declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property. = The disputed site is 22.67 sq. yards of vacant site in front of and to the south of the plaintiff's house. It is occupied by the defendant who constructed a room together with latrine and bathroom. = Admittedly, the defendant has been in possession of suit property of 22.67 sq. yards by making constructions therein. In a suit based on title and seeking possession, it is for the plaintiff to prove his entitlement for the suit site; and the plaintiff cannot rely upon infirmities in the defendant's plea or case. - Admittedly, the suit site of 22.67 sq. yards does not belong to the plaintiff and he has no legal title to it. He claims rights by prescriptive title in the suit property. By sporadic acts of tethering cattle or parking carts, if any, cannot be equated with having effective possession of the suit land with the plaintiff. The plaintiff can prescribe title to the property only in case he knew the actual owner and to his knowledge, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the absence of there being real owner, who is known to the plaintiff, the question of prescribing title to the suit property may not arise. A person can prescribe title only against a real owner in case he is in possession of the property to the knowledge of the real owner. When the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and when he cannot prescribe any title to the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title much less for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant. Simply because the suit site is appurtenant site belonging to no party, the plaintiff cannot claim that he is entitled for the same. The lower courts considered entire evidence on record and came to right conclusion against the plaintiff on title as well as possession. I find no error or legal error in the decisions of the courts below. I also find that no substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. 5. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

SA 107 / 2013

SASR 44591 / 2009
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
MOHD. KHALEEL AHMED  VSMOHD. ISAQ
PET.ADV. : MOHD GHULAM HUSSAINRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: DECLARATION OF TITLE(IMMOVABLE PROPERTY)DISTRICT:  MEDAK

S.A.NO.107 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:                                         
Unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below is the appellant in the second appeal.  He is owner of house bearing No.4-1-134.  The defendant/respondent is owner of another house bearing No.4-1-189.  The disputed site is 22.67 sq. yards of vacant site in front of and to the south of the plaintiff's house.  It is occupied by the defendant who constructed a room together with latrine and bathroom.  The property is located in Basaweshar Street, Zaheerabad Town of Medak District.  In those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit in the trial court for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property.  After trial, the trial court dismissed the suit and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 
2.     In this second appeal, it is contended by the appellant's counsel that the suit site of 22.67 sq. yards is appurtenant site of the plaintiff's house and the plaintiff has been using the same for tethering cattle or for placing carts etc. and that he acquired title by prescription as he has been in possession of the same for over a statutory period.  On the other hand, the defendant/respondent contended in the courts below that the suit site belongs to him and that he constructed room together with latrine and bathroom therein with permission of Municipality.  But from the documents filed by the defendant, it is evident that Municipality gave permission to the defendant for such construction in house bearing No.4-1-189 only and not in 4-1-183 or at any other place.  
Admittedly, the defendant has been in possession of suit property of 22.67 sq. yards by making constructions therein. 
 In a suit based on title and seeking possession, it is for the plaintiff to prove his entitlement for the suit site; and the plaintiff cannot rely upon infirmities in the defendant's plea or case. 
3.     It is contended by the appellant's counsel that the constructions made by the defendant in the suit site are creating obstruction for his passage and that they are causing nuisance to the plaintiff by way of emitting foul smell.  This is not a suit based by the plaintiff for abatement of nuisance.  
This is also not a suit for interfering with the plaintiff's easementary right of passage etc.  
There is some space left by the defendant for the plaintiff to come out of his house.  
Therefore, the appellant's counsel cannot take up the said pleas for the first time in this second appeal, as they involve mixed questions of fact and law. 
4.     Admittedly, the suit site of 22.67 sq. yards does not belong to the plaintiff and he has no legal title to it.  
He claims rights by prescriptive title in the suit property. 
 By sporadic acts of tethering cattle or parking carts, if any, cannot be equated with having effective possession of the suit land with the plaintiff.  The plaintiff can prescribe title to the property only in case he knew the actual owner and to his knowledge, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 
In the absence of there being real owner, who is known to the plaintiff, the question of prescribing title to the suit property may not arise.  
A person can prescribe title only against a real owner in case he is in possession of the property to the knowledge of the real owner.  
When the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and when he cannot prescribe any title to the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title much less for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant.  
Simply because the suit site is appurtenant site belonging to no party, the plaintiff cannot claim that he is entitled for the same.  
The lower courts considered entire evidence on record and came to right conclusion against the plaintiff on title as well as possession. 
 I find no error or legal error in the decisions of the courts below. 
 I also find that no substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. 
5.     Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. 

_____________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
February 11th, 2013
JSK/PRV

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU






 

S.A.NO.107 OF 2013







February 11th, 2013


JSK/PRV

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.