Suit for possession and Injunction as consequential relief = Sec.68 of Evidence Act - Non- examination of attestator of Gift Deed is not fatal when other side admitted the Execution - Oral exchange of the property is not valid under Sections 54, 118 of Transfer of Property Act, Section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act and Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act - Adverse possession is not maintainable due to lack of continuous open hostile possession and due to inconsistent pleas - Lower courts rightly decreed the suit - second appeal was also dismissed= Annam Uttarudu (died) by LRs.,Annam Vidhyavathi, W/o.Uttarudu and others... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants Annam Venkateswara Rao, S/o.late Ananda Ramaiah... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff = published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10577

Suit for possession and Injunction as consequential relief  = Sec.68 of Evidence Act - Non- examination of attestator of Gift Deed is not fatal when other side admitted the Execution - Oral exchange of the property is not valid under Sections 54, 118 of Transfer of Property Act, Section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act and Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act - Adverse possession is not maintainable due to lack of continuous open hostile possession and due to inconsistent pleas - Lower courts rightly decreed the suit - second appeal was also dismissed=

 whether the court cannot place reliance on Ex.A2 gift deed as none of the
attestors was examined as contemplated under Section 68 of the Evidence Act to 
prove its execution.  =
It is true that none of the attestors of Ex.A2 was examined in the trial court.  
A careful perusal of Proviso to Section 68 of the
Evidence Act clearly manifests that attesting witness need not be examined
unless its execution is denied by the person by whom it purports to have been
executed; of course only exception is proof of Will.  
In order to dilute the
vigor of Section 68, the Legislature in its wisdom incorporated the proviso.
Thus, one has to read Section 68 of the Evidence Act in juxtaposition with its
proviso in order to understand the underlying object and scope of Section 68.
In the instant case, Ex.A2 is a registered document. 
 It is not the case of the
defendant that Seshamma denied the execution of Ex.A2 during her life time.

whether the denial can be by the executant alone, or by any party to a suit, who is adversely affected on account of the document, arose in many cases.
One view to which the Kerala High Court in Paramu Radhakrishnan v. Bharathan 
(AIR 1990 Ker 146), the erstwhile High Court of Oudh in Chandrakali v. Bhabuti
Prasad (AIR (30) 1943 Oudh 416) and the High Court of Nagapur Jodhpur in Zaharul
v. Mahadeo Ramji Deshmukh and Others (AIR 1949 Nag 149), subscribed, was that   
the denial need not be by the executant alone. This view appears to be correct.
If the expression is to mean the executant alone, serious consequences would
flow in cases, particularly where the executant is not made a party, but the
document is pressed into service against a person who is a party to the suit.
 It
is a different matter, that if the executant deposes as a witness and admits the
execution, the further steps may virtually become redundant. 
The 1st defendant in this case specifically denied the execution of Ex.A-1 by their father. 
Hence, the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not get attracted to the
facts of the case. 
In fact in the instant case, the defendant in his written statement
admitted execution of registered gift deed by their mother in favour of the
plaintiff.  In view the admission made in written statement and the principle
enunciated in the case cited supra, there is no necessity to examine one of the
attestors to prove the execution of Ex.A2 in this case.  Therefore, I am unable
to accede to the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the
courts below misconstrued Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
 Whether the oral exchange of  property is valid ? =
Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with exchange of
property, which reads as follows.
Section 118. Exchange 'defined'.-  When two persons mutually transfer the
ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both
things being money only, the transaction is called an "exchange".

A transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner
provided for the transfer of such property by sale.

15.     Section 118 of Transfer of Property Act postulates the procedure to be
following in case of exchange of immovable property. Section 54 of the Transfer
of Property Act postulates that sale of immovable property worth Rs.100/- or
more shall be by way of a registered instrument.  A fascicular reading of
Sections 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly manifests exchange
of immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- is only by way of a registered
document.  As per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, exchange of
immovable property worth Rs.100/- or upward shall be by way of registered
instrument. According to Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act a compulsorily
registerable document, if not registered, is inadmissible in evidence.

16.     The stance of defendant is that he got the suit schedule property by way
of oral exchange from his mother.  In view of Sections 54, 118 of Transfer of
Property Act, Section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act and Section 35 of Indian
Stamp Act, the plea of defendant is not legally sustainable.

Whether delivery of immediate possession is necessary for valid Gift ? =
The following principles can be deduced from Sections 122 and 123 of
Transfer of Property Act, which deal with gift of immovable property and also
the manner of its transfer.
(1) The gift of movable or immovable property must be without any consideration;
(2) The transfer of immovable property of value of Rs.100/- or upward, covered
under the gift, must be effected by way of registered instrument; and
(3) The donee must accept the gift during the lifetime of the donor.

18.     There is no stipulation in Section 122 or Section 123 of Transfer of
Property Act that the donor must deliver the property to the donee on or after
execution of the gift deed.  
In the instant case, Seshamma, natural mother of
the plaintiff executed Ex.A2 gift deed in favour of plaintiff without receiving
any consideration.  The plaintiff has accepted and acted upon Ex.A2 registered
gift deed, during the lifetime of his mother Seshamma.  Thus, the plaintiff has
satisfied all the ingredients of Sections 122 and 123 of Transfer of Property
Act.  As seen from the testimony of P.W.1, he has been residing in the suit
schedule property after execution of Ex.A2 gift deed.  In Ex.A2 itself, it is
clearly mentioned (in Telugu) as follows, "NEE YANDU NAAKU VUNNA PREMA VALLANU,        
NEE SUKHA JEEVANAM NIMITTAMOO, NEEKU EE DIGUVA AASTHINI CHENDACHEYU VUDDESYAMTHO                          
EE DIGUVA Ru.5,000/- KIMMATHU GALA AASTHINI PREMACHE PREETHI PHALANGA YENCHUKONI                    
VUCHITAMGA NEEKU DAKHALU PARCHI, DAKHALU AASTHINI EEROJUNA NEEKU NENU                    
SWADHEENAMU CHEYADAMAINADI".  A perusal of Ex.A2 clearly reveals that Seshamma          
delivered the suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 30.11.1984 itself.
This particular aspect was not considered by the courts below.

19.     The defendant, having admitted the execution of Ex.A2 gift deed by
Seshamma in favour of plaintiff, is legally precluded to take the plea that the
possession was not delivered to the plaintiff.  It is needless to say that any
amount of oral evidence contrary to the recitals of the registered document is
of no avail.  In view of the specific recitals in Ex.A2 gift deed, the
contention of the defendant that suit schedule property was not delivered to
plaintiff is not sustainable, viewed from legal or factual aspects.  In the
light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the
plaintiff has accepted and acted upon Ex.A2 registered gift deed.
whether defendant has acquired title to the suit schedule
property by way of adverse possession.  ? =
the defendant failed to establish that he has been in continuous possession
of the suit schedule property to the knowledge of one and all including the
plaintiff for a period of 12 years preceding to the filing of the suit.
Therefore the plea of the defendant that he acquired title to the suit schedule
property by way of adverse possession has no legs to stand.  On one hand, the
defendant claims title over the suit schedule property by adverse possession and
on the other hand he pleads that he came into possession of the suit schedule
property by oral exchange of properties with his mother.  These two pleas are
mutually self-destructive.  Viewed from this point of view also, the stand of
the defendant falls on ground.  The findings recorded by the courts below are
based on sound principles of law. There is no question of law much less
substantial question of law in this case, which warrants interference of this
court.
 In the result, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of possession of
suit schedule property and consequential perpetual injunction.  The appellants
herein are directed to deliver the suit schedule property with its structures to
the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from today.
       
30.     The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with a direction to the
appellants as above.  No costs


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY          

SECOND APPEAL No.111 of 2005    

29-11-2013

Annam Uttarudu (died) by LRs.,Annam Vidhyavathi, W/o.Uttarudu and others...
Appellants/Appellants/Defendants

Annam Venkateswara Rao, S/o.late Ananda Ramaiah...  
Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

Counsel for the Appellants:  Mrs.Y.Anupama Devi

Counsel for the respondent:  Sri H.Venugopal

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? CASES REFERRED:    

1. 2012 (3) ALD 423
2. 2010 (4) ALD 244 (DB)
3. (2009) 13 SCC 229
4. AIR 1934 All 574
5. AIR 2002 MP 79
6. 1971 APLJ 299

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY        

SECOND APPEAL No.111 of 2005    

November 29, 2013

JUDGMENT:
        This second appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the sole
defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.4.2004 in A.S.No.59 of
1996 on the file of I Additional District Judge Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam,
confirming in appeal the decree and judgment dated 30.7.1996 in O.S.No.43 of
1990 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kaikalur.  The parties are
hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the suit.

2.      The case of the plaintiff is that he is the younger brother of defendant
and they are immediate neighbours.  
Their mother, Smt.Annam Seshamma gifted 80   
Sq.yards of house site and some other site situated in Kaikalur in favour of the
plaintiff by means of registered gift deed dated 30.11.1984.  
The plaintiff
accepted the gift and took possession of the properties covered under the gift
deed.  
He has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule
property.  He erected cattle shed in the schedule site.  
Their mother passed
away 3 years prior to filing of the suit.  Defendant is a powerful person in the
Village.  
On 28.4.1990 when the plaintiff started to construct walls in the
schedule property, defendant interfered with such construction.  
The defendant high-handedly occupied the schedule property after completion of construction of brick walls on 20.6.1990.  
Hence, the suit for recovery of possession and perpetual injunction.

3.      The case of the defendant is that himself and the plaintiff are brothers
and that the schedule site is surrounded by the properties of their families.
They separated about 20 years prior to filing of the suit.  
He was gifted
Ac.0.02 cents of land by his uncle.  In oral exchange, he gave that Ac.0.02
cents to his mother and received the suit schedule property.  He has been in
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.
The plaintiff obtained
registered gift deed in respect of the schedule property by influencing their
mother.
Despite the same, he has been in possession of schedule property for
over the statutory period and thereby he perfected his title to suit schedule
property by adverse possession.  The allegation that he highhandedly occupied
schedule property is false.
Since the plaintiff is not in possession of the
schedule property, he is not entitled for injunction.  Therefore, the suit is
liable to be dismissed.

4.      In the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined Exs.A1
to A3 were marked.  On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and
Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.

5.      Basing on the oral, documentary evidence and other material available on
record, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for.  The defendant preferred
the appeal.  During the pendency of the first appeal, defendant died and
appellants 2 to 11 came on record as his legal representatives.  The first
appellate court, after reappraising the entire material available on record,
dismissed the appeal confirming the findings recorded by the trial court.  Hence
this second appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of defendant.

6.      The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is
whether the gift deed is valid, without delivering possession of property to the donee.

7.      Heard learned counsel for the appellants/legal representatives of original
defendant and learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff.

8.      The predominant contention of learned counsel for appellants is two fold:
(1) the trial court misconstrued the scope of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and
decreed the suit; and 
(2) the finding of courts below that the defendant has not
acquired title by adverse possession is not based on sound principles of law.
Refuting the said contentions, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the
defendant has taken mutually self-destructive pleas in the written statement.
He further submitted that oral exchange of property as set up by the defendant
is not really sustainable.

Point No.1:

     
9.      To substantiate the case, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got
marked Ex.A1, certified copy of registered sale deed dated 20.3.1939, Ex.A2,
registered gift deed dated 30.11.1984, and Ex.A3 photos.  To non-suit the
plaintiff, defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1, registered
sale deed dated 22.6.1973, Ex.B2, registered settlement deed 11.11.1973, Exs.B3 
to B7, house tax demand notices and receipts, and Ex.B8 photo.  D.W.2 was  
examined to prove that the defendant let out suit schedule property to her.
D.W.3 (Village Revenue Officer) was examined to prove the recitals of Exs.B3 to
B7.

10.     The testimony of P.W.1 and D.W.1 reveals that Annam Seshamma executed  
settlement deed in favour of plaintiff on 30.11.1984 (Ex.A2).  Their testimony
further reveals that Seshamma purchased the suit schedule property under
registered sale deed dated 20.3.1939 (Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered
sale deed).  In the written statement, the defendant has taken a specific plea
that Seshamma executed settlement deed in favour of plaintiff.  He substantiated
the same in his testimony as D.W.1.
  Learned counsel for appellant/defendant
submitted that the court cannot place reliance on Ex.A2 gift deed as none of the
attestors was examined as contemplated under Section 68 of the Evidence Act to 
prove its execution.  It is true that none of the attestors of Ex.A2 was
examined in the trial court.  A careful perusal of Proviso to Section 68 of the
Evidence Act clearly manifests that attesting witness need not be examined
unless its execution is denied by the person by whom it purports to have been
executed; of course only exception is proof of Will.  
In order to dilute the
vigor of Section 68, the Legislature in its wisdom incorporated the proviso.
Thus, one has to read Section 68 of the Evidence Act in juxtaposition with its
proviso in order to understand the underlying object and scope of Section 68.
In the instant case, Ex.A2 is a registered document.  
It is not the case of the
defendant that Seshamma denied the execution of Ex.A2 during her life time.

11.     Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to para 17 of
the decision in Raavi Nookaraju v Kotaru Latchayyamma1 and it is extracted
hereunder.
17. The last part of the proviso, viz., "unless its execution by the person by
whom it purports to have been executed, is specifically denied" was the subject-
matter of discussion in several judgments and interpretation thereof, was not
uniform. A plain reading of the expression, referred to above, would give an
indication that it is only when the executant of the document denies its
execution, that, the necessity to examine attestors, would arise;
notwithstanding the fact that the document was registered. A pertinent question
as to whether the denial can be by the executant alone, or by any party to a suit, who is adversely affected on account of the document, arose in many cases.
One view to which the Kerala High Court in Paramu Radhakrishnan v. Bharathan 
(AIR 1990 Ker 146), the erstwhile High Court of Oudh in Chandrakali v. Bhabuti
Prasad (AIR (30) 1943 Oudh 416) and the High Court of Nagapur Jodhpur in Zaharul
v. Mahadeo Ramji Deshmukh and Others (AIR 1949 Nag 149), subscribed, was that   
the denial need not be by the executant alone. This view appears to be correct.
If the expression is to mean the executant alone, serious consequences would
flow in cases, particularly where the executant is not made a party, but the
document is pressed into service against a person who is a party to the suit.
 It is a different matter, that if the executant deposes as a witness and admits the
execution, the further steps may virtually become redundant. 
The 1st defendant in this case specifically denied the execution of Ex.A-1 by their father. 
Hence, the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not get attracted to the
facts of the case.


12.     In fact in the instant case, the defendant in his written statement
admitted execution of registered gift deed by their mother in favour of the
plaintiff.  In view the admission made in written statement and the principle
enunciated in the case cited supra, there is no necessity to examine one of the
attestors to prove the execution of Ex.A2 in this case.  Therefore, I am unable
to accede to the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the
courts below misconstrued Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

13.     One of the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants is that Ex.A2
gift deed is non-est in the eye of law, in view of non-delivery of possession of
property to the plaintiff.  As per the testimony of P.W.1, her mother delivered
the possession of property covered under Ex.A2 to him.  The defendant, in the
written statement, has taken a specific plea that his mother exchanged suit
schedule property by taking Ac.0.02 cents of vacant site from him.  As per the
testimony of D.W.1, he got schedule property in an oral exchange of properties
with his mother.

14.     Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with exchange of
property, which reads as follows.
Section 118. Exchange 'defined'.-  When two persons mutually transfer the
ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both
things being money only, the transaction is called an "exchange".

A transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner
provided for the transfer of such property by sale.

15.     Section 118 of Transfer of Property Act postulates the procedure to be
following in case of exchange of immovable property. Section 54 of the Transfer
of Property Act postulates that sale of immovable property worth Rs.100/- or
more shall be by way of a registered instrument.  A fascicular reading of
Sections 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly manifests exchange
of immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- is only by way of a registered
document.  As per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, exchange of
immovable property worth Rs.100/- or upward shall be by way of registered
instrument. According to Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act a compulsorily
registerable document, if not registered, is inadmissible in evidence.

16.     The stance of defendant is that he got the suit schedule property by way
of oral exchange from his mother.  In view of Sections 54, 118 of Transfer of
Property Act, Section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act and Section 35 of Indian
Stamp Act, the plea of defendant is not legally sustainable.

17.     The following principles can be deduced from Sections 122 and 123 of
Transfer of Property Act, which deal with gift of immovable property and also
the manner of its transfer.
(1) The gift of movable or immovable property must be without any consideration;
(2) The transfer of immovable property of value of Rs.100/- or upward, covered
under the gift, must be effected by way of registered instrument; and
(3) The donee must accept the gift during the lifetime of the donor.

18.     There is no stipulation in Section 122 or Section 123 of Transfer of
Property Act that the donor must deliver the property to the donee on or after
execution of the gift deed.  
In the instant case, Seshamma, natural mother of
the plaintiff executed Ex.A2 gift deed in favour of plaintiff without receiving
any consideration.  The plaintiff has accepted and acted upon Ex.A2 registered
gift deed, during the lifetime of his mother Seshamma.  Thus, the plaintiff has
satisfied all the ingredients of Sections 122 and 123 of Transfer of Property
Act.  As seen from the testimony of P.W.1, he has been residing in the suit
schedule property after execution of Ex.A2 gift deed.  In Ex.A2 itself, it is
clearly mentioned (in Telugu) as follows, "NEE YANDU NAAKU VUNNA PREMA VALLANU,        
NEE SUKHA JEEVANAM NIMITTAMOO, NEEKU EE DIGUVA AASTHINI CHENDACHEYU VUDDESYAMTHO                          
EE DIGUVA Ru.5,000/- KIMMATHU GALA AASTHINI PREMACHE PREETHI PHALANGA YENCHUKONI                    
VUCHITAMGA NEEKU DAKHALU PARCHI, DAKHALU AASTHINI EEROJUNA NEEKU NENU                    
SWADHEENAMU CHEYADAMAINADI".  A perusal of Ex.A2 clearly reveals that Seshamma          
delivered the suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 30.11.1984 itself.
This particular aspect was not considered by the courts below.

19.     The defendant, having admitted the execution of Ex.A2 gift deed by
Seshamma in favour of plaintiff, is legally precluded to take the plea that the
possession was not delivered to the plaintiff.  It is needless to say that any
amount of oral evidence contrary to the recitals of the registered document is
of no avail.  In view of the specific recitals in Ex.A2 gift deed, the
contention of the defendant that suit schedule property was not delivered to
plaintiff is not sustainable, viewed from legal or factual aspects.  In the
light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the
plaintiff has accepted and acted upon Ex.A2 registered gift deed.

20.     In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am unable to countenance the
submission of learned counsel for appellants that Ex.A2 gift deed is non-est in
the eye of law.



Point No.2:
21.     Let me consider
whether defendant has acquired title to the suit schedule
property by way of adverse possession.
As per the testimony of D.W.1, he got
the suit schedule property in oral exchange from his mother.  His testimony
further reveals that he has given Ac.0.02 cents of land to his mother.  In the
cross-examination, he has given two different versions with regard to exact
location of Ac.0.02 cents of land purported to have been given to his mother.

22.     As per the testimony of D.W.1, he got the site adjacent to suit schedule
property under settlement deed (Ex.B1).  His testimony further reveals that he
purchased property under Ex.B2 sale deed.  After purchasing the property in the
year 1973, in order to make his entire property as contiguous plots, he has
given Ac.0.02 cents of site to his mother and taken suit schedule property from
her.  He constructed a thatched house in the year 1980 in the suit schedule
property and let out the same to D.W.2.  As per the testimony of D.W.2, she
resided in the suit schedule property as tenant of D.W.1 from 1973 to 1990.  She
vacated the premises in the year 1990 due to damage of roof.  As per the
testimony of D.W.3, defendant used to tether the cattle in the suit schedule
property.  The oral testimony of these witnesses is not consistent with each
other with regard to the manner of using the suit schedule property by the
defendant.  If the court believes the testimony of D.W.3, question of letting
out the suit schedule property by defendant to D.W.2 is far away from truth.  In
such circumstances, it is not safe to place reliance on the oral testimony of
D.Ws.1 and 2.

23.     As per the testimony of D.W.3, he worked as VRO of Kaikalur.  Ex.B3 is
house tax demand notice dated 10.1.1977 in respect of assessment No.1292, but
house number is not mentioned.  Ex.B4 is house tax receipt dated 17.1.1990
issued in the name of defendant for assessment No.465 in respect of house
bearing No.3-116.  Ex.B5 is house tax demand notice dated 21.2.1977 in respect
of assessment No.1292, but house number is not mentioned.  Ex.B6 is house tax
receipt dated 19.1.1990 in respect of assessment No.1292.  In the cross-
examination, D.W.3 in unequivocal terms admitted that defendant has two more
houses adjacent to suit schedule property.  He did not specifically state in his
evidence that old assessment No.1292 correlates to new assessment No.465.  There
is no convincing evidence to establish that the old assessment No.1292 and new
assessment No.465 relates to house bearing No.3-116.  Ex.B7 dated 20.8.1990 is
rental value register of Kaikalur Gram Panchayat for the year 1989-1990 in
respect of house bearing No.3-116.  The oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the defendant falls short, to establish Exs.B3 to B7 pertain to the suit
schedule property.

24.     Learned counsel for plaintiff has drawn my attention to Dr.K.I.Askari v
Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan @ Waleshan Prinice Mukkaram Jah Bahadur, HEH the Nizam    
VIII2, wherein it is laid down that "Merely because a person is in possession of
immovable property for a period of more than 12 years, he cannot acquire title
to the said property unless he pleads and proves that he perfected his title by
adverse possession".

25.     In L.N.Aswathama v P.Prakash3 in para 17, while dealing with the aspect of
adverse possession, the Supreme Court held as follows.
17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title
by prescription, that is, adverse possession for 12 years or more, the
possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open,
uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding
twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by
itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive
possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and
adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to
operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property
has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the
true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide P. Periasami v.
P. Periathambi, (1995) 6 SCC 523, Md. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, (2004) 1
SCC 271, and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007)6 SCC 59).    


26.     The above decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff
are quite applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

27.     Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decisions in B.Nihar
Chand v MT. Bhagwan Dei4, Dhananjan Bisen v Devi Bai5 and Surapaneni  
Purnachandra Rao v Surapaneni Seetharamaiah6.  All these decisions deal with the
scope of Sections 12 and 13 of Easements Act.  It is not the case of the
defendant that he is claiming right over suit schedule property by way of
easementary right.  Hence these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the
case on hand.

28.     In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to hold
that the defendant failed to establish that he has been in continuous possession
of the suit schedule property to the knowledge of one and all including the
plaintiff for a period of 12 years preceding to the filing of the suit.
Therefore the plea of the defendant that he acquired title to the suit schedule
property by way of adverse possession has no legs to stand.  On one hand, the
defendant claims title over the suit schedule property by adverse possession and
on the other hand he pleads that he came into possession of the suit schedule
property by oral exchange of properties with his mother.  These two pleas are
mutually self-destructive.  Viewed from this point of view also, the stand of
the defendant falls on ground.  The findings recorded by the courts below are
based on sound principles of law. There is no question of law much less
substantial question of law in this case, which warrants interference of this
court.

29.     In the result, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of possession of
suit schedule property and consequential perpetual injunction.  The appellants
herein are directed to deliver the suit schedule property with its structures to
the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from today.
     
30.     The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with a direction to the
appellants as above.  No costs.

31.     The order dated 15.4.2005 granting interim stay and the order dated
21.3.2006 modifying the same shall stand recalled.  The other miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

__________________________  
  (T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J)  
29th November, 2013

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.