to the perfection of title and can be a defense against a claim of ownership.

Headnote:

adverse possession - property ownership - Transfer of Property Act - Section 53-A - Limitation Act - Article 65

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff claimed ownership of two houses and filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. The defendant claimed adverse possession and ownership of the houses.

Finding of the Court:

The District Judge held that the defendant had perfected his title by adverse possession and that the suit was barred by limitation, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

Issues: Ownership of the houses, applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, adverse possession, limitation, and entitlement to mesne profits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that adverse possession started in 1937, and as the suit was filed in 1964, it was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's suit was rejected.

( 1 ) THIS, appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-4-1975 passed by the District Judge, Raichur, in Regular Appeal. No. 102 of 1970, on his file, allowing the appeal, on reversing the judgment and decree dated 29-1-1965 passed by the Munsiff, deodurg, in Original Suit No, 11/1 of 1964, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that one Rukmajappa was tile owner of two houses bearing municipal Nos, 619 and 620 situate in Deodurg Town. Rukmajappa left Deodurg in the year 1929-30 for Adoni and settled there. Before, leaving Deodurg for good, he leased out the houses in favour of the defendant on an yearly rent of Rs. 25/- with a stipulation that the, defendant should pay the house taxes also and maintain the house in good repairs. The said Rukmajappa died on 16-04-1931 in Adoni leaving behind him his son Subbanna and four daughters. After the death of his father Subbanna became the owner of the two houses and the defendant paid rents to him. Subbanna died in or about the year 1945 and, thereafter, the plaintiff being his only daughter, succeeded to the estate and the defendant paid rents to, her till the year 1960, It is further averred in the plaint that on 17-2-1961 the defendant not only refused to pay the rent to the plaintiff but also denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit houses by claiming title in himself. That led to the institution, of the present suit for declaration of title and for possession and mense profits, by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement. He contended that the suit was false and vexa- tious and non maintainable against him. It was barred by time, Proper and necessary parties were not on record. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file tile Suit. He denied the averments with regard to the payment of rent, as made in the plaint. He asserted that rukmaianpa sold the houses to him for a sum of Rs. 200/- before he left the town Deodurg. He then handed over the registered sale deed to him with the endorsement of agreement of sale, He also claimed that he effected his title by adverse possession.

( 4 ) THE trial Court raised the following issues as arising from, the pleadings: (1) Whether the defendant proves, that the value of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court? (2) Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit properties? (3) Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property act? (4) Whether the defendant proves that he has perfected his title to the suit properties by adverse possession? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit properties from the defendant"? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Past mesne profits of Rs. 75 / - '? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits ? (8) Whether the suit is maintainable? (9)Whether the suit is barred by limitation (10) Whether the suit has cause of action ? (11) Whether the Court-fee paid is sufficient ? (12) To what relief, if any is the plaintiff enntitled ?

( 5 ) THE trial Court, appreciating the evidence an record, held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit house and was entitled for possession and mesne profits as prayed for at the rate of Rs. 25/- per year. It rejected the contention of the defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant went up in Appeal before the District Judge, Raichur, in Regular Appeal No. 102 of 1970, of his file. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded by the learned District Judge. The plaintiff, however, came up in, miscellaneous, appeal before the, Court, in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 84 of 1972 and this Court by its Judgment, dated 19-4-1970 allowed the appeal and set aside tile order of remand by the, learned District Judge and directed that the















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top