Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah(D)Tr.Lrs vs Muddasani Sarojana on 5 May, 2016
This proposition is reiterated in
Muddasani Venkatanarasaiah (Dead) through LRs., v.
Muddasani Sarojana Supra.
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
44. The first segment of the controversy between
the parties in the present appeal, and therefore the first
question, revolves round the question whether Sri
Parashuram Singh could have filed only a suit for
possession without seeking declaration of title. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi
Reddy supra has clarified that a prayer for declaration
of title will be necessary only if the denial of title by the
defendant or challenge to the plaintiff's title raises a
cloud on title of the plaintiff to the property, and a cloud
is said to raise over a person's title when some apparent
defect in his title to a property, or when some prima
facie right of third party over it, is made out or shown.
An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the
cloud on the title to the property.
Kurella Naga Druva Vydaya Bhaskara Rao vs Galla Jani Kamma Alias Nacharamma on 4 August, 2008
The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its subsequent decision in Kurella Naga Druva
46
Vudaya Bhaskar Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma6 has held
that "A mere claim by the defendant that he had
perfected his title by adverse possession, does not mean
that a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and that the
plaintiff who is the owner, should file a suit for
declaration of title. Unless the defendant raises a serious
cloud over the title of the plaintiff, there is no need to file
a suit for declaration. The plaintiff had title and she only
wanted possession and therefore a suit for possession
was maintainable".
Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs Sampati Subba Rao on 17 April, 1962
51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nedunuri
Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao7, while
considering the argument by one of the parties that
7
AIR 1963 SC 884
53
there was prejudice because a decision on a specific
controversy was rendered without an Issue in this
regard, has held as follows:
H. Siddiqui (D) By Lr vs A. Ramalingam on 4 March, 2011
Insofar as the proper formulation of Points for
Consideration as required under the provisions of Order
XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in H Siddiqui vs. A Ramalingam8 has
concluded as follows:
G. Amalorpavam & Ors vs R.C. Diocese Of Madurai & Ors on 6 March, 2006
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
referred to its decision in G. Amalorpavam v. R C Diocese
of Madurai9 wherein it has been held that the question
of substantial compliance with the provisions of Order
XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure has to be
determined from the nature of the judgement delivered
in each case, and non-compliance with the provisions
may not vitiate the judgement and make it wholly void
and may be ignored if there is substantial compliance
and the higher appellate court is in a position to
ascertain the findings of the lower appellate court.
9
(2006) 3 SCC Page 224
Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006
56. Further, on Ex.P2, the Courts below being
the final arbiters of questions of fact, have concluded
that Exhibit P2 cannot be read to conclude that the
extent of 250 feet x 60 feet was retained as a joint family
property. The Courts below have rendered their finding
in this regard based on the appreciation of evidence. It
is settled law that inference of facts from recitals in a
document, or construction of a document, could be
60
questions of fact and no substantial question of law as
contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure would arise in these regards. A useful
reference in this regard could be made to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth v.
Seshammal.10 Therefore, there is no room for
reappreciation of evidence to revisit the inference drawn
from the recitals in Ex. P2 or the construction of the
document in the second appeal.
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
60. The plaintiff, except for taking up a bald plea
of adverse possession, has not pleaded or proved the
essentials to succeed in the defence of adverse
possession, especially in the light of his own case that
the subject property and residential premises are joint
family properties. In the absence of requisite pleadings,
and evidence, given his own case of joint family
property, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless he pleads
and proves actual physical and exclusive possession
and also establish the animus possidendi to hold the
65
property as the absolute owner to the exclusion of the
actual owner. This would be an inviolable condition to
allow the defense of adverse possession because a
person pleading adverse possession can claim no equity
as relying upon adverse possession she/he tries to
defeat the rights of the true owner. The learned counsel
for the respondents viz., the legal representatives of the
deceased Parashuram Singh is therefore justified in
relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and
others11. The Courts below have negated the defence of
adverse possession because the plaintiff has neither
pleaded nor proved the essentials of an adverse
possession plea.