Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The plaintiffs further pleaded that apart from their being in possession of the property as owners by continuous possession of the scheduled property, openly peacefully in their own right as owners for more than, 12 years subsequent to issuing of kabala, have perfected their title to the disputed property by adverse possession. Plaintiffs, apprehending that the third defendant Municipality may accord permission to the defendants 1 and 2 to construct, in view of the decree obtained by them in O.S. 435/79 against the Municipality, also sought for injunction against the defendants.

11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit as against the first defendant the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 18/85 before the Subordinate Judge, Asifabad for the relief that the suit as against the first defendant shall be decreed; whereas the 2nd defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 17/85 before the same court, aggrieved by the decree of permanent injunction granted by the trial court against him.

12. In A.S. No. 18/85 the plaintiffs contended that they were in possession of the entire extent throughout. Their predecessors proved their continuous possession prior to issuing of kabala by the 3rd defendant to Fareeduddin. When the trial court accepted this fact, tax receipts, non-agricultural tax receipts, pahani patriks faisal patties etc., to hold that the same cannot be held against the first defendant, quite arbitrary and erroneous. Finding of the trial court, in the alternative, on plaintiffs' perfecting their title by adverse possession not satisfactory. Trial Court failed to notice that the plaintiffs can maintain a suit for permanent injunction against all, except the true owner. Trial court erred in not noticing that mere issuing kabala, does not confer any right, likewise no right was conferrd on Fareeduddin, that too when the property belonged to the Government and not to the Municipality. Any purchase of the land eilher by the first defendant or the 2nd defendant either from Sobhanadri or Easwar quite ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court failed to notice that as on the date of the alleged sale by Fareeduddin, either in favour of Sobhanadri or in favour of Mallaiah, he had no right or title to convey the property, as in spite of he being the highest bidder failed to deposit the requisite amount within the stipulated period from the date of auction.

15. For the purpose of disposing of the appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge raised the following two points for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiffs perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession?

2. Whether the Kabala issued to Fareeduddin by Municipality, Mancherial does not confer any valid title on Fareeduddin in respect of the suit plot?

16. Though both the points are inter-linked, the learned Subordinate Judge took up each point for consideration separately. After reappreciating the entire evidence and going through the entire judgment of the trial court, including the findings given by the trial court and the reasons given to reach such a conclusion, he found that the approach of the trial court in not properly considering the alternative plea of the plaintiffs that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession, so also the rejection to grant permanent injunction against the first defendant, incorrect. He found that the plaintiffs not only proved their possession over the property, they established that their possession is continuous, open, peaceful and to the knowledge of others, for a period of more than 12 years. As such they have perfected their title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. By thus observing, he held that the plaintiffs perfected title over the suit property by adverse possession, whereas Kerala issued by the Municipality to Fareeduddin did not confer any valid title on Fareeduddin in respect of the suit property. So holding by his common judgment dated 2-3-1988 allowed A.S. No. 17/85 (sic. 18/85) and dismissed A.S. No.17/85. In the result, decreed the suit O.S. No. 1138/84 on the file of the District Munsif, Luxettipet with costs,

(ii) The area of 29 guntas in S.No. 87, the total extent of which is Ac. 128-22 guntas, as claimed under faisal-patties and pahanies on the basis of which adverse possession is claimed by the plaintiffs was not identified by any of the documents produced by the plaintiffs. As such in the absence of specific identification and boundaries, the claim of adverse possession as against the defendants cannot be established.

(iii) that the faisal-patties and revenue records show that the sons of Venkateswar Rao (not the plaintiffs) were recorded as 'asamis' against whom sivai-jamabandi, i.e., penalty .was imposed and collected from them. Whether the persons who pay penalty to the Government can claim adverse possession and also the persons who are recorded as 'asamis' can claim adverse possession without impleading the Government as party to the suit. Can a declaratory decree for title be granted to the plaintiffs without impleading the Government as a party when admittedly the alleged 29 guntas in S.No. 87 is the Government land.