Back
G. RADHA RANI
Kodur Pedda Yella Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Kodur Ram Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(G. Radha Rani, J.) :
This second appeal is filed by the appellants-respondents-plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2005 passed in A.S. No.22 of 2000 by the II-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2000 passed in O.S No.11 of 1994 by the Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction.
2. The appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit contending that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 were the brothers and that their grandfather, by name, Papanna and the great grandfather of defendant No.1 were brothers. The father of defendant No.1, by name, Gopanna was the son of one Ramulu. The said Ramulu was the son of Pedda Venkanna, the younger brother of Papanna. The defendants were the son and wife of Gopanna. During the partition, the lands were divided and Gopanna sold the suit land in the year 1954 to the father of the plaintiffs under a private sale deed dated 11.05.1954. The plaintiffs were in possession of the said land since then and were paying land revenue and their names were entered in the revenue records. The defendants were trying to di
A claim of title and adverse possession cannot coexist; plaintiffs must establish their title to succeed in a suit for declaration.
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
Parties must prove their title claims in property disputes, and long-standing adverse possession can extinguish demand for title.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
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.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
Mere possession for a long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming adverse possession, and unregistered documents may not ....
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
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
