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

2014 Supreme(Raj) 44

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Soc. (Radhakrishnan, J.)
HON'BLE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
HON'BLE A.K. SIKRI, J.
Union of India & Ors.
Versus
Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Civil Appeal No.4702 of 2004, decided on 07.01.2014

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sec. 34 read with Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 114 — Suit for decleration of title and possession — Onus to prove title is on the plaintiff — Revenue Records are not the document of title and entries in the record are not proof of title — Held — Title set up by the defendant even if found against them, plaintiff cannot take the benefit and must be non-suited in absence of establishment of title.

       Appeal allowed. (Paras 15, 17, 20 to 22)

        fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 34 lifBr lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 114 & LoRo o dCts dh ?kks"k.kkFkZ okn & LoRo lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gS & jktLo vfHkys[k LoRo ds nLrkost ugha gS vkSj vfHkys[k esa izfof"V;ka LoRo ds lcwr ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izfroknh }kjk vfHkdfFkr LoRo] ;fn muds fo:) ik;k tkrk gS rks Hkh oknh bldk Qk;nk ugha ys ldrk vkSj LoRo dh LFkkiuk esa vuqifLFkfr esa v;ksX; Bgjk;k tkuk pkfg;sA

       vihy Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 15] 17] 20 ls 22½


       

Hon'ble RADHAKRISHNAN, J.—The Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., the first respondent herein instituted a suit No.794 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration of title over land comprising 6 acres 30 guntas in Survey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village and recovery of the vacant possession from Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, the appellants herein, after removal of the structure made therein by them. The plaintiff has also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the above-mentioned land and also for other consequential refliefs. The City Civil Court vide its judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed the suit, as prayed for, against which the appellants preferred C.C.C.A. No.123 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 6.9.2002, but noticed that the appellant had made large scale construction of quarters for the Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be given to the appellants to provide alternative suitable extent of land in lieu of the scheduled suit land, for which eight months’ time was granted from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and others have filed the present appeal.

Facts

2. The plaintiff’s case is that it had purchased the land situated in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 of Kakaguda Village from Pattedar B.M. Rama Reddy and his sons and others during the year 1981-82. The suit land in question forms part of Survey Nos.60 and 61. The suit land in question belonged to the family of B. Venkata Narasimha Reddy consisting of himself and his sons Anna Reddy, B.V. Pulla Reddy and B.M. Rama Reddy and Anna Reddy’s son Prakash Reddy. Land in old Survey No.53 was allotted to Rama Reddy vide registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 (Ex.A2). In the subsequent re-settlement of village (Setwar of 1353 FASLI), the land in Survey No.53 was re-numbered as Survey No.60, 61 and 62. Ever since the allotment in the family partition of the above-mentioned land, vide the family partition deed dated 19.03.1939, Rama Reddy had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment and was paying land revenue. Rama Reddy’s name was also mutated in the Pahanies.

3. Plaintiffs further stated that the first defendant had it’s A.O.C. Centre building complex in Tirumalagiri village adjoining the suit land Survey No.60 of Kakaguda village. The first defendant had also requisitioned 4 acres and 28 guntas in Survey No.60 of Kakaguda Village in the year 1971 along with the adjoining land in Tirumalagiri for extension of A.O.C. Centre. Further, it was stated that 6th Defendant took possession of the above-mentioned land and delivered possession of the same to other defendants. The 3rd Defendant later vide his letter dated 18.12.1979 sent a requisition for acquisition of 4.38 guntas in Surevy No.60 for the extension of A.O.C. Centre. Notification was published in the official Gazette dated 18.09.1980 and a declaration was made on 30.06.1981 and compensation was awarded to Rama Reddy vide Award dated 26.07.1982.

4. The Plaintiffs, as already stated, had entered into various sale deeds with Rama Reddy during the year 1981-82 by which land measuring 13 acres and 08 guntas in Survey No.60, 11 acres and 04 guntas in Survey No.61 and 17 acres and 20 guntas in Survey No.62 were purchased, that is in all 41 acres and 32 guntas. Plaintiffs further stated that the land, which was purchased by it was vacant, but persons of the Defence Department started making some marking on the portions of the land purchased by the plaintiff, stating that a substantial portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff in Survey No.60/1 and 61 belonged to the Defence Department and treated as B-4 in their records. Plaintiff then preferred an application dated 12.09.1983 to the District Collector under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act for demarcation of























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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