Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
Therefore, the reversal of the Judgment of the learned
Principal District Munsif by the learned Sub Judge cannot be considered as
well-reasoned Judgment by applying the reported ruling cited by the
learned Counsel for the Respondent in (2008) 4 SCC 594 : AIR 2008 SCC
2033 in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Bhuchi Reddy (Dead) by
Lrs. and others.
Achal Reddi vs Ramakrishna Reddiar And Ors on 17 November, 1989
The claim of adverse possession also cannot be accepted in the light of the
ruling reported in (1990) 4 SCC 706 in the case of Achal Reddy Vs.
Ramakrishna Reddiar and Others. When the Defendants claim that
possession was handed over by the Plaintiffs, then such possession cannot
be considered as illegal. It is legal possession. It is only from the date of
the Defendants refusal to accept the repayment of loan amount that it had
been adverse to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have not claimed adverse
possession in the written statement. They had only claimed that they had
taken possession in the light of sale deeds. Therefore, this ruling is not
helpful to the facts of this case. Only it has to be considered as either the
43/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:19 pm )
S.A.No.1158 of 2013
possession of the Plaintiffs was accepted by the Defendants while
extending the loan and possession was handed over to the Defendants by
the Plaintiffs as security.
T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy vs M. Mallappa on 7 September, 2021
41. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs relied on the ruling
reported in AIR 2021 SCC 4293 in the case of T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy
Vs. M.Mallappa and another. The facts of this case are different from the
reported ruling. The Plaintiffs had filed the Suit for recovery of possession
which was not considered by the learned Sub Judge. She need not seek
declaration of title or declaration of sale deed executed relied on by the
Defendants as null and void. She had clearly narrated the facts and the
evidence in support of her case was also found proper. Therefore, the
ruling is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Venugopal @ Alagarsamy (Died) vs Bajanai Alagarsamy on 16 June, 2004
34. The arguments put forth on behalf of the Defendants relying
upon the ruling before the learned Sub Judge in the case of Venugopal @
Alagarsamy (died) and others Vs. Bajanai Alagarsamy and another
(reported in 2004 (3) Mad LJ 362; in the case of M/s.Ram Mohan
represented by Proprietors R.Renu Vs. M/s Ganesar Gining Company
Private Limited, Coimbatore and others ((reported in 1999) 3 CTC 40);
and in the case of M.K.Varappan Vs. Sri Lakshminarayana Gopala
Samy Temple by Executive Officer, Big Bazaar (reported in 1997 (2)
MLJ 23) cannot be pressed into the service of this case. The first
36/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:19 pm )
S.A.No.1158 of 2013
Defendant admitted that he is a Central Government servant and he had not
obtained prior permission before executing the sale deed. Therefore, the
probable claim of the Plaintiffs that she had borrowed Rs.30,000/- and she
had given her thumb impression and her daughter and grandson had been
witnesses to the transaction has to be accepted as it is. As security for the
borrowal, the Plaintiffs had handed over possession of the property which
they had been cultivating to the Defendants and permitted the Defendants
to cultivate and adjust the income derived from it towards the interest.
When she was ready with Rs.30,000/- and she wanted repay the borrowed
amount, the Defendants refused to accept it, instead, the Defendants
claimed that the Plaintiffs had executed a sale deed which is marked as
Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2. Therefore, the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff
ceased to be the owner of the property. The attempt of the Defendants to
execute and to register the sale deed even though allowed by the Court of
law, was refused by the Sub Registrar as it was “Odai Poramboke”. The
first Defendant who is the Government Servant is not expected to be
encroaching on Poramboke lands. Therefore, it is an illegal attempt which
cannot be justified in a Court of law. The learned Sub Judge had reversed
the Judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif on the ground that
the Suit was filed after three years as though the Plaintiff had filed a Suit
37/50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:19 pm )
S.A.No.1158 of 2013
for declaration of title or for a declaration to declare the sale deed as null
and void. She need not seek declaration. It is a clear case that she had
borrowed the money and she had handed over possession to the
Defendants. Therefore, the Suit for recovery falls under Article 66 of the
Limitation Act, and the Judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif
was well-reasoned. The reasoning of the learned Sub Judge cannot at all be
accepted as per the provisions of law. He had wantonly reversed the
finding by justifying the violation of a Government Servant attempting to
grab Odai Poramboke land cultivated by a former Army Jawan and his
legal heirs which cannot be justified by Courts of law. The Judgment of
the learned Sub Judge ignoring those well-reasoned, well-settled
principles and justifying illegality cannot be condoned. The learned Sub
Judge has found ways to set aside the Judgment of the learned Principal
District Munsif which cannot be appreciated by this Court in the Second
Appeal.