Dismissed

Sri Ramalayam Temple v. J Bhushanam (Died) and 6 Others

Telangana HC6 Jun 2023SA/14/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A suit for possession of agricultural land was filed within limitation after the plaintiff pursued remedies before the tenancy court and civil court. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applied to exclude the period spent in those proceedings, and that the suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act was not barred. The second appe

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Ramalayam Temple Vs J Bhushanam (Died)… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

t³²¹⁵ l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF^JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE^G.RADHARANI

¶8

SEC OND APPEAL NO:¹⁴ OF²⁰¹⁸

¶9

Appeal under Sectlon 100^{of CPC againstthe Judgmentand decree dated} 2BtO2l2O14 made in A.s.No.l18^{f 2009 on the file of the court of the Principal} District Judge, Khammam^{preferred against the Judgmentand decreein OS No'63} of 2OO1 dated 2510212009 on the^file of^{the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,} Sathupally.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sri Ramalayam Temple, Gangavaram,^{rep. by its President'} M.Sathyanarayana Reddy S/o.K.Venkata Reddy, Aged about^85years' Occ. Agriculture, R./o.Gangavaram Village, Sathupally^{Mandal, KhammanDistrict.}

¶12

...APPELLANT/ APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT

¶13

AND

¶14

J.Bhushanam^(died),

¶15

Jupudi Yesuratnam, S/o. Bhushanam,56^{years, Agriculture,} Rl/ir.Ramanagaram Village, Sathupally^{Mandal,KhammamDistrict.}

¶16

Jupudi Sundar Rao, S/o. Bhushanam,52^{years,EmployeeRamanagaram} Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam^Diskict.

¶17

Jupudi Azariah, S7o Bhushanam,^{50 years, Agriculture, Ri/o. Ramanagaram} Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam^District.

¶18

Jupu?i Swaraj Kuinar, S/o. Bhushanam,48^{years,Agriculture,} F/6.Ramanagaram Village, Sathupally^{Mandal,KhammamDistrict.}

¶19

Gudisa Kanakararatnam, W/o.^{Rajeswara Rao, 54 years, Household,} Ri/o.Ramanagararn Village, Sathupally^{Mandal,KhammamDistrict.}

¶20

Vadavalli Sridevi, W/o Piabhudas, 40^{years, Household,Rl/o. Rmanagaram} Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam^District.

¶21

..,RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS

¶22

SAMP. NO: 44872OF 2017

¶23

Petition under Section 151 of the CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^{be pleased to stay all} further proceedings in OS No.63 of 2001 on^{the file of Senior CivilJudge'}

¶24

¶25

¶26

Sathupatty,^{as confirmed in AS No.1 18 of 2009 dated 28-2-2014on the file of Prl} District^{Judge, Khammam.}

¶27

For^{the Appellant: SRI SREENIVASARAOVELIVELA, Advocate}

¶28

For the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : SRI D.JAIPAL REDDY, Advocate

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE^{HONOUILABLE Dr. JtlS'[lCE G. RADHA RANI}

¶32

SECOND AI'PEAL No. l4 Ot'2018

¶33

JUDGMENT:

¶34

This Second Appcal is trlcd by the appcllant-appellantdelendant against the.ludgment and dccree datcd 18.01.2014 passcd in A.S. No. ll8 of 2009 on thc trle ol' the I)r'incipal^District Jtrdge, Khammam, dismissing the appeal and coufittning the^judgment and dcoree dated 25.02.2009 passed in O.S. No.6l o1'200 I on thc filc ol the Senior CivitJudgc, Sathupally

¶35

The parties are hereinaficr lcf'erred as alrayed befbre thc trial co u rt.

¶36

The plaintiffs filed the suit lbr recovery of possession. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 were the sons of the plaintifl No.l and the ptaintiff Nos.6 and 7 were also added as [.cgal^{Repleserrta t} ives of^plaintilf No. 1 as per orders in I.A. No.483 ol 2002 dated 30.01.2004. The^case of the ptaintiffs was that one Sri Jupudi Yesuratnam, father of the plaintiff No.l, was given ou,nership ccrtificare in respcct of lands admeasuring Acs.3.00 gts., situatcd in Sy.Nos.733 to 738 and 832 to

¶37

¶38

835 oi Baithpally village under Secrion i8-E ol thc Arrclhra Irradesh (Telangar-ra Area)^'fenancy and Agricultur.al Lands Act. I 950 (lor. short^'the Act'). by the competent authoritl, in rhe vcar 1955-5(r. l'he tathcr of thc plaintilf No. I and a{tel his death. rhe plaintif'f r.*vo.l cultivatcd thc suit schedule propefty as owners and poss<:ssors till 1989.^'l'he defcr.rdant temple filed O.S. No.83 ol 1988 on the file of thc^(lourt ol- Distlict Munsif, Sathupally against the plainLil'l'No. I and anothcr lbr perpetual injunction. The said suit rvas disnrissed vide iudgrlent^{and dccreedated30.08.1991 holdingthat} lhc^lcf-endant tcmple rvas not cntitled fbr perpetual injunction against plaintiff No.l, but the delendant temple could continue in posscssiou ot'the suit schedule propcfly till the plaintiif No. I would take possession of the suit schedule propefiy through a court of larv. During pendcncy ol the above suit, a Commissioner was appointed to auction thc leasehold rights of the suit schedule propefty and some arrounts werc depositcd into the cour1. In the above judgment, it was further held that the plaintifl No.l was not entitled to take the deposited amorurt until he got possession of the suit schedule propefty through court of law and the delendant temple could take the deposited amount but lizrble to pay

¶39

I 1 I i { I

¶40

:t:. .:islr:trr ..,j

¶41

mesne proflts to the plaintiff No. I il- ordcred by thc corrpetcnt court in

¶42

future

¶43

Against the said^judgnrent, the plaintil'l' No.l arrd anotlrcr flled A.S. No.23 of I99l on the flle o1-the Court of the SLrbordinate Judge at Sathupally. Vide^judgnrent and decrce datcd 20.09. 1995, the appeal was dismissed confirming thc^jr.rdgrnent and decrec ol the District MunsiL When the dclendant ternple ttcspasscd into thc^sr.rit schedule property, the plaintillNo. I Illed a^petition belbre^{the Mandal} ILeveuue Olficer, Sathupally in the 1'car 1989.^{'I he} samc^rvas nurnbered as Tenancy Case in RC No. PJ82/89^f or restolation ol^the suit schedule property in favour ol thc^plaintitl- No.l drrecting^the det-endant temple to vacate the propefiy.^-['he Mandal Revetrue Officer vide order dated 23.06.1 990 held that the father ol the^plaintifT No.^I was given ownership certificate under Section 38-E ol^the Actⁱⁿ lavour of the suit schedule propefiy and advised thc^plaintilf No.l^to seek redressal from a court of law by filing a suit fbr^recovery of possession. Aggrieved by the sarne, the plaintilf No.l filed an appeal belore the Court of Joint Collector, Khatntnatn^{and the case was} nurnbered as C4 (A) 2190. ln the said appeal, the^{ptaintiffNo.l}

¶44

¶45

requested rlre.loint Coilector to er,,ict the de f.enriant tcntple. BLrt. the 'loint^('rlrecto. by his o.der, dared 22.og.lgg2hercr trrat t^e owncrship ccrlificatc Lrnde-r Scction 3g_E ol. tlrc Act rvas rssuecl to the lhthcr ol thc PIaintill No. I as long back as in the year. 195-5-56 and the lbthcr ol thc plaintifl'No. I and after hirn, the plaintiff No.l u.cr.c crltivatinq the sLrit la,ds lirr 5g1,sr.11 1,ear.s bLrt co,fir,tccl tltc I.icri ol.the MIIO rlrat the plaintifl No r shourd seek recovery of possession thr-.ugh a courl ol Iaw' and hence, disrnissed the appeal. Aggrievcd bv tf e sarne. the plaintifl- No I flled CRp No.420 of '992 belbre the Hillh CoLrrt of Anclirla Praclcsh.^'I'he High Court of A.p., by or.der.dared I I .12.199(t conflrrned thc linding that the plaintiff No. I ,s Iather \vas given ouncr\hip ccrlificate under Scction 3g_E of the Act in rcspect of the suit schedulc property but dismissed the CRp confirming rhe view,of the MRO as well as rhc Joint Collector thar the plaintifl No.l should seck lecoverv of possession of the suit schedule propertv from the delendant tempie through a civil court.

¶46

Afrer dismissal of O.S. No.g3 of lggg on the file of the District Munsil. Sathupally and after filing writ petition ir: the High Court, the def'cndant tentple vacated the suit schedule property and the

¶47

¶48

I i I I I I

¶49

plaintil)' No. I ente.cd ir.rto p.sscssi.. of Lhe suit sch.-dulc pror)crt) 'l'hcreafter, ln 1994-1995, the plaintiff No.l cr.rlrir ared thc suit schedule properrv tiil the year I997

¶50

ln the year 1997, rhe det-enclanr remple filed O.S. No.l(r of

¶51

1997 on the file ol the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally lbr perpctual rnjunctiou 'estraining^{the plaintiflis her.ei, liorn interlL,ringriitli its} possession and enjoyment of the suit schcdule pr.opel1,,. 'fhc def'crrdant ternple on obtaining intcrint injr-rnction in the above suit ride older dated 03. 1.1997 in LA. No. Il4 ol- 1997 enrcr.ecl inrcr possession ol'the suit schedule propert,. I-earned Junior Civil Judge, vide judgrnent and decree dated 31.07.200 I in the said sLrit held that the defendant was not entitled lor perpetual injLtnction to continuc in possession and enjoyment ol the suit schedule propcrly till the plaintiff No. I got the relief by fiting a suit lbr recovery ol possession ol the suit schedule property and dismissed the suit. As such. the plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No.63 o1200 I.

¶52

The defendant temple, represented by its president Sri M Satyanarayana Reddy, filed written staternent contending that the plaintiff No. I was not the natural son ol Jupudi yesuratnam. He was

¶53

I .*a:ll].

¶54

¶55

thc so, crl'..c llalc lrl Kanthaiah. rr lr. *as tlre broLhcr ol-Ycl;uralranr. The said Yesrrratnarn had no childrcn and rviFe. So, natrrrally the propclties of'\ csrrlatnant lvcre clcvolr,ed upon his Cllass-ll leeal hcirs. Hc got on lr, onc hrothcr i.e. Bale () Kanthaiah, r,",ho rvas no lltore. 'l'he said []alc 1r lianthaiah gor rhree sons, b1, narre, 1) prakasham, (2) Karrakaiah irncl _-i ) 13hushanarr. So. thc plaintif'fNo.l u.as not alonc u'ho got riqht in Llrc suit schedule propcft),. His br.other. pr.akashani and L.lls ol' Kanakaiah rvere also entitled lor a share in thc suit schedLrlt- propcr't. Thc boundalies shorvn by the plaintiffr; arrd the def'enclants in^().S. No.8_l of 1988 werc not one and the srnte. The cause of' action lbr f ilirrs thc suil showrr by the plaintifl's rvas lalse. The plaintillis lailcd to statc as to rvhen they acquiLed the propeft),, lrorl s,honr and l-ron they acquired the said property when Yesuratnanr dicd. fhc plaintifi' No.l never cultivated the land upto the ycar- 1989. As adntitted by hirn in the tenancy case that prior to the procccdings in 1989 he was dispossessed by Sri D. Veer.a Reddy. ln the .judgment in O.S. No.83 ol 1988, the lower coulr came to a cor-rclusion that thc plaintitTwas out of possession since l0 y,:ars. The plaintills mentioncd that they came into possession in l9gr4-95 and was in possession rill I 997 hut did not file a single document to prove

I I i

his possessi.n liom l994- 1997.^'l he sarre rvas creatccl rbr the purpose ol savir-rg the lirnitation. The plaintills were never in possession ea.licr a.d ncver carne into possession ofthe suit sclredulc properr\ at arrr tirrre ,ro.e pa|ticularly liorn 1994-1997.^'l'he suit claint ol' rire plaintilfs rvas barred by limitation. With an inte ntion ro save the linritation, they pleaded that thcy came into possession in 1994-95 and

¶60

rvas in possession till I997. l'he defendant tentple never.vacated the sLrit schedr.rle propertv at any tirne and the plaintilfs ue'er caute into posscssion as alleged. 1'he plaintilfs did not specifically rnention ir.r u hicl.r surve,r' nurnber said Yesuratnam got 38-Ll patta, whose llnd rvas cultivatcd by hini as tenant, who was the lessor of the land, r.vhich Iand rvas given as 38-E Patta, etc., the extent and boundaries were not spccific, the cause of action was also not specific, the suit rvas barrcd b1, limitation.^'fhe plaintiff No. I was not the sole legal heir ro the pattadar. Hc rvas not the natural son ofJ. yesuratnanr. A total extent ol Acs.4.l0 gts., of land was donated to the defendant temple by one Sri Amaravadi Sadasiva Rao about more than 50 years back. Sincc then, the def-endant temple was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. One Mandapati Satyanarayana Reddy, as president ol Committee, was looking after the maintenance of the said land. As

¶61

¶62

,'ti, -:

¶63

such. they \er.c n()t cnrirled to gc( tlie depositcd antount and prayed to

¶64

disnriss thc suit

¶65

[i' An additiorar * r'itte. state me nt rvas fired conten(ling thaL the

¶66

suit u,as bad fir. no,-.ioinder ol the u,ile of the plaintiff No.1 as his legal heir,

¶67

9 Basing on the said pleadings, the triat court framed the issues

¶68

as lollows

¶69

\'hcther thc plaintiff is entitled to recover possession oVer thc suit schcduie property liom evicting the clefindant as pr.a1,ed for?

¶70

Whcthcr the plaintifT is entitled lor mesn: profits as

¶71

pra;'cd fbr?

¶72

\Vlrcthcr- the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedu Ic are con.cct?

¶73

I Whcther the plaintilf has no cause ol actio;r to file the suit?

¶74

5 Whetlier thc suir claim is barred by limitation?

¶75

l'o what reliefl

¶76

Two other additional issues rvere Framed as follor.r..s:

¶77

Whether the suit is bad lor non-joinder of the wife of

¶78

the plaintifFNo. I as prayed fbr?

¶79

2 Whethcr the plaintiffs No.2 to 7 have no r.ight to get the suit claitn as prayed for?

¶80

¶81

l-he plaintitl No.3 uas exarnined as PW. I and [ixs.Al to A I I rvcre nrarked on behalf o1- the plaintiff.^-['he President ol Sri Ramalayaur^'l emple Sri M. Satl,analayana Reddy, was exarrincd as DW.l. lixs.UI to 818 \,erc rnalked on behalf of the defendant

¶82

i l.^'l-he trial coufi, on considering the oral and documentarv evidencc on record, observed that the dispute started 20 years ago in the year 1988 rvhen the suit rvas filed by the deferrdant temple vide O.S. No.8-l of'1988. Subsequent to O.S. No.83 ol 1988, thc plaintilf No. I f ilccl tcnancy casc betbre the Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 1989 tor restoration <l1'possession and the same was disrnissed with an observation that the pctitioner therein had to take possession througlr a coufl of larv. I-hc ordcl of MRO was confirmed in the appeal and also in CRP. [-ater, the delbndant tcrnple startcd second round of litigation by filing O.S. No.36 ol 1997 for perpetual injunction and lhe sarne was also disrrissed. Alter disposal ol O.S. No.36 of 1997, the plaintifl flled the present suit fbr recovery of possession. There was no dispute about the proceedings before the tenancy court or the suits in O.S.Nos.83 of 1988 and 36 ol 1997.

¶83

¶84

'i \n ,,

¶85

t2 [he tria] cour.t obscrr ing thar thc deftndant htd filed O.S No.83 of 1988 ancl O.S. No.t6 of. I997 shorvin_q thc plaintifl No.l herein as dcrenda,t a.d rrrat lrc ri'as dcsc.ibcd as Jupudi Bhushanam S/o.Bale in O.S. No.8j of- lgEti and in the subscquent pr.oceedings described him rs Sio.ycsuratltilnr held that hc rvas estopped fionr denying the said fact. Thc rr.ial court also obsen.ed thar though the plaintiffs failed to pr.oduce ig_[: cerrif.icate issued ln lavour ol Yesuratnam. hor.r,ever considerinq the order in tenancy r:ase in RC N82/89 marked as Er.A 10. and the adnrissions made by the defendant, observed tltat an infcrcncc coulcl be drarvn that the tenancy patta under Section 3g-ll rr,as _qrantccl in favour of yesuratnam. father of plainti[f No. l, fbr an exrcnr o1..Ac.-j.00 gts., in Sy. Nos.732 and g32 to 835.

¶86

l'he trial cou11, br r.clying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.V.E. Vcnkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.p, Templc and anothert wherein jt was held that being a civil case, the plaintifl is not expected to prove his title beyond reasonable doubt and a high degree of probabiliry lending assurance of the avail ability of title with hirn would be enouqh to shift '^AIR 200J Suprenre C.ourr 454g

¶87

¶88

':.: l'^:::'.

¶89

thL'orlus on the dcll'.dant, observed that lhe def'endant though asse.red that A,a.r'adi Saciasiva Rro had donatcd the land to an extent of Ac.4. I0 gts. consislinq of' sctcral suney nurnbers, failcd to adduce any evidencc i. suPport or'his assertiorr and the der'endant fhiled ro produce thc te,rplc .cc.rds showirg the receipt of donation and alier introduction of ltol{ Acr, no pass book was obtained by the derendant and the dcl-cndart fniled to rlle rclevant pahanies fbr the years r99u11995, 199(r-1997 drr.irrg *hich pcriod the prainriffs crai,'red to ha,",e assumed possession ancl clairncd to have been dispossessed in i997 subseque.r r. lllins O.S. No,g6 0| l()g7, held that the vcrsion ol'thc plaintills that subsequent ro disposai olCRp and O.S No.g3 of l9gg, the temple r'acated Lhe land in 1994 and the praintilrs remained in possession duling l9t).1-I997 appearcd to be probable.

¶90

l'he trial courr also observed that the wife of the plaintill No.I was not a nccessary part\ to the suit as there was no conflict of interest between the plaintifr! and co-sharers and the co-sharers were not necessary parties to the suit

¶91

On thc aspect ol Iinritation, the trial court observed that in view of Section l4 ol' the t.irnitation Act, the period fi.om l9g9 to

¶92

i-a.,,..

¶93

l)eccrrbcr 199(r had to bc crcltLclcd^{ancl thc plaintillsrvere trblc to} cstablish their possession dLrrirrg thc Pcritrcl^{lionl 1994-97 ur-rder} l;xs.Ai to A5 paharries. As^pcr Scctiot.t^{6J ol tllc L.inritation Act, tlre} suit or-rght to havc been filcd^{rr ithirrI} I l^{cars lionr thc date ol} dispossession, as thc suit^u,as lllcd^irr thc^{r car 100I} . it^{cotrld rtotbc} said that thc suit rl'as barrcd bv lirtritatiort

¶94

16.^'lhus. the trial court ansr.rercd^{all thc issues} in^{l'avoul of} the plaintil'l'as against the dc['endarrt^{atrcldecrcccl the suit as} llrayed lbr

¶95

Aggrievcd by thc said .iudqntcrtt artd^{dccrce.t[-re rleferldant} pref'erred an appeal. 1hc appcal^rras ltc-ttrd hr^{tl're learrredPrincipal} District .ludge in A.S.No. I l8 of^{l0()9 ancl rhc eppellatecotrrt liamed} the points for consideration as undcr

¶96

l. Whether the plaintill' is^e ntitlcd lbr^possession of^the suit schedule propert)"by'evictirrg^{thc de ['enrlant there} liom?

¶97

Whether the plaintiff's are entitled^{for tnesrteprofits.} Il so, to what quantum?

¶98

Whether thc suit is bad^{fbr non-joinder} ol^necessary parlies i.e. wil'e olthc lirst plaintiff?

¶99

Whether the suit is in time?

¶100

To what reliefl

¶101

¶102

The Iorver appcllatc courl considercd the evidence in detail and obselving the extents ol the suit schedule^{propefiy in} O.S No.83 of 1988 as Acs.4.I0 gts., and the prescnt suit schcdulc^{propefty was} only lor Acs.3.00 gts., and also obserr ing the boundaries^{referred in} both the suits, held that thc prescnt suit schedule^{property was parland} parcel of the propeny covcred in O.S. No.83 of 1988. The lower appellate couft also obscn'ed the ear'lier^{litigationbctweenthe parties} and observed that the plaintit'l- No. I^was rccognizcd^{as owner and the} defendant had no rights in thc^propertl and the^rights of^{the parties} were very much crlstallizecl. cven though the deflendant/DW.l^had taken up the second litigation vidc O.S. No.36 of 1997, the same^was also dismissed holding that thc donor A. Sadasiva Rao was never in possession and enjoyrrent ol'the propclly and that the^judgment and decree in O.S. No.83 of 1988 operates as res iudicata and^the defendant No. I herein i.e. plaintiff therein was not entitled lor injunction but he could continue in possession ol the property till the plaintiff herein (defendant No.l therein) obtained recovery of possession by filing a suit

¶103

l-1

¶104

19.^'l-hc lower apgrellate court obscr.r cci thar tlrc. r.ights of the a'cestors of the plaintirts r'verc c.r'sta ized by the tiocuurerts rnarked under Exs.Al. A2 and Ag and they establishcd that tlc propertl, belonged to the plaintiflNo. I through his lhrher.as per Se,:rion 3g(tr) Patta ceftificate u hich u,as having Icgal validirl, ancl the all:ged donor. by name Sadasiva Rao had no rights in the propertl,.

¶105

Thc tenancy case filed berore the RevenLre aLrthorities rvas also discussed in detair bv the iowcr appe,atc corr'1 ard obscr.r'ed that ail the documents rnarked as Exs.A 10, B l5 esrablished in dctail that Scction 38-E patta was granted to the anccstors ol.the plaintilT No. I recognizing his tenancy rights by granting such iratta arrd tltat hc bccame thc owner of the property and later he rvas disposscssed and the terrple authority came into possession and obscrve<l therein that the plaintifl No. I had to go for a civil suit lbr possession. The lower appellate court observed that the rights of both the parties were very much clear, the defendant temple had no rights over the property and the donation introduced was nothing but a myth. The lower.appellate court also agreed with the observations of the trial courl that the wife ol the plaintiff No.l - was not a necessary pan,v The plaintifls are also -' - >---

¶106

entitled^{lor mesne profits but theY were tc'r bc ascenained irl a scparate} application.^{With regard to tllc IillitaLiorlaspcctalso' tlre lorvcr} appcllate^{court observcd that thc plairltit'lrras dispossesscdurlder the} guise ol^{injunctionobtained br rhc detendant hercin' he tnadean} application^{belore the tenanc)cottrt' lbl rcsLllllptionof possessionand} whcn the^{tenancycourtheld that r-csLttttpriotlcoulcl not bL' lrrantedas} the renredy^{lor the plaintifl\'as to go lor strit lbl possessionbv} approaching^{a competentcivil courtatlcl considcringthe series of} dates tnetltioned^{therein hcldtlrat thc sLtitrr as lileci witlrirrthc pcliod} of limitation^{and the sarne \as u ell ri ithin thc tirnc l'1l"' ths lolt'er} appeltate^{coutt conflrrnedthe jLrdgnrcntarld decrce in O S No'63 of} 200t by^{dismissing the appealarrcl dir"ctedthc clet'enclantto deliver} vacant possession^{of the propcrt) rvithin threcrnonths tirlle fl'omthe} date of^{the said judgmenton 2E 02 201'1'}

¶107

2l. Aggrieved^{by the said juclgnrcntand decreein A S No I18} of 2009,^{the defendant pret-errcdthis second appealcontendingthat} the appellant-defendant^{fited OS No83 of 1998 on the file of the} District Munsif,^{Sathupalty against thc lespondent No lherein -} plaintitf No.l^{and the same s'as distnissedundcrExs Aland A2}

¶108

holdirrg that thc ap;rcllarrt hctcirt^rras in 1:rossessiotl ol''hc^propertl \ as not since 1980-8 I, [rorvcver, obselving that the l'' respondent entitlcd to interf-erc rvithout taking possession through pr,rcess ol larv and ag-erieved with the samc thc rcspondent No. I flled A.S rr-o.l3 ol l99l on the tile o1'Subordinate Court, Sathupally and tlrc iarttc^\as rlrsrnissed and as such, the tlndin-e as to possession ol'appcllunI tlr er AS the suit propert,v since 1980-81 was confirmed and beczrrtttr^llnal, such the suit filed in 200 I was barred by lirnitation. [ [e lirrther coutcndcil that both the courts belori'tailed to sce tltat thc r:spotrclct.tt No. I filecl tcnarlc)' case in Rc.No.82/89 bctbrc the \lR(). Siathupalll and challenging the sarne, he filed a writ pctition^rvl'tich crrded in disurissal and in the said proccedings also, the resltotrtlcrtt^No.I categorically admitted that the appellant rvas iu^posscssiorr of'^tlte propeny at least since 1980-8 l, as such the suit fited in thc^ycar 2001 rvas barred by Iimitation. He firrther contended that tlrcr:^\'erc llo documents filed by the plaintiffs to show that the plain: scl'redule propefiy belonged to them and there was also variation ol e.{tent. l-he simple suit fbr recovery of possession without seeking declaration^was not maintainable in Iaw. There was no clarity in which survel^trutnber the ceflificate holder was cultivating. The appellant^{temple had rrot}

¶109

¶110

vacated the properly and the plaintit'l's lrcvcr carrc illto posscssion olthe property.^-l-he appellant lurLher^{contetrdcci that Exs.A6 and A7} were not issued by proper authorities and the coltrts bclori liriled^to see that Exs.BI to 89 clearll established thc^{posscssion artd} enjoyment ol the appellant templc over sLrbject^{lancl alorrg u itl-t othcr} lands

¶111

On hearing the learned counscl^Ibr thr'^ir lrpc^{llant-clc t-enclant} and the learned counsel lor thc respondcnts-plairrtifl.s,^{this Cotrrl} admitted the second appeal b1' fr.arning the ftrllor.r'ing sLrbstantial question of lalv:

¶112

Whether the suit filed by the respondents/plaintifli^hercrn is within limitation as contcnrpl.rtcd urrder ArLicle⁶⁵ ol the Limitation Act?

¶113

Heard learned counsel ol- thc appellant-clelcndant^{and the} learned counsel for the respondents-p laintiffs

¶114

Learned counsel lor the appcllant contcnded^{that both the} coufts below erred in applying Section^{l4 of Limitation Act, 1963to} the facts of the case, the plaintilt' hatl 11oI plcaclcd an1' kind of exclusion under Section l4 of the Limitation Act to^{shou' that the suit}

¶115

¶116

\'as llled witlriu lirlitation, thc issue of' linritation w.as ccr.rtc.derl hr the appella.t irr thc writte, statcrncnt and a specific issue was fiarrcci b-r' both Llre c.rrrls .n this aspect but thc prairrtilr'rairccr to addLrce arrr e'idence irr tlris .egard, hcnce the trial court ought to have disbcricrcd the sarne . I-he plaintif)! had not cxer.cised due drliecncc ln prosecLrti,g tlrc nratter. r-hc p.oceecrings urcrertaken b1 trc prainrit'f-s were not Lrefbrc a civil court but belore the revenue autlor.itres. thc proceedinqs berbre the civir court rvere initiated b1, thc appelrant but rrot bv the resp.nclcnt/praintitT. once rirnitation star-ts, it *,orrrd rurr continuouslr,. Considering the period of the proceedings undcrtaker_t br the appcllant rn civil courts and excluding the same by thc cour[s bclow br, appll,ing Section l4 ol L.imitation Act was pcrvcr.se and prayed to allora rhc appeal.

¶117

25.^'fhc learned counsel fbr the respondent on the othcr hand contended that O.S.No.83 ol lggg was filed by the Archaka ol rhe temple in the year 1988 and the same was dismissed on 30.0g. 199 I . against whicl.r A.S.No.23 ol. 199 I and A.S.No.24 of I99l were prelerred and both the appeals werc also dismissed Su bseq uentlv, the [)resident of the Ternple initiated second round of litigatiorr by filing

¶118

¶119

o.S.No.36ofirgglandafter.dismissaIol.thesanrc,thcpIairltitl-tiled rhc present suit^{O.S'No.63 of 2001 within 5 months'fhe plaintitl'} belonged to a^{scheduled community arld was tightingrsainstthc} Let-trpleauthor.itiescontir-ruously.}{einitiatcdpar.allelprtleccclirlgs bctbre the reventlc^{authorities for recoveryol possessionancl rr as u ell} protected under Section^{I4 of the Limitation Actr\rticle 65 ot"l-he} Limitation Act^{was not applicableto the tacts ol the casc'as tilcrr: was} no pleading^{arld evidencewith regald to adverse posscssiotrtakcnb1} thc appe llant/de^{f'e ndant. All the points raisedby the appcllrrrrr irt the} glounds of appeal^{were answered by the courts belou} '^{the sLrbstantial} qucstion of law that^{was formulated had no basis' the appellantsrverc} not cntitled for^{anf indulgcnce by this Cotrrt arrd pral'ecl to disnriss thc} appeal.

¶120

As seen^{lrom the pleadings,.theplaintiff No ln'as} claiming title^{over the suit schedulepropertyby virlr're of Section 38-Ir} of the A.P.^{(TetanganaArea)Tenancy and Agriculturall-arrdsAct'} 1950, as his father^{was declaredas a protected tenant by the colnpetcnt} authority in the year 1955-1956^{and subsequently'altcr his dcath'thc} nlaintifl No.1 cultivated the^{salle as owner and possessor}

¶121

till 1989. I'he^{plairttifl.s contendcdthat tl'rc delir-rdant tcnlplc} tlespassed into thc sr.rit^{schedule property in the year 1!t89 andthc} plaintill' No.l tllcd a petition belbrc^{the N4andalRcvertue Olllcer',} Sathupally' lbr restoration of^{possessionby evicting th,: dei'endant} as teurple flom the schcdulc propefl)'^{and the same was nulnbered} -fcnancv Casc r ide I{.C. \o. R/8l,'89.^-lhe said tenzincy casc wils disposed by ordcr dated 23.06.^{I 990 whereinthe ManclalRcvcnuc} OUlcer cxtt'acted Section 38-E( l)^{u'hich would read as un([et':}

¶122

" oncc ar orrnership ccrtificatc is issued. the I)rotcctcd l-cnarrt hirttsell^hccontcs thc orvncr^and thc^(llcstion ol rcstoration of^{possessiouto stlchal')} o',rnel is no r)rore within thc^province ol^the lal'iild,rr. hc tlrrrt^prrreccding against^{a lrespJsscr} or against .l riral clairrtant. Ilaving tcgard to^thc langrragc of thc l:.rplanatiorl a^{protectcdtenantout} of posscssion could he rcstored only belore^a ccrlrllcarc a1^q,,rnership is^{issued to hirn- I'helact} that the provisions are benclicial^would not cntitle^a person to whom a certiflcate ofownership has been isstrcd to seck rcstotation if he happens to bc llo rrore a protcctcd tcnant but an owner. l-hc 'l ahsildar has ccrtainly no jurisdiction to take any proccedings for restoration ol possession after^the ccrtilicate of ownership had been issued.^l-he restoration of possession to a^protected tenant out^of posscssion is a stage prcceding the issue o1'a ccrtillcate.^-fhc ccrtificate of ou'nership^issued uithout putting the tenants it.t possession^belorethe

¶123

]

¶124

and obscrved^lhat

¶125

In this casc. thc^{pctiLioncr's fatlrcr was declared as terlant} urldcr Section i8-F-^{fbrSy.Nos732. 736 ro 738' 82-i'tl ii} ro 8i5 ol'llaithpalll'^{Villagcandbroughtto thellevcnue} Rccorcls as rle\^{o\ncr and tltc tctlat.tt has cultiratcdtlre} suiI schedulc land^{tol a longer periodwithout anydispLrte} rvith land holder and atier^{his death. the petitionerhasalso} cultivatccl the suit^{schcdulc land as a legal licir of the} tenant tbr about 5^{or 6 ycars andthereafter,he rvas} dispossessed by the^{eldcrsand tlrc Patel of thc Iillage} llcncc. ir is lbr^{the pctitionerto scck lor restoratiotl of} posscssion rn a Court o{'law^{bl' filirrg a suit lor recoverl of} ptlsscssittu."

¶126

27 . -l'l're order ol the Mandal Revenue Officer would disclose that the tiral^{list ol Section 38-L: prepared during 1955-I956also} would reveal that^{the petitioner'sl'ather was declaredas tenantr"tndcr} Section i8-E^{of the AndhraPradeshTenancy and Agricultural I.and} Flotdings Act,^{1950 for SurveyNos. 732,736 to 138,825' 833 to 835'}

¶127

28.^'l'hough the^{Mandal Revenue Officer recognisedtlie} respondent-p^{laintilfas owner olthe propertyby virtue of Section ]8-E} cerlificate but^{as no reliel lor restorationof possessionwas glanted to} the respondent-plaintiff,^{the petitionertherein ie'the plaintill} approached the Joint^{Collector by preferringan appeal'-l'heJoint} Collector also^{confirmedthe view of the Mandal Revenue Oflicer} observing^{that the resporldent-plain tiff No' lshould seekt ecover;'ol}

¶128

t -r',

¶129

PosSessrott throrrqlt c6ul.t of. laq a,cl d isrnissed thc appeal, against rvhich the prainri* p.ef'errcd ('.R.p No.420r of rgg2 berbrc rhe Iligh Courl o1' Andhra pradesh fhe I Iigh Courr of Andhra [,rarjesh by order dated I I.12. I996 contlrnrcd the findings ol. the Manrlal fts1,enr. Olllcer and the.loinr C_-ollcctor ohserr.ing that the plaintiff No. I should seck recovery of'possession by tiling a suit before the, civil court against the defendan t temple 29'^'fhe prairrtilf! ^rr-thc. co.rcrdcd that tlie delendant tcnrpre vacated the suit scheclule pr.opcrl.v alter filing the RevisiorL before the IJigh Court ol Andhra l)racicsh and rhe plaintifl No. I enter.ed into possession of'the suit schcdure proper-ty in rgg4-rgg.ancr ht: curtivated the suit schcdule propefty trll thc ycar 1997. In the year 1997, the defendant temple filed O.S.No.36 of 1997 on the file ol.Sr:nior Civil Judge, Sathupalli lbr p,peruai injunction and filed I.A.N.. I 14 of 1997 and by virtue o[. rhe order dated 03_i 1.1997 grantiH g interim injunction, the defendant once again entered into possessi.n ,rf the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs, horvever contended that O.S.No.36 of 1997 was disnrissed holding thar rhe plaintiff therein i.e., the appellant herein can continue in possession and enjoyment of thc suit

¶130

¶131

schcdule land till the rcspondent^{No. I (plaintifl)gets a reliefb1 liling a} suit fbl rccovery of possession. Alier^{dismissalol'the said suit on} i I .07.200 I , thc rcspondent-p^{la inti} l'l-^pret-erred the^{prescnt suit} O.S.No.6i o1200 I within a period ol^{Ilve nronthsi.c., by 2 I} l2.l00l

¶132

Both thc coufts belou, by applying^Section l4^ol- I.irnitation Act cxcluded the period liorn^I989 to^{Decernber1996,} during u'hicl'r the proccedings were^{pending befble the tenancy coull as} u,ell as thc civil court in O.S. No.8.i of 1988.^{The courts belou' also} considered ttre possession ol'the plaintiflduring^{the period h'onr 199'1} to 1991 under Exs.A2 to A.5^pahanies and^{held that the suit was not} bar-red bv lirnitation. Horvevet, the^{contention of the leamedcounsel} tbr the appcllant was that Section l4 of^{the LimitationAct was not} applicable to the plaintiff, as the civil^{caseswere filed by the} appellant/de lenda nt herein but not by the^{respondents-plaintiffsand the} proceedings betbre the Tenancy Coult are^not excluded^underSection l4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and that^{the plaintillNo. Iadmitted} befbre the tenancy court that he lost his^{possessionten years prior to} initiating the said proceedings before the Mandal Revenue^Officer, Sathupalli

¶133

¶134

In thc light of the above contention, it is considered

¶135

necessary to extract Sectron l4 ol'the [-irnitation Act, 1963

¶136

"Scction l-l ol'the [-irnitation Act, I96.1

¶137

l4 Lrclusion o['tinrc ol proceedinrs trona fide in

¶138

c()rIl \ iLltout iLrrisd ic t ro rr:-

¶139

( I) In cornputinl llrc pcritrtl of lirrrrtation lol an1. suir tlrc rinrc durinq rihich rhc plaintifi'has been prosecuting rr,ith duc diligcnce another ci\ il proceeding. whether in a coLrrt of first instaucc or ofappcal or revision. aqainsl 1hc dclcndant shall bc cxcluclctl- rvlrcrc thc pnrcccding relalcs to the sante n)attcr in issuc anrl is plosccLrtcd in goocl taith in a coun rrhich. Ilorn dcfcct ol .iurisdiction ol. o(her cause of'a like natLrrc. is unablc to cllrertain it. (2) In cornputing the peliod ol' linritation for auy application. lhc linte dLrring which the applicaLrt has bc,:rr prosccLrlirrq uith due diligcncc another ciril procccding. rrhctltcl rn a courl of [lrst instancc or ol'appcal or rcvision, against the sanre party lor the sante relicl'shall be cxcluded, where such proceedine is prosccutcd in good faith in a court r.r,hich. Iiont del'ect ol jurisdiction or other cauic^(ll'J like lritturc. i: uruhle to entcrlain it.

¶140

(3) Notwithstanding anyrhing containcd in rule 2 of Order XXIII ol the Codc of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions ofsub-scction (l) shall applv in rclation lo a lresh suir instituted on perrnission grantcd by thc court under rule I ofthat Order rvhere suclr pertlission is granted on the ground that the flrst suit rnust fail by reason of a defcct in thc julisdiction ol the court or other cause ol a likc naturc.

¶141

¶142

ar=.'

¶143

Explanation: I:or thc^pury()scs ol^{this scction.} (a) in excluding thc tirlc during u'hiclr a Ibrnlcr ciril proceeding uas pending, the^{da1'on rlhich} thal proceeding was instttttted^{and the dat on} uhich it endcd shall both bc cotrrltcd. (b)a plaintif) or an applrcant resistirlg an^appeal shall be deemcd to bc pro:cculing^{a procecditrg:}

¶144

(c) misjoindcr ol'partics ttr ol causes^{ol- actionshall} bc deemed Lo bc a^cause of^{a likcnaturewitl.t} de lict o f.jurisd ic tion."

¶145

The principlc^ol- Sectiorl^{l4 of Lirnitation Act is to protect}

¶146

a person honcstly'doing^{his bcst to get hiscasetriedon lnerits agaillst} the bar ol lirnitation. It^{is not necessarythat the plaintiffmust have} been prosecuting the^{previous proceedings as a plaintifl. He is entitlcd} to a dedrrction ol the^{periodof pendcncy ol the lolrner suit in which he} as delendant u,'as ul'ging^{the samc clairn as he alterwards prelersas} ptaintill. All that was recluired lor a^{plaintilfto prove was that hc} prosecuted the previous civil proceedings^{in good faith}

¶147

The lbtlowing conditions^{need to be satisfiedby the}

¶148

plaintif i-

¶149

a) l'hat he had been^{prosecutingthe previous suit with due} diligence and in^{good Iaith.}

¶150

b) That the matter in^issuc in lhc^{previous suit andthe new suit} arc one and tho sarne.

¶151

l',

¶152

c)^.l hat thc cout-t \as Lutahlc to cntcllain tllat sllit i)n accorrnf of. dcfect of'.lurisrliction or othet. causc of a likc natur.e.

¶153

By appl-"-in-q thcse principles to the present lacrs of- the

¶154

case, it could be see, that thc plai.tifi'had flled the tenarc) case befbr.e thc Mandal Revenue Olflcer. Sathupalli against the: del'endant (appellant herein) scekirg rhc s.lrre rcliel fbr rcstor.atio. of possessio. and the said Court rvas unabre to sranI thc relicf afier rhe issuance or ownership ceItificate under Section 3g_E satislying the above con d itious.

¶155

Lealned counsel lor the appellant lufihel. contended that the proceedings befbre a [e\ cllue courl were not coveretr under Section l4 of the Limitatio^ Act. Hor'c,cr. thc sarnc ar)pears to be untenable. Section l4 of the Limitation Act does not rnakc .nv distinction between a civil court and a rer enue court.

¶156

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh (D) by Lrs

¶157

Vs. Paramjit Singh2 held that:

¶158

"28. ....Whilc considcring the provisions of Section l4and its applicarion. this Court observed that a proper approach u,ill havc to be adoptecl and tlie provisions will have to be interpreted so as to advance cause o1' action rather than abort thc

¶159

r 1zot6; s scc cot

¶160

¶161

procccdlngs, inasrlLrch as thL. scclion is rntertrlcci tO prrrr irl,. rclicl lr,.rrrtsl h r ,'l Iirr)ililti,rI t Cu:!: ,,1 mistiikcrr rcnted\ or selccriorr ol'a \ronq li)runt." 31 ln M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner Ol'

¶162

Central lixciscr, the Hon'ble Apcx CoLrrt stated that a liberal

¶163

approach is recluir-erl in intelpretinu Se ction 1.1 of the Lirnitation Act

¶164

and held that:

¶165

"-19. The language of Scction 1.1. constrLred in thc light oi thc ohjcct lirr uhich thc prorision has been nrade- Icnds itscll' to such arr irlterpretatiou. Ihe objcct of'Scction l.l is that il its conditions afc othenlisc met. the plaintillTapplicant shoLrld bc pLrr in the sar]rc position as hc r,,as rrherr hc staned an abonivc procL'cding. \'hat is ncccssart is the absence ol' nculigcncc or inactii,n So long as the plainti('f' or applicant is bonalldc pursuing a lcgal rcmedy \ llich turn\ out l() bc rhortir c...

¶166

...This examplc also gocs to sho$' that the cxprcssion^"thc timc during which the plaintifl' has bcen prosecLrting ri ith due diligence another civil procceding" nceds to be construed in a manncr r.r,lrich advances thc objcct sought to bc achieved, thereby adr ancing the causc of j ustice."

¶167

Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a view to apply

¶168

Section l4 of the Lirnitation Act in a liberal rnanner to advance the

cause ofjustice.

'(2015)^{7 scc 58}

I -l// \

In the present case. the plaintilT tronafidell, pl.osecuted thc matter bcfbre the tenancv coLrrt seckins restoration ol l-rosscssion by fili.g an application ir.r the 'car 19g9. TIre appclla rt-dere.dant corltended that thc plaintif'f lost his posscssior.r I 0 r crrrs prior to initiating thc procccding in thc tc.anc."'' coLrrt.^'rhc or.dc. i, terarcy court marked as Ex.A l0 also would disclose that the Ad'.cate lor the petitioner argued that the resporrdent ri,ith thc srpporl or'sorre of the i'illagers and the village patel arrd pa[*ari dispossessetl rlre petitioner flom the sr-rit schedule land in the year l9ti0. Even il- the same is accepted, the petitioner had initiated the proceedings u,ithin nine ),ears i.c., in the year 1989 befbre the tena^c' court. Thc procccrJIng5 [cfo1g the tenancy court and the appeals liled by the petitioner against the said order before the Joint collector and the High court in civil Revision Pctition need to be excluded by appll,ing Secrion l4 ol'Linritation Act, as rightty held by the courts below.

¶174

The plaintiff also pleaded that he again carne into possession after dismissal of O.S.No.83 of' lggg as th: defendant temple vacated the suit schedule propeny and he cultivated the suit sclrcdule propefly during the period lrom lgg4-1995 LiU 1996_1997

¶175

l9 \i

¶176

He flled Exs.A3 to A5, the cerlilled copies ol paharries fbl the years 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 in^prool ofhis^{possession ofthe} suit schedule propeny during thc saicl period. lhe detendant^lailed to adduce any evidencc to disprove the said docuntcnts and^lailed to^show his possession over the suit schedule^property during^{thc said period} Hence, the said docurnents can tre belicved to consider that thc^plaintifl was in possession of the suit schedulc propcrt)' cluring the^saidperiod

¶177

41 . As per Afticle^(r4 of' I-inritation r\ct, thc suit fbr^recovery ol possession has to be filed within l2^years ol dispossession.^The plaintiff is contending that he ivas dispossessed by the dcf-endant in the year 1997 after obtaining interim injunction in LA. No. I l4 ol I997 in O.S.No.36 of 1997 by virtue of order^{dated 01.11.1997. The suit was} filed in the year 200 i i.e. within fbur^years of his dispossession. Hence, the suit was flled within the period of lirnitation.

¶178

However, this Court fblrnulated tl-re substantial question of law as: 'whether the suit tiled by the^{respondents-plaintiffs} herein is within the period ol limitation as conterrplated under Article 65 of the

Lirnitation Act?r --

Articlc 65 ol the L.irnitation Act is a res ir luarv article applying to suits lbr possessiort not other.u isc pr.o\ idcc Ibr. Suits t.rased on plainrifl-s title in rvhich thcr.e is no allcgation ol. prior Jr.sscssiorr^and subscquent dispossession arouc rvorrld lall u ithin Article 65

¶183

l'he plaintiff is declared as owner of the sLrit schcdule rrropefly^{br virluc} ol Section 38-F. certiflcarc. whe, .ne's titlc in 'cspect^{ol the propefty is dcclar.ed, the grant of r.eliel- fbr. recove^,of} possession r.r,or.rld bc a matter of course. unless the person ir possession ol'thc ploperty' has perfected his title by adverse posscssion.^.fhe possession of the individual would become adverse to thc true owrer, orrly' when the fonner recognises the title of the later and openly exercises right of his possession lor a continuous period of not lcss than l2 years. It is only then. rhat the person holding the rirle would be disentitled to recover possession. Since the title itself wc,uld becorne nugatory, in such cases, law requires the plea of adverse possession t.o be established firmly.

¶184

¶185

ilI

¶186

l'he Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranraiah vs N. Naravana

¶187

Rcddy (Dead) By Lrs.{ held thtrt:

¶188

"Aniclc 64 of tlte I-inritation Aci. 196i (Artrcle 142 oithc Limitation..\ct. l90li) is le,'tricted to suits for possession on tlisposscssion or discontinuance^o1- possessron. [n orcler to bring a suil rvithin the purvicu' of that articlc- it ntrrst tc short n that thc suit is in terms as rlell as in srrbstartcc lrasccl orr tlre allegation of the plaintil)'h r inq hcen rr^{p()sscsii()rl} and having subscquentll lost the^posscssion citlter by dispossession or by discontinuancc. Arliclc 6-i of the Linritation Act. l96l (Alticle l-ll ol the [.irnitation ;\ct- 1908t on the othcr hand is a residuary article appll rng l(r^\Lrits lor Ir()sscssron n()l other\ise prorided lbr. SLrrts hascrl on plarntitts'titlc in which thcrc is rto alle gltiort ol'^pt iot^posscssiott and subsequent disposscssion alone call lall within article 65.'l'he qucstion whether the article of limitation applicable to a particular suil is arliclc 64orarticle 65 has to bc deciclcd hr relcrcncc to plead ings. "

¶189

Arricle 64 of the Limitation Act conterrplates possession of

¶190

immovable property based on previoLrs possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in posscssion ol' the proper-ty has bcen dispossessed, the period of limitation is l2 years. The time lrom which, period begins to run is the date of dispossession. Ar-ticle 65 ol the Limitation Act pertains to adverse possession and the burden lies upon the defendant to prove that his possession has becorne advcrse.

'^{2004 AIRscw 4695}

On a perusal of the pleadinss, the appcllanr had not plcadccl or provcd or. flled any. counter clainr sccking adversc possessio.. 1-hc appellant was claiming that thc. pr()lrert' rr'as donatetl b,r'thc orrner, A. Sadasiva tteddy but no clocurrent u,as fllcd in proof ol_ tirc sante. Thc coufts below while holding that tho appcllant rvas har i,g .o .ight ovcr thc property observed that the do,rrtion introduced \'as nothing bLrt a myth. No temple records shorvinll the r_cceipt ol. donation n as fi lcd by the appellants.

¶195

Learned cotrnsel lor the respondents rr:lied upon thc .jLrdgrnent o1'the I.lon'ble Apex Court in T. Anjanappa and Othcrs v. Sonralingappa and anothers, wherein it was held that:

¶196

" 12. t hc concept ol' adversc possessicn (,,ntclltplatcs a hostile posscssion i.c. a posseisr, rr u}tich rs expressly or irnpliedly in dcnial ol rh. rir e ()f the true owner. possession to bc advcrse must te possession by a person who does not ackrowledoe the othcr's rights but denies them. The principte i,i Iaw is Iirmly established that a person who bases h s title orr rdverse p,rssession ,rit ,hu* b1 .t"u, unj unequivocal evidence that his possession ,^as hostile to thc real owner and amounted to denial c,f his tirle lo the properly claimed. no, a".ialni rvhelhcr thc alleged acls of a person constitutcl advcrse possession. the anirnus oi thc person doi,.,g (hose acts is the most cucial lacior. Adr.ersl possession is conrmenced in wrong and is nintc,l against right. A pcrson is said to hold the propcrr.,,

¶197

(2006) 7 SC( 570

¶198

adversely to the real o\rrc[ wl]en that Pcrsonⁱⁿ denial ol the orvncr's right crcluded hirr lrttm^thc enjoymcnt of his propertl.

¶199

I6. Adversc posscssion is llrtt li)rnr ol^posscssiott or occupancy of land "vhich rs incor)sistellt \ ith thc titlc of any person to rlltonr the^{lanrl rightlirllr} belongs and tends to cxtinguish that^{pcrsotr's tttlc.} whicl.r provides that no^persot.r shall^{nrakc art ctrtrl} or distrcss, or bring an actiorl to^rccovct atrl'^{land tlr} rent, but within trvclvc^years nc)it atl!'r tl.tc^tinlL' when thc right first accrucd. and docs a*ay^{u'rth lhc} doctrinc of adverse^posscssiotr. c\ccpl in thc^cascs provided lor by Scotion 15. I)ossession is^{not hcld to} bc adverse if it can be rcl'crrcd^{to a larr} lirl^titlc.

¶200

According to Pollock.^"In cotrttrott^{spcecll a} man is said to be in^posscssion ol'atrvthinq^{ol r"'hich} he has the apparent control or liotrr^{thcLrse ol'uhiclt} hc has thc apparent^po$ers ol^{cxclttding othcrs".}

¶201

lt is the basic principlc ol^{la"r of advcrsc} possession that (a) it is the lemporary arlil^abnornlal separation of the^property lronl^{the titlc ol it u hcn I} man holds property innoccnlll'against lll thc^$orld but wrongfully against the true^{o{ner; (b) il is} possession inconsistent rvith the titlc o[' thc^trLrc owner.

¶202

In I{alsbury's I953 Edition.^Volurne-l it^has been stated as follows:

¶203

"At the determination ol thc statLrtory^periotl limited to any person lor making^an entr)^or bringing an action. the right or title of^such person to the [and, rent or advowson, lor^lhc recovery of which such entry or action^might have been made or brought within^such period is extinguished and such litle^oannol afterwards be^reviewed either^{b,vre-entrvor} by subsequent acknowlcdgement.^{'f hc} operation of the statute is nterel;'^{negativc. it} cxtinguished the right and title ol^thc dispossessed owner and leaves the^occupant with a title gaincd by' the lact ol'posscssion

¶204

¶205

ilnd rcstinr on rl)c it)llrrnity ol.the right olthe others to eicct hinr,,

¶206

ll). it is rrcll recocnized proposition in law that ntire ll()\scs\ion ltou.evcr long docs not rtecessarihi r1c.lr\ tlrill it is a,lr,.,rsc to tltc lrlte orur.r. .tJuca.," ir.sses-sion rcally rnearrs thc hostile pnrs"r;;;; rltr.'rr i. ..rplcssh ,rr i11;Il1sJ1. in dcrirl'otl rirll ,,f llr( lrrrc ,)\ltcr. and ilt ordcr to C()nstiltrle tJ\ersc irosstssron. the .posscssion provcd must bc adcquatc ''r .r'tllintril. in prrbiicttl arrJ in cxtenr a. ,. ," ll,)\ lltitt rt rs adr ersr-, lo tl)c true ou.ncr. fltc classical leqLrirements of acquisition of tirtc tr" ,rJrt15,.. 1r,r5,,-.qqiott arc that ,raf, pnrrarr;,rn ii, , tlenill ol the true o!\ncr's title nrus; U" f",""n,i. .'rt,l lt.,slrlr.cn()USh 1.';r1 un.1, eurrrinuous. trr hs..rrh,a llrc p(,ssession olbeing rnust'hc knoru,r opcrrh, l r( l.ll trc. i tcr.cstc(l in th( pr(,pcrty. fhoigl: it is not iri.c\sAr',\ rhar rherc should be "uia"nl" nt ii.,"l Irilr cr';g 1111.5"rr..,r actrrallt, in[brnring the .cal owncr t,l tlte lirrrrrcr's Irostiic action.,.

¶207

[.car.ned counsel lor the r.espondents also relierl upon the .judgnrcnr oi' rlre I lon'ble Apex Court in T. Munichikkanna Rcd(ly and othcrs r. I{cvenlnra and Others6, wherein by rel1,in1; upon its earlier judgment ill Karnataka Wakf Board v. Government ot. India

¶208

[(2001)^l0 SCC 77gl n u,as hetd rhat:

¶209

.10. In Karrraraka Wakf Board (Supra), the law was slatcd. tlrus

¶210

" l l. lrr the cye of law. an owner would be dccrned to bc in possession of a propeny so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use oi the

¶211

propcn_v by the owner even for a long time \on'l rfl'ecl his litle. But the position will bc JllcrcJ rvhelr anolher person takes

¶212

n (zooz) r scc ss

¶213

-1.i

¶214

posscssioll ol the^{plopcltv alld assL'l1s a righl} over it. Adtersc^{posscssionis a hostilc} posscssiott b1'clcarty^{asserting hostilc titlcirl} denial ol'thc^{tiLlc of trtrc o'urrcr' Il is a rvell-} sctrlcd Principle thrt^{apalt)clainring} adverse^{posscssionn'ltlstpro\ c that hl5} posscssion is'ncc^{r i. ncc clam.ncc prccario"} ihat is,^{peacelirl,tlpcn and coutinuous-The} nosscssion musl hc^{adcquate in contiltuitr'} in publicitl 3nd^{in cxtclll to sh()\tl)at tltcir} poisession is advcrse^{to thc trrrc orrtler'It} irust start riilh^{a ri'rongluldispositron o{ thc} riglrtfirl orvner^{and be actual. r'isiblc'} "rclusiue.^{hostile and continucdovcr lhc} statutory^{pcriod.(Sec S.M. Karim vBibi} Sakinal AIR^{1964 SC1254. I)arsinnir'} Sukhi (1993) 4^{SCC 375 and D N} Venkataral-appa^{v.State ol' Karllataka} ( I 997) 7 SCC⁵⁶⁷ )^{Phvsit ;rl lhct ol} cxclusive^{possession ancl thc anitlltts} possidendi to hold^{as ou'ner in crclttsion to} ihe actual owneI^{arc thc most inlporlant} factors tltat^{are to be accountcditl cases ol'} this nature-^{Plea ofadvcrsepossession is not} a pure^{question ol larvbut a blcnded one ol} lact and la\'.^Therefbrc.a Person^{rvho claitns} advcrse^{possession shouldshou(a) otl rrhat} date he^{camc into posscssion.(h) ''rhatrras} thc nature of^{his possession, (c) rvhcthcrthe} thctum of^{possession was knowllto thc othcr} party, (d) how^{long his possessionhas} continued,^{and (e) his posscssiunwas olcl)} and undisturbed.^{A pcrsonpleading adversc} possession 'Since has no^{equiticsin his f'avour'} he is trying^{to deleatthc rights of trLre} owner, it is^{for him to clearly plead and} establish all^{lacts necessaryto establishhis} adverse^{posscssion. "}

¶215

Inquiry inlo^{the purlicularsof Adversc I'ossessiort}

¶216

[nquiry^{ir.rto the starling point of adverse} posscssion^{i.e. dates as 1o whetlthe paperownergot} dispossessed^{is an important aspect tobe-} considered.^{In the instantcase thc startingpoint of} adverse^{possession andOthcr} R": :1:n^{ut tn'}

¶217

i(;

¶218

nnr':ncl irr rrhich thc possessiorr operationfllizcd. rrtllrrc ,11 l,,:sc\tort rr ht.tltcr opcn. c0t)liIlrol.li. Lrntt']te rnrllta(l or hoslilc ltosscssiolt _ haVc not becn discloscd .\rt ohserratiorr has bccn ntade in this rcsirrd rr S \1. Kirr.inr v. VIst. Bibi Sakina IAlR l116.l S( l l-;.1 l:

¶219

.&l

¶220

".\ilrcrsc ;:rosscssion lrust he atlcquate in c()rlinuil-. itr publicitl and cxtent anci a pk.a is reLluircd itt thc least to shorv when Ir()ssei:\ior) bccrirncs adrersc so that the slillliI! poii)t 0l'Iinritation against the pan), :rlli.te,l r'.rrr he liruntl. lherc is n,.r erijcnce Ircrc rrlren posscssion becamc adversc. if it rut all did. arrd a nterc suggestion in the relicf clrrrr:c llr:rl tltcre rras an uninterrupted llo\sc\iolt lirr^"scVcral l2 _vcars', or thai thc plailtill' hirrl ac(luircd^,,an absolutc titlc,' was lr()t .n()uolt to raise sLrch a plca. Lonq ll()\sc\ioll i\ tlot ncccssarily aduerse I)i,.\t,\r,,r) .rr,.l tlr,.. prlrer clausc is not .r srrlrsrilurc lirr a p lca. "

¶221

(cmphasis supplied )

¶222

In Lhc prcsL-nr c.tse. thcre is no plca oladverse possession

¶223

taken by the appc llant-dc f-end ant and the same was not proved and the appellant was clairling title through one Sadasiva Rao, who was alleged to har..c cl.nated thc said propefty. As per the observations of the tenancy court as \ell as thc civil courts, the appellant-defendant failed to file any document ro show that Sadasiva Rao ha:l any title over the propcrly and failcd to file any document to show that the said property was donated to the said tcrnple and as such, faile,J to prove the said donation. When the appellant-defendant was claiming

¶224

-17

¶225

possessiotl ol'thc^{prope rty lhrough title' thc pleaol advelsrposscssir)tl} is not^{available to hirn. As such, the substantial questionof la\'} tbrmulatcd^{hls rlo basis}

¶226

I [crrce,^{Article 65 of the t''inritationAct is not applicable} to tlic tacts^{of thecaseand there are no tneritsin the second appeal'}

¶227

Therefblc. thc^{satne is liableto be disrnissed'}

¶228

In^{the result,the Second Appeatis dismissed contirming} thc^{judgrlcrrtand dccrccdated 28 02 2014 passed in AS No ll8 ol} 2009 on thc^{trle olthe PrincipalDistrictJudge'Kl.rarrnram'} co.rfimring^{the judgment and decreedated 25'02'2009passed in O S'} No.6.j ol'100^{I on thc file of the SeniorCivil Judge' SathupallyNo}

¶229

order as to^costs

¶230

Miscellaneous^{Applications,if any pending' shall stand closed'}

¶231

SdAB.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal^{District Judge, Khammam. (with records)} 2. The Senior Civil Judge,^{Sathupally, Khammam.}

¶236

On" CC to Sri^{Sreen-ivasaRao Velivela,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶237

One CC to Sri D.Jaipal^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶238

Two CD CoPies

I II

t I I I I I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/06/2023

*
1 i,E t;rAriF
t
s P M o
I B
o,J
'.-
t
,,^C9
E ': I

¶248

JUDGMENT

¶249

SA.No.14 ot 2018

¶250

DISMISSING THE SA WITHOUT COSTS

¶251

(,tlE
k6,

¶252

[^321s ]

¶253

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶254

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE

¶255

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶256

PRESENT

¶257

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶258

SECOND APPEAL NO:^'14 OF 2018

¶259

Between:

¶260

Sri Ramalayam Temple, Gangavaram, rep. by its President, M.Sathyanarayana Reddy S/o.K.Venkata Reddy, Aged about 85 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.Gangavaram Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khamman District.

¶261

...APPELLANT/ APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT

¶262

AND

¶263

J.Bhushanam (died),

¶264

Jupudi Yesuratnam, S/o. Bhushanam,56 years, Agriculture, Rl/o.Ramanagaram Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶265

Jupudi Sundar Rao, S/o. Bhushanam, 52 years, Employee Ramanagaram Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶266

Jupudi Azariah, S/o Bhushanam, 50 years, Agriculture, Rl/o. Ramanagaram Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶267

Jupudi Swarai Kumar, S/o. Bhushanam,4S years, Agriculture, Rl/o.Ramanagaram Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶268

Gudisa Kanakararatnam, W/o. Rajeswara Rao, 54 years, Household, Rl/o.Ramanagararn Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶269

Vadavalli Sridevi, Wo Prabhudas, 40 years, Household, Rl/o. Rmanagaram Villase' sathupallv Mandal' sotHBfiBPlilltl *="roNDENrs/ pLATNTFFS

¶270

Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 2810212014 made in A.S.No.118 f 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Khammam preferred against the Judgment and decree in OS No.63 of 2OO1 dated 25102t2009 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judgie, Sathupally.

¶271

ORDER: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of the First lnstance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sreenivasa- Rao Velivela, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri D.Jaipal Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7.

¶272

This Court doth Order and decree as follows :

¶273

That the Second Appeal be and hereby is dismissed by confirming the Judgment and decree daled 2810212014 passed in AS No.118 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, confirming Judgment and

¶274

decree dated 25lO2l2OOg passed in OS No.63 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sathually.

¶275