Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and affirmed the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which had decreed the suit for a declaration of title and possession in favour of the plaintiff. The Court held that the defendant failed to establish adverse possession or ownership and that the plaintiff’s title was sufficiently proved.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiff and his wife had purchased two extents of land under two separate registered sale deeds dated 28.04.1972 and 01.02.1955, respectively. They remained in possession and enjoyment of the land. In 1989, the plaintiff gave the suit property on rent to the defendant for ₹20 per month. The defendant paid rent until 1996, after which he defaulted. The plaintiff issued a legal notice and, upon receiving a denial, filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed that finding and granted the decree. The defendant then filed the present second appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that he had perfected title over the suit property by adverse possession, having lived there openly and continuously for over 25 years. It was also contended that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit individually since he had succeeded to the property jointly with his son after his wife’s death. The appellant also relied on the dismissal of an earlier injunction suit to argue that the present suit was not maintainable.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondent (legal heir of the plaintiff) contended that the title had been clearly established by two registered sale deeds over 50 years old. The property was given on rent to the defendant, and thus his possession was permissive, not hostile. It was argued that a tenant could not claim adverse possession against the landlord, and no evidence of oral sale or actual transfer of title was furnished by the defendant.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s title was established through valid registered sale deeds, which were over 50 years old. The suit schedule property was not denied by the defendant in terms of extent or boundary.
The Court observed that the defence of adverse possession was not supported by sufficient pleadings or evidence. The Court said that adverse possession requires clear proof of hostile, continuous, and public possession. Mere long-term possession or failure to pay rent does not satisfy these conditions. A tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor, since the nature of possession is permissive possession as a tenant.
Decision of the Court:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing the second appeal, held that the learned First Appellate Judge rightly set aside the finding given by the learned trial Judge
Case Title: Kuraganti Samuel vs. Kambham Sangeetha Rao (Deceased) & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao
Case No.: SECOND APPEAL NO: 1363/2011
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. V. Nitesh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. N. Srihari
Picture Source :
