Dismissed

Smt.Lakshmi Narsamma, W/o.late Ramulu, Aged 75 Years v. v.Gandhi

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012SA/1189/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a second appeal in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The appellant, lacking documentary title, claimed ownership based on adverse possession of 5.30 guntas of land for over 12 years. The court held that no declaration of title could be granted as the defendants were not the true owners, and the claim must be against the recorded patta holder.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed with no costs.

Smt.Lakshmi Narsamma, W/o.late Ramulu, Aged 75 Years Vs v.Gandhi — Partition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

S.A.No.1189 of 2007

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The 2^nd plaintiff/1^st appellant represented by the second appellant as GPA holder filed the suit in the trial Court for declaration of her title to part of plaint schedule property ie. Ac.5.30 guntas in S.No.8 of Guttala Begumpet village, Rajendranagar Taluk, Rangareddy District. Though originally plaint was filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in respect of vast extent, the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 did not pursue the suit for the entire plaint schedule property and it was only the 2^nd plaintiff who pursued the suit in respect of only Ac.5.30 guntas out of the entire plaint schedule. It is her case that she is owner as well as possessor of the schedule property and that the defendants are trying to interfere with her possession of the same. The defendants opposed the suit denying the plaintiffs’ right as well as possession. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit. As against the said decree, the 1^st defendant filed appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree.

¶5

It is contended by the appellants’ counsel in this second appeal that in case, the lower appellate Court is of the opinion that the property is escheat property, it should have ordered impleading of the Government and enquiry into it should have been made in the presence of all necessary parties and that the lower appellate Court failed to do the said exercise. Operative portion of the appellate decree is to the effect that the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the 2^nd plaintiff. There is no operative portion in the appeal on any observations of the lower appellate Court about the property being escheat property. It is for the State represented by the District Collector who has to take appropriate steps as per law in case the property is escheat property. The scope of this second appeal relates to entitlement of Ac.5.30 guntas of land in S.No.8 by the 2^nd plaintiff. Admittedly the 2^nd plaintiff has no document of title in her favour for the said land. The 2^nd plaintiff based her claim on Exs.A.1 to A.11 and A.35 pahanis for the years from 1966 to 1979. On that basis, it is contended that the 2^nd plaintiff has been in adverse

¶6

possession and enjoyment of the said property in her own right for over the statutory period of 12 years. Mere possession of the land for over 12 years, will not confer title to the plaintiff on the land. It should be adverse to the interests of true owner. It is not the plaintiff’s case that the defendants are true owners of the schedule property. When the defendants are not true owners who are out of possession for over the statutory period, the question of granting declaration of title in favour of the 2^nd plaintiff as against the defendants will not arise. In the same pahanis, pattadar for the suit land is shown as one Ramalingeswar Rao. This suit is not filed against the said pattadar Ramalingeswar Rao or any legal representatives of Ramalingeswar Rao, in case he is no more. It is not as if the defendants are claiming rights in the suit land through the said pattadar Ramalingeswar Rao. Therefore in the present suit, the 2^nd plaintiff cannot have the relief of declaration of title to the suit property as against the defendants. This is not a simple suit for permanent injunction based on possessory title of the 2^nd plaintiff. This is a suit for declaration of title coupled with consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the 2^nd plaintiff is

¶7

owner of the suit land. In the absence of any document of title in favour of the 2^nd plaintiff and in the absence of proof of adverse possession of the suit land by the 2^nd plaintiff as against true owner Ramalingeswar Rao, the 2^nd plaintiff is held to be rightly not entitled for declaration of her title for the suit land and consequential permanent injunction. I find no error muchless legal error committed by the lower appellate Court and I find that no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal.

¶8

In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶9

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶10

Dt.7^th December, 2012

¶11

PNV

Smt.Lakshmi Narsamma, W/o.late Ramulu, Aged 75 Years v. v.Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lakshmi Narsamma, W/o.late Ramulu, Aged 75 Years v. v.Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Rama Rao Vs P. Adinarayana

Gajavalli Vidya Naga Venkata Sriramulu Vs Gajavalli Leela Venkata Kumar , Murali Kumar

P.Nagabhushanam Vs Ch.Narasimha Chari and 10 Others

M.Venkata Satyaramu, Vs Nunna Veera Venkata Narasimha Murthy

M. Satyanarayana Vs Smt. Asif Jha

Smt. Shanta Govind Raj Vs Santosh Industries