So far as the title to the property is concerned, it need not be decided in the suit. It is an admitted fact that the defendant pleads that the plaintiffs are an encroachers of the “B” suit schedule property. Therefore, the possession is admitted. Apart from it, the brother of the defendant is said to have filed the suit earlier with regard to the same property whereunder the possession of the plaintiffs has been recognized. Therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the property to the knowledge of all. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, even if they have no right or title to the property, the only recourse open to the true owner is to file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property since the possession of the plaintiffs is for a longer time.-However, the appellant is at liberty to file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and pursue the remedies available under law.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO.695 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:-
The defendant in O.S.No.733 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor is the appellant herein.
The suit was one filed for permanent injunction with regard to plaint “A” and “B” schedule property which was said to have been purchased by the plaintiffs. So far as “B” schedule property is concerned, the plaintiffs are said to be in possession and enjoyment of the property since long time.  As the defendant tried to cause interference, the suit was filed for permanent injunction. The appellant herein has filed a written statement admitting that he has no claim with regard to “A” schedule property, but, so far as “B” schedule property is concerned, he claimed that it belonged to his grandmother and it is his ancestral property for which he has got right and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs is not proved and are only an encroachers.
The trial Court after considering the material on record, dismissed the suit and in an Appeal, A.S.No.122 of 2004, the learned District Judge, Chittoor has allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is sought to be filed.
Evidently, the claim of the appellate is with regard to “B” schedule property. So far as the title to the property is concerned, it need not be decided in the suit.  It is an admitted fact that the defendant pleads that the plaintiffs are an encroachers of the “B” suit schedule property. Therefore, the possession is admitted. Apart from it, the brother of the defendant is said to have filed the suit earlier with regard to the same property whereunder the possession of the plaintiffs has been recognized.  Therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the property to the knowledge of all. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, even if they have no right or title to the property, the only recourse open to the true owner is to file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property since the possession of the plaintiffs is for a longer time.
Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there is no substantial question of law to admit the Second Appeal. However, the appellant is at liberty to file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and pursue the remedies available under law.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.



_____________________­­__
N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J
20-07-2012
TSNR

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.