Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SREE SUDHA
Osmania Medical College, Koti, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Mahanth Mahesh Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.SREE SUDHA, J.
SECOND APPEAL No.321 of 2022
This second appeal is preferred by Osmania Medical College, Koti, Hyderabad represented by its Principal, Government of Telangana represented by the Secretary, PWD (R &D), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and the E.E., South Building Division, Khairatabad, Hyderabad/defendants against Mahanth Mahesh Das & Smt.Gangabai (died per LRs respondent/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4), Anand Das & Meera Chandr Sekhar (plaintiffs).
2. O.S.No.313 of 1981 was filed by plaintiffs for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and also for mandatory injunction against the defendants and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on 03.05.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred an appeal A.S.No.291 of 2005 and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this second appeal is preferred by the defendants in the suit with the following substantial questions of law:
“i. Whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and since the land being Inam land, the authorities under the Inam (Talanana Area) Abolition Act, 1955 have the jurisdiction and since the plaintiffs have
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not barred by the grant of patta under the Inam Abolition Act, and the appellant must pr....
Point of law: Considerations in terms of Section 100 CPC arise only when there is substantial question of law and not mere such questions of law or one based on facts. The learned counsel for the res....
The court affirmed the temple's ownership of the property, ruling that the tenant's occupation was illegal after lease termination, and the suit for recovery of possession was maintainable.
A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord when he has acknowledged the landlord's ownership through payment of rent.
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
A dismissal of an earlier suit without merit does not preclude subsequent claims; the plea of adverse possession admits the owner's 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
