Back
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, SHAMEEM AKTHER
Patti@ Begari Ramaiah (died) per LRs. – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.
Since all these appeals are arising out of Common Judgment and decree dated 31.12.2015 in O.S.No.821 of 2010, O.S.No.264 & 265 of 2012 passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.
2. Originally, the appellants/plaintiffs filed OS No.821 of 2010 under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties mentioned therein against 36 defendants, O.S.No.264 of 2012 is filed by respondents 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 & 19 herein and O.S.No.265 of 2012 is filed by respondents 3 to 7, 15, 16 & 36 herein under order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of CPC for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in the respective schedules.
3. A.S.No.610 of 2016 is filed by the appellants against dismissal of suits in judgment and decree in OS No.821 of 2010, A.S.No.530 of 2016 is filed against judgment and decree in OS No.264 of 2012 and A.S.No.539 of 2016 is filed against judgment and decree in OS NO.265 of 2012 dated 31.12.2015, allowing the suits.
4. During pendency of the appeal, th
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based solely on the language provided. There are no direct references to subsequent judicial invalidation or rejection of these rulings. Therefore, based on the available information, no case law from the list can be definitively categorized as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed]
None explicitly mention subsequent affirmation or reliance in later judgments.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
Shri Uttam Chand (D) Through Lrs. VS Nathu Ram (D) Through Lrs. - 2020 1 Supreme 312: This case clarifies the criteria for adverse possession, emphasizing the need for continuity, publicity, and hostility. It appears to be a standalone clarification rather than a case that has been overruled or criticized.
[Legal Principles and Doctrine]
Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. VS M. Prabhakar - 2011 3 Supreme 569: Discusses delay and laches, doctrine of amity and comity, and constructive res judicata. The language suggests these are established principles, but there's no indication of subsequent treatment.
SRI GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE VS MEENAKSHI AMMAL - 2014 8 Supreme 133: Explains procedural aspects related to suits, appeals, and res judicata. These are procedural principles likely followed in subsequent cases.
Harish Chandra VS State Of M. P. - 1964 0 Supreme(SC) 228: Addresses the extension of central laws to Part B states, stating the repeal of state laws unless explicitly preserved. This is a statutory principle, not subject to overt treatment here.
Dagadabai(Dead) by L. Rs. VS Abbas @ Gulab Rustum Pinjari - 2017 4 Supreme 65: Discusses findings of fact and second appeals, and mentions Mohammadan law's stance on adoption. These are established legal principles with no indication of subsequent invalidation.
[Legal Relevance / Interpretation]
M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1: Addresses the legal points regarding Ram Janmbhumi, religious rights, and evidentiary considerations. It appears to be a case of significant legal opinion, but no subsequent treatment is indicated.
T. Anjanappa VS Somalingappa - 2006 6 Supreme 706: Explains the concept of adverse possession, emphasizing that possession alone is not enough without hostility. This is a legal principle, not shown to be overruled.
: Discusses legal procedures and res judicata. It seems to be a procedural guideline.
All cases in the list are presented without references to subsequent judicial treatment, overruled status, or critical commentary. Therefore, their treatment status remains uncertain in the absence of additional case law history or citations. The list appears to be a compilation of principles and rulings without explicit indication of their current judicial standing or treatment history.
The appellants' possession of the suit property is the settled possession and it has to be protected until they are evicted by due process of law. The respondent had lost the right to claim declarati....
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff's possession prevails over claims of title disputes, emphasizing the need for factual evidence of possession rather than just title claims.
To establish adverse possession, the claimant must specifically plead and prove a hostile assertion of ownership, disclaiming the original title from a particular date, which was not accomplished her....
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
Section 27 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides for extinguishment of right on lapse of limitation fixed to institute a suit for possession of any property, right to such property shall stand extinguishe....
Unregistered relinquishment deeds cannot establish ownership, and adverse possession claims require clear proof of exclusive possession and continuity which the plaintiff failed to provide.
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
