suit for declaration that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the property from the respondent by directing the respondent to remove the tin shed construction and two rooms therein by way of mandatory injunction. - basing on allotment letter by defendant society and basing on injunction decree - mere letter of allotment cannot confer title as it is not a registered sale deed - Trial court and Appellant court rightly dismissed the suit despite of the fact that the defendant remained exparte = It is settled law that in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession, burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and he must succeed on the strength of his own title (Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira and Ors. [1] and Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others [2] ). None of the documents filed by appellant establish his title to the plaint schedule property and admittedly the appellant has no registered sale deed executed by the above Society in his favour.


SA 38 / 2016
SASR 24256 / 2014CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
V SARVESHAM  VSCHILUKU CHANDRAIAH

RESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: DECLARATION OF TITLE(IMMOVABLE PROPERTY)DISTRICT:  WARANGAL



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.38 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dt.17-04-2014 in A.S.No.95 of 2012 of the Principal District Judge, Warangal confirming the judgment and decree dt.18-07- 2012 in O.S.No.646 of 2010 of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 
2. The appellant herein is plaintiff in the suit. He filed the said suit for declaration that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the property from the respondent by directing the respondent to remove the tin shed construction and two rooms therein by way of mandatory injunction.
3. According to the appellant, a plot No.68 admeasuring 402 sq. yards out of Sy.Nos.232 and 234 at Lashkarsingaram village o f Hanamakonda Mandal, Warangal District was allotted to him by the Jawhar Armed Reserve Police Housing Co-operative Society Limited under an allotment letter Ex.A-4 dt.30-04-1983 after it had purchased an extent of Ac.6.32 guntas under registered sale deed dt.29-04-1983. He claimed that possession of the property was delivered to him under the above letter, but the respondent illegally occupied it and raised two tin shed rooms therein. He also claimed that an injunction suit O.S.No.587 of 1993 was filed by him against the respondent before the II Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal for permanent injunction and he obtained a decree therein in his favour. 
4. The respondent remained exparte. 
5. The appellant examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. 
6. By judgment dt.18-07-2012, the trial Court dismissed the said suit. It held that the documents relied upon by the petitioner do not prove the title of petitioner to the subject property and there is no corroborative evidence to prove Ex.A-4 letter dt.30-04-1983 referred to above. 
7. Appellant questioned the same in A.S.No.95 of 2012 before the Principal District Judge, Warangal. 8. The said appeal was also dismissed on 17-04-2014. The lower appellate Court also held that the petitioner failed to prove that he has title to the suit schedule property since he did not obtain any regular registered sale deed from the said Society and the decree in the Civil Court obtained by him cannot be taken as a proof of his title. 
9. Challenging the same, this Second Appeal is filed. 10. Although learned counsel for appellant sought to contend that the Courts below erred in refusing to grant relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession to the appellant on the basis of the allotment letter issued to him by the above Society, I am unable to agree with the said submission. It is settled law that in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession, burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and he must succeed on the strength of his own title (Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira and Ors. [1] and Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others [2] ). None of the documents filed by appellant establish his title to the plaint schedule property and admittedly the appellant has no registered sale deed executed by the above Society in his favour. 11. I do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law for consideration in the Second Appeal. 12. Therefore the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this Second Appeal shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 11-03-2016 Vsv/* [1] AIR 1959 SC 31 [2] AIR 2014 SC 937

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.

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.

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