Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Kopparaju Gunichandill
Versus
Kopparaju Ramaraju Seshaya
Decided On : 4 August, 1924
Adverse Possession - Property Title - The court held that the appellant's possession was that of an ordinary trespasser and the burden was on the reversioner to show that she prescribed for a title less than that of a full owner. The court also found that the previous suit did not pertain to the property in question, and the appellant did not set up a title to the property as the widow of her husband. The second appeal was dismissed with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed title to the property by adverse possession, arguing that she possessed the property for more than 12 years after her mother-in-law's death. The respondent contended that the appellant's claim was barred by a previous decision in a different suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's possession was that of an ordinary trespasser and that she did not set up a title to the property as the widow of her husband. The court also determined that the previous suit did not pertain to the property in question.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's claim to title by adverse possession and the impact of a previous decision in a different suit on her claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden was on the reversioner to show that the appellant prescribed for a title less than that of a full owner. The court also emphasized that the previous suit did not concern the property in question and that the appellant did not set up a title to the property as the widow of her husband.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. Two points have been argued in this second appeal. The first is that Kamamma prescribed only for a widows title and secondly, that her claim to title by adverse possession is barred by reason of the decision in Suit No. 57 of 1914.
2. As regards the first point, there is no evidence that Kamamma ever declared that she was in possession of the plaint property in her right as the widow of her husband. The evidence is that her mother in law died in 1894 and after her death Kamamma was in possession for more than 12 years. Her possession was the possession of an ordinary trespasser and the onus is upon the reversioner to show that she prescribed for a title less than that of a full owner. Vide Lachhcm Kunwar v. Manorath Ram (1895) 22 Cal. 445 and Vengiduswamy Aiyar v. Narayanaswamy Aiyar (1914) 24 I.C. 880.
3. As regards the second point: there was no decision that the property in the possession of Kamamma was the property that she inherited from her husband Venkatarayudu. The previous suit was with regard to some property which is not the subject of the present suit. The suit was brought by a person claiming himself to be the adopted son of Venkatarayudu. As his adoption was challenged in that suit, Kamamma consented to be made the second plaintiff, and she pleaded that the property was in her possession as well as in the possession of first plaintiff. It is quite clear from Ex. B that she did not set up a title to that property as the widow of Venkatarayudu. Much is made of the fact that she adopted the pleadings filed by the first plaintiff. But that circumstance will not be sufficient to make out that with regard to the present properties she put forward a title which was antagonistic to her present title. We find both the points against the appellant and the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
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
