Back
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Kuraganti Samuel – Appellant
Versus
Kambham Sangeetha Rao Died – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 20.04.2010 in A.S.No.28 of 2005, on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali (“First Appellate Court” for short), reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 16.11.2004 in O.S.No.175 of 2000, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali (“Trial Court” for short).
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2000, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. During the pendency of the appeal suit, the respondent i.e., plaintiff died and his sole legal representative brought on record as 2nd respondent in the appeal suit.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.175 of 2000 with a prayer for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of the same from the defendant and for costs.
4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.28 of 2005, on the file of the XI Additional Distr
(1) Tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor.(2) Second Appeal – Under Section 100 of CPC High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by First Appellate Cou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession claims must be supported by evidence and cannot contradict the findings of previous suits.
When there is a denial of title or a challenge raising a cloud, parties should file a suit for declaration of title, and adverse possession requires hostile possession denying the true owner's title.
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
The courts determined that undocumented claims to adverse possession were insufficient against documented evidence of eviction and title, emphasizing the necessity of continuous possession for claim ....
A claimant must prove continuous, public, and exclusive possession for adverse possession; mere possession or an unregistered agreement does not confer 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
