Telangana High Court
Lakkineni Ramesh vs Lakkineni Suryanarayana on 21 August, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ A.S.No.146 OF 2020
% 21--08--2025
# Sri Lakkineni Ramesh
... Appellant
vs.
$ Sri Lakkineni Suryanarayana
... Respondent
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar
^Counsel for Respondent: Sri Vivek Jain
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
1. (2020) 19 SCC 57 = 2020 SCC Online SC 676
2. (2024) SCC Online SC 4589
3. AIR 1995 Bom 113
4. 2024 SCC Online SC 3849
5. (1998) 1 SCC 614
6. ILR 2009 Kar 4523
7. 1991 1 Gauhati Law Reports 244
8. (2019) 7 SCC 76
2/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
A.S.No.146 OF 2020
Between:
Sri Lakkineni Ramesh
... Appellant
And
Sri Lakkineni Suryanarayana ... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.08.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
A.S.NO.146 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.28 of 2010, dated 17.12.2019
by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Khammam.
2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the
plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter
referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
3. Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of
possession under Section 5 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The prayers in
the plaint are a) the plaintiff be declared as owner of the suit schedule
property b) the defendant be directed to deliver vacant possession of
the suit schedule property to the plaintiff c) if the defendant fails to
deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the
plaintiff, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to evict the defendant and
put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit schedule property
d) costs of the suit may be awarded e) any other relief or reliefs for
which the plaintiff is entitle to and the Hon’ble Court deems fit and
proper under the circumstances.
4. The suit schedule property is dry land admeasuring Acs.06-32
gts in Sy.No.144/AA of Laxmipuram Revenue Village, Kalluru Mandal,
4/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
Khammam District with the boundaries as East: land of Lakkineni
Satish Kumar, West: land of Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao and brothers,
North: Nagarjun Sagar Main Canal, South: land of Lakkineni
Rambhadraiah.
5.1. The plaintiff, Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao and Late Lakkineni
Satyanarayana Das are the three sons of Late Lakkineni Pullaiah and
Late Lakkineni Ademma. Lakkineni Pullaiah died in the year 1968 and
Lakkineni Ademma predeceased Pullaiah in the year 1967. Lakkineni
Satyanarayana Das died in the year 1985. The defendant is the elder
son and one Lakkineni Srikaran Pavan Kumar is the younger son of
Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao.
5.2. The family of the plaintiff was owning lands and other properties
at Kalluru and Laxmipuram Village of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam
District. After the death of Lakkineni Pullaiah and Lakkineni Ademma,
the lands at Kalluru Village were partitioned on 07.02.1971 and the
lands at Laxmipuram Village were partitioned on 20.07.1989. Dry
lands admeasuring Ac.06-32 gts in Sy.No.144/AA and Ac.3-37 gts in
Sy.No.145/AA of Laxmipuram Revenue Village fell to the share of the
plaintiff, necessary mutation has taken place in the Revenue Records
with regard to the above said lands and ROR Title Deed and ROR
Pattadar Passbooks were issued. The suit land is of Laxmipuram
Revenue Village. The plaintiff by virtue of his employment was residing
away from Laxmipuram and Kalluru Village, his elder brother by name
5/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao was managing the suit schedule property
on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant being the elder son of
Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao was assisting his father and managing the
property on behalf of the plaintiff and they never had rights over the
same. Due to the advancing age and ill-health of Lakkineni
Venkateswar Rao, the elder brother of the plaintiff expressed his
inability to manage the suit property and the plaintiff had retired from
service, he himself started managing the same from 1990-1993.
5.3. The defendant tried to interfere over the suit schedule property
thereby the plaintiff has filed suit in OS.No.174 of 2002 on the file of
Junior Civil Judge Court at Sathupalli for Perpetual Injunction.
Defendant has taken a false plea in the written statement in
OS.No.174 of 2002 that the plaintiff agreed to sell the property
through Agreement of Sale, dated 10.08.1996 for a sale consideration
of Rs.1,80,000/- and that the defendant paid entire sale consideration
to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not executed any Agreement of Sale in
favour of the defendant on 10.08.1996. The suit in OS.No.174 of 2002
on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court at Sathupalli for Perpetual
Injunction was dismissed on 21.11.2007. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, plaintiff has filed First Appeal vide AS.No.2 of 2008 on the
file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Sathupalli which also came to be
dismissed on 08.09.2009. Encouraged by the said judgment and
decree in AS.No.2 of 2008, the defendant occupied the suit schedule
property on 15.09.2009 highhandedly.
6/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
5.4. The two Courts dealt with the aspect of possession as the suit is
being one for Injunction Simplicitor. The present suit being the
comprehensive one seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of
possession, the judgment and decree in OS.No.174 of 2002 and
AS.No.2 of 2008 do not operate as res judicata and prayed to decree
the suit.
6.1. Defendant filed his written statement contending that the
plaintiff has alienated Ac.0-32 gts., out of Ac.06-32 gts., in
Sy.No.144/Aa of Laxmipuram Village to one Manne Rambabu and
delivered possession. The plaintiff gave evidence in OS.No.174 of
2002 as PW.1 and he confirmed that his claim is for Ac.06-00 gts., of
land. The Eastern boundary is not that of L.Satish Kumar land but it is
the land of his mother L.Krishna Bhavani. On the West side of the suit
property, there is joint family property of defendant’s father and
younger brother. The plaintiff and legal heirs of L.Satyanarayana Das
have got no land on the Western side. Further L.Ramabrahmaiah has
no land on the Northern side of the suit property, such property
belongs to Ch.Sesha Charyulu.
6.2. The plaintiff suppressed the existence of Palm Oil plantations
aged 12 years in the suit schedule property and simply claimed the dry
land. The plaintiff executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of the
defendant on 10.08.1996 to an extent of Ac.06-00 gts., for a valid sale
consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-. The defendant paid the entire sale
7/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
consideration on the date of agreement and the terms were reduced
into writing and delivered the possession of the said land. The
nomenclature of the document is wrongly shown as “Vikraya
Dastaveju” instead it was only Agreement of Sale. From the date of
agreement, the defendant is in possession of the property. In the year
1997, he raised Green Gram and Red Gram. In the year 1998, he
obtained necessary electricity connection in his name and fixed 5 HP
Motor and Pumpset which was installed undertunnel of NSP Canal to
draw water and he was cultivating the schedule property either
personally or through his tenant. On 13.11.1998 and 17.11.1998, he
purchased 70 Palm Oil saplings from Nursery maintained by the A.P.
Co-operative Oil Seeds Cooperation Federation Limited and he planted
the same, they are 12 years of age. The plaintiff in collusion with
defendant’s father did not co-operate in executing the registered Sale
Deed and that the defendant is entitled for protection of property
under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act and the suit is barred
by limitation, prayed to dismiss the same.
7. The Trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and
recovery of possession of suit schedule property?
2. Whether the defendant is entitled to protect his
possession as per Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act?
3. Whether relief is barred by limitation?
4. To what relief?
8/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
8. Plaintiff is examined as PW.1, got examined PW.2 (Lakkineni
Venkateswara Rao); PW.3 (MRO Kalluru); PW.4 (S.S.Vedanayakam);
PW.5 (P.Vijaya Shankar) and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Defendant is
examined as DW.1, also examined DW.2 (Danekala Subba Rao) and
got marked Exs.B1 to B33.
9. The Trial Court after going through the evidence led by the
parties and after perusing documents thereon has decreed the suit in
part with costs which is set out as under:
i) The plaintiff is declared as owner of the suit
schedule land to an extent of Ac.6-00 guntas
forming part of Sy.No.144/AA situated at
Lakshmipuram Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam
District.
ii) The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Ac.6-00 gts.,
of the suit schedule property from the defendant.
ii) The defendant is directed to deliver possession of
such property to plaintiff within two months from
the date of this judgment. Failing which, the
plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of property
through Court.
10.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial
Judge ought to have seen that the appellant has clearly pleaded and
proved Ex.B1 by adducing oral and documentary evidence and that the
possession of the appellant is protected by virtue of Section 53-A of
Transfer of Property Act and that the appellant was in peaceful
9/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
possession and enjoyment of the same since 10.08.1996 (Ex.B1). The
suit is not maintainable and barred by law.
10.2. The Trial Court failed to record clear finding with regard to
Ex.B1 and ought to have framed issue to adjudicate the validity of the
same. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the earlier pleadings and
judgment in OS.No.174 of 2002 and AS.No.2 of 2008 which were
marked as Exs.B4 and B5 to determine the maintainability of the
present suit. The respondent-plaintiff is estopped in seeking recovery
of possession in view of the earlier litigation and relied on Nazir
Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala and Others 1 prayed to set aside the judgment
and decree passed in OS.No.28 of 2010, dated 17.12.2019 (impugned
order).
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that the
Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the parties with
that of the documents marked thereon and rightly decreed the suit in
proper prospective and it does not require interference of this Court.
In support of his contentions he relied on the decisions in respect of
Sections 53 and 54 of Transfer of Property Act and Article 65 of
Limitation Act and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. The decision cited
will be referred in the succeeding Paras with that of the contentions
raised in the written arguments.
1
(2020) 19 SCC 57 = 2020 SCC Online SC 676
10/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his arguments
to the extent that the suit is barred by limitation.
13. Appellant’s counsel and respondent’s counsel have filed their
written submissions in support of their contentions.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
15. Now the points for consideration are :
1. Whether the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff
is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the impugned judgment of the Trial
Court in OS.No.28 of 2010, dated 17.12.2019
suffers from any perversity or illegality and
requires interference of this Court or not?
16. There is no dispute with regard to the relation of the parties and
with regard to the partition of the properties by the respondent-
plaintiff with that of his brothers.
Point Nos.1 and 2:
17. Plaintiff has filed suit for Permanent Injunction against the
defendant and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit property i.e., dry land to an extent of
Ac.06-32 gts., in Sy.No.144/AA. The cause of action shown in the suit
is from 11.06.2000, 10.07.2002, 22.09.2002 and on 27.09.2002 at
Laxmipuram Village. Suit is filed on 10.10.2002 vide OS.No.174 of
11/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
2002. Defendant has filed his written statement and contested the
suit contending that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property ever since 10.08.1996 under Agreement of
Sale. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Sathupalli after recording the
evidence of the parties has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide
judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007 (Ex.B4).
18. The observation of the Junior Civil Judge at Sathupalli in Ex.B4
are at Para Nos.9, 12 which is set out as under:
Para No.9: “As per the contention of PWs.1 and 2, the plaint
schedule property is ancestral property, the plaintiff is in possession
and enjoyment of the same. Ex.B1 is a forged one and came into
existence and the defendant influenced the revenue people and
mutated his name in the revenue records. On that the plaintiff also
filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
vide WP.No.20304/2003, dated 18.08.2003 about assessing the
possession of plaint schedule property, on that the Hon’ble High Court
gave direction to Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalluru on 28.06.2004
directing him to send a detailed report whether the plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the property or not ? On that the then
Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalluru conducted detailed enquiry and
submitted a report i.e., Ex.B26 stating that the original pattedar is
plaintiff and the possessor is defendant since, 1997.
It is a fundamental principle in injunction suits the party must have
possession over the plaint schedule property at the time of filing of
the suit, but the evidence and documents available on record, and
Ex.B26 the report of Mandal Revenue Officer is clearly and clinchingly
shows that the plaintiff is only pattedar not a possessor at the time of
filing of the suit. On the other hand, the defendant has proved that
he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by
producing Exs.B1 to B35, the relevant documents to show that he is
12/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since
1997.
Para No.12: As per the contention of the plaintiff Ex.B1 is the rank
forged one, the signature on Ex.B1 does not belong to him. On that
he filed IA.No.217 of 2005 for hand writing expert under Section 45
of Indian Evidence Act. As per the contention of plaintiff that Ex.B1 is
rank forged one. Therefore, the signature of Ex.B1 and his specimen
signatures may be sent to hand writing expert for comparision. In
that petition, the defendant also filed counter stating that he has no
objection to send Ex.B1 along with specimen signature of the plaintiff,
in the Ex.B1 the plaintiff put his signature as L.Suryanarayana, but in
the Plaint and Vakalathnama he put his signature as L.S.Narayana
and therefore, the “L” and “S” on the plaint and Vakalathnama are
compared with the “L” and “S” on Ex.B1. But after long time the
plaintiff not pressed the petition i.e., IA.No.217 of 2005, dated
08.10.2007, accordingly, the said petition was dismissed as not
pressed. If at all the contention of the plaintiff is true and genuine
one, that Ex.B1 is rank forged one, the signature does not belong to
him why the plaintiff has not pressed the petition for sending
signatures to hand writing expert, for the reason best known to him”.
19. The extent and boundaries shown in Ex.B2 (plaint in OS.No.174
of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Sathupalli) is as under:
“Dry land to an extent of Ac.6-32 gts in Sy.No.144/AA situated at
Laxmipuram village (Balla Banjar) Kallu: Mandal, Khammam District
bounded by East: land of Lakkineni Satheesh Kumar, West: land of
Lakkineni Venkateswara Rao and brothers, North: Nagarjuna Sagar
Main Canal, South: land of Lakkineni Ramabhadraiah”.
20. The observations made in the judgment and decree in Ex.B4
with regard to the boundaries are at Para Nos.13, 14, 15 which is set
out as under :
13/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
“13. As per the contention of the plaintiff, the plaint schedule
property is bounded by East: Lakkineni Sateesh Kumar, West: Land
of Lakkineni Venkateshwar Rao brothers, North: N.S.Canal
and South: Land of Lakkineni Rambhadraiah. As per the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2, the plaint schedule property is bounded by the above
said persons, but as per the contention of the defendant, the plaint
schedule property boundaries mentioned in the plaint is not true and
correct, the plaint schedule property is bounded by East: Sri Krishna
Bhavani, South: Chakravarthula Seshacharyulu, West: Lakkineni
Venkateshwar Rao and his sons and North: N.S.Canal.
14. Therefore, the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule
property is not proved by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the
defendant has proved the plaint schedule property is bounded by the
boundaries mentioned in the written statement.
15. The Court has appointed Commissioner to inspect the plaint
schedule property. The Commissioner is also examined as DW.5, the
report of Commissioner was marked as Ex.C2. As per the evidence of
Commissioner, the plaint schedule property and boundaries tallied
with the contention of the defendant and Commissioner also clearly
mentioned in his report along with map”.
21. In so far as the extent of the plaint schedule property in
OS.No.174 of 2002 (Ex.B2) the observations made in the judgment
and decree in Ex.B4 are at Para No.17 which is set out as under:
“The plaintiff originally filed the suit for Acs.6-35 Gts, but in his
cross-examination, he categorically admitted that Ac.0-35 Gts., is
already sold out by him in the plaint schedule property. He is only
claiming Acs.6.00 Gts”.
22. Respondent-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree
under Ex.B4 filed Appeal vide AS.No.2 of 2008, which came to be
14/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
dismissed under Ex.B5. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli
has concurred with the findings of the judgment and decree under
Ex.B4 and it also observes that Ex.B26 document clearly establishes
that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property
in respect of land to an extent of Ac.04-00 gts., in Sy.No.144/AA/A
and in respect of land in Sy.No.144/AA/A to an extent of Ac.02-00
gts., and finally the Appeal came to be dismissed.
23. The only point in the present Appeal is whether the suit filed by
the respondent-plaintiff is within limitation. The Trial Court has framed
Issue No.3 as “whether the relief is barred by limitation”.
24. The pleadings in the plaint in OS.No.28 of 2010 is at Para 4 which
states that the First Appeal in AS.No.2 of 2008 was dismissed on
08.09.2009, encouraged by the said judgment and decree the
defendant occupied the suit property on 15.09.2009 highhandedly.
25. The Trial Court has discussed the issue of limitation in Para
Nos.25 and 26 of its judgment which is set out as under:
“Issue No.3:
25. Limitation for filing suit for possession is 12 years. The
defendant claimed that the suit is barred since the possession
was delivered under agreement of sale in the year 1996. The
plaintiff had been contending that the agreement of sale was
forged and fabricated and no possession was delivered. While
giving the findings on first and second issue, this Court has
taken a view that no possession under agreement was delivered
15/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020so as to relate the date of dispossession in the year 1996. The
adangals for the year 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are said
to have been destroyed and there is a cloud over the actual
entries and such documents do not clinchingly establishes the
defendant’s possession. By virtue of findings in the previous
suit the defendant’s possession was with reference to the date of
previous suit i.e., on 08.10.2002.
26. The contention of the plaintiff is that he was dispossessed
by virtue of dismissal of his appeal which was filed against
judgment and decree of trial Court dismissing the plaintiff relief for
injunction. He claimed that after dismissal of appeal,
immediately he was dispossesed. The revenue records like
adangals shows that defendant’s possession from the institution
of suit. Even the plaintiff failed to establish his dispossession in
the year 2009. At the most the dispossession must be date of
previous suit which is 2002. The present suit has been filed in
the year 2010. Therefore, the suit is said to have been within
limitation. Accordingly, this issue is also answered against the
defendant”.
26. In Nazir Mohammed case1, the Supreme Court observed at Para
47, 49, 50 and 51 which is set out as under:
47. A person claiming a decree of possession has to establish his
entitlement to get such possession and also establish that his
claim is not barred by the laws of limitation. He must show that
he had possession before the alleged trespasser got possession.
49. A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property is
governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 3 of the Limitation
Act bars the institution of any suit after expiry of the period of
limitation prescribed in the said Act. The Court is obliged to
dismiss a suit filed after expiry of the period of limitation, even
though the plea of limitation may not have been taken in defence.
50.The period of limitation for suits for recovery of immovable
property is prescribed in Part V of the Schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963, and in particular Articles 64 and 65.
16/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
51. In the absence of any whisper in the plaint as to the date on
which the Appellant-Defendant and/or his Predecessor-in-
interest took possession of the suit property and in the absence
of any whisper to show that the relief of decree for possession
was within limitation, the High Court could not have reversed the
finding of the First Appellate Court, and allowed the Respondent-
Plaintiff the relief of recovery of possession.
No Title to appellant-defendant under Ex.B1:
27.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that
ownership over the suit schedule property is not disputed by the
appellant, however, the appellant-defendant relies on the alleged
“Vikraya Dastaveju” (Ex.B1). No title document is in favour of the
appellant-defendant and mere Agreement of Sale does not confer title
to him as it is an unregistered document and title does not pass:
Sanjay Sharma Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Others 2 Para
Nos.27 and 29 which reads as under:
27. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines a
“sale” as the transfer of ownership in exchange for a price that is
either paid, promised, or part-paid and part-promised. This provision
further describes the manner in which a sale is effected. It stipulates
that, in the case of tangible immovable property valued at one
hundred rupees or more, the transfer can be made only through a
registered instrument. The use of the term “only” signifies that, for
tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more,
a sale becomes lawful only when it is executed through a registered
instrument. Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership
does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is
transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration. The
registration of the sale deed for an immovable property is essential to
complete and validate the transfer. Until registration is effected,
ownership is not transferred.
29. This Court in Babasheb Dhondiba Kute vs. Radhu Vithoba
Barde, SLP © No.29462 of 2019 held that the conveyance by way of
sale would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in2
(2024) SCC Online SC 4589
17/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 2008. Till then,
there is no conveyance in the eyes of law.
27.2. Counsel further submitted that the alleged Agreement of Sale
(Ex.B1) though impounded does not confer title in absence of
registration mandated under Section 17 r/w Section 49 of Registration
Act. Appellant-defendant cannot claim any right over the suit property
on the basis of Agreement of Sale. Nothing precluded the appellant-
defendant from obtaining proceedings under Section 5-A of Pattadar
Pass Books Act, 1971; Nor filed a suit for specific performance,
according to him the entire sale consideration is paid and he did not
seek to enforce the same, appellant-defendant is not entitled for
protection of possession under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act.
The Trial Court has given findings at Para Nos.21 to 23 of its
judgment. In order to claim protection under Section 53A, appellant-
defendant has to fulfill the conditions. Kamalabai Laxman Pathak and
Others Vs. Onkar Parsharam Patil and Others 3 at Para 6 which reads
as under :
In the case of Damodaran V. Shekharan, AIR 1993 Ker 242.
The Court has culled out virtually in a layman’s language the
five requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property
Act, which are extracted below:–
“(1) There should be a contract for the transfer of immovable
property.
(2) The contract should be in writing signed by the party sought
to be charged therewith and from it the terms should be
ascertainable with reasonable certainty.
(3) The transferee should, in part performance of the contract,
(a) take possession, or
3
AIR 1995 Bom 113
18/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
(b) continue in possession and do some act in furtherance of
the contract.
(4) The transferee should perform, or be willing to perform, his
part of the bargain as contained in the writing.
(5) The application of the doctrine should not affect the right of
a transferee for consideration without notice of the contract
or of the part performance thereof.”
27.3. Counsel submits that the appellant-defendant did not prove or
establish delivery of possession under Ex.B1, See Giriyappa and
Another Vs. Kamalamma and Others 4 at Para No.11:
11. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the protection of a
prospective purchaser/transferee of his possession of the
property involved, is available subject to the following
prerequisites:
a) There is a contract in writing by the transferor for
transfer for consideration of any immovable property
signed by him or on his behalf, from which the terms
necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained
with reasonable certainty;
b) The transferee has, in part-performance of the contract,
taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or
the transferee, being already in possession, continues in
possession in part performance of the contract;
c) The transferee has done some act in furtherance of the
contract and has performed or is willing to perform his
part of the contract.
27.4. Respondent-plaintiff counsel further submits that appellant-
defendant failed to prove delivery of possession under Ex.B1. The
findings given by the Trial Court in the previous suit i.e., OS.No.174 of
2002 that the appellant was in possession of the schedule property
was not on the basis of Agreement of Sale but on the basis of Ex.B26 –
Tahsildar Report who reported that the appellant-defendant was in
4
2024 SCC Online SC 3849
19/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
possession at the time of filing the suit. The Trial Court in OS.No.174
of 2002 did not examine that the alleged possession was permissive
since the respondent-plaintiff was not in the village and had taken the
help of PW.2 and his son DW.1 (appellant herein) to look after his
lands and also did not examine whether the appellant has delivered
the possession on the basis of Ex.B1. Appellant-defendant failed to
prove the execution and genuinity of Agreement of Sale (Ex.B1).
27.5. Learned counsel further submits that alleged Agreement of Sale
(Ex.B1) was forged and fabricated by the appellant-defendant, to
prove the same, PW.2 is examined who is the father of the appellant-
defendant. Counsel further submits that the findings on the genuinity
of Agreement of Sale in the previous suit operates as issue estoppel or
not i.e., Ex.B4 (OS.No.174 of 2002). The Trial Court in the previous
suit has dealt with the issue other than the issue which were
specifically framed and gave a finding on the genuinity of the
agreement when it was not warranted to do so and the issue of
genuinity of Agreement of Sale does not operate as issue estoppel and
that the Trial Court has rightly examined the genuiness of the
agreement and held that the Agreement of Sale is not true and
binding.
Limitation :
27.6. It is further submitted that Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963
deals with the period of limitation for filing suit for recovery of
20/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020possession, it is clear from the wording that the limitation period of 12
years applies only when the defendant has perfected his title by
adverse possession. In other words, if a plaintiff files a suit for
recovery of possession based on his own title, the defendant has to
prove that he had been in possession adverse to the plaintiff for the
prescriptive period of 12 years. Appellant-defendant is not claiming
adverse possession against the respondent-plaintiff, which is not taken
in the written statement. Therefore, the limitation period of 12 years
is not applicable to the case on hand. See Indira Vs. Arumugam and
Another5, Supreme Court observed at Para Nos.4 and 5 which reads as
under:
“4. The aforesaid reasoning of the learned Judge, with respect,
cannot be sustained as it proceeds on the assumption as if old
Article 142 of the earlier Limitation Act was in force wherein the
plaintiff who based his case on title had to prove not only title but
also possession within 12 years of the date of the suit. The said
provision of law has undergone a metamorphic sea change as we
find under the Limitation Act, 1963 Article 65 which reads as
under:
Description of suit Period of Time from which period
limitation begins to run
65. For possession of immovable Twelve years When the possession
property or any interest of the defendant
therein based on title. becomes adverse to
the plaintiff
5. It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title
for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant
documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves
adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot
be non-suited. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter was missed
by the learned Judge and, therefore, the entire reasoning for5
(1998) 1 SCC 614
21/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020disposing of the second appeal has got vitiated. Only on that short
ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
question of law framed by the learned Judge for disposing of the
second appeal, this appeal is allowed. The impugned decision
rendered is set aside and the second appeal is restored to the file
of the High Court with a request to proceed further with the
hearing of the appeal with respect to the substantial question
aforementioned in accordance with law. No costs”.
27.7. In B.Koosappa Vs. P.Veerappa @ Koosappa 6 , High Court
observed at Para 4 which reads as under:
“4. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has drastically
changed the earlier legal position. A plain reading of Article 65
would show that there is no limitation for institution of a suit for
possession of immovable property based on title, if the
defendant’s possession is not adverse to the plaintiff; if the
possession is adverse, the period of limitation is twelve years and
limitation starts from the time when the defendant’s possession
becomes adverse to the plaintiff and not from the date of
dispossession of the plaintiff as in Article 64. I may add that in a
suit for possession of immovable property based on title, the
claim of the true owner could be defeated only if the person in
possession pleads and proves that he had perfected his title by
adverse possession”.
27.8. In Md. Abdul Hussain and Another Vs. Md. Akkash All and
Others 7, High Court observed at Para No.4 which reads as under:
“4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel.
I have also heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the
respondents. I have perused the judgment of both the Courts
below. The facts relevant for deciding the controversy in this case
are not in dispute. The admitted position is that the suit of the
appellants-plaintiffs was based on title. It is also not disputed
that the plaintiffs could succeed in proving their title. There is a
concurrent finding of both the Courts below to that effect. The
only question that has to be decided is whether it was for the
plaintiffs to prove that they had instituted the suit within 12
years from the date of dispossession or it was for the defendants
to establish that they acquired title by adverse possession. The
law on the point appears to be well settled. When a suit is for6
ILR 2009 Kar 4523
7
1991 1 Gauhati Law Reports 244
22/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020possession of immovable property and is based on previous
possession and not on title Article 64 applies and when a suit is
for possession of immovable property based on title then Article
65 applies. Article 64 enables a suit within 12 year from
dispossession for possession of immovable property based on
possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession
of the property has been dispossessed. Article 65 is for
possession of immovable property or any interest therein based
on title (Nair Service Society ltd. v. K. C. Alexander (AIR 1968 SC
1165). The law, therefore, is that when a plaintiff brings a suit for
possession of immovable property basing his suit on title and his
title is established, then Article 65 of the Limitation Act would
apply and it would be the defendant’s burden to prove that he
acquired title by adverse possession. In other words, he would be
required to prove that he has been in possession adversely over
plaintiff for statutory period of 12 years. when, however, a
plaintiff brings a suit for possession of immovable property but
bases his suit on previous possession and not on title Article 64
applies: Hanjabam Babumacha Sharma (supra). Hence in a suit
for possession of immovable property based on title the well
settled legal position is that Article 65 of the Limitation Act
applies and the burden is on the defendant to prove that he had
acquired title by adverse possession”.
27.9. Respondent-plaintiff’s counsel further submits that in a suit for
possession based on title Article 65 of Limitation Act shall apply; in a
suit for possession based on title, once the plaintiff title is established
the burden shifts on the defendant to prove that he has acquired title
by adverse possession; there is no period of limitation under Article 65
if the defendants possession is not adverse to the plaintiff; the plaintiff
need not prove his possession within 12 years from the date of the
suit. In the present case, the claim for possession of the suit schedule
property was based on title which is not disputed by the appellant-
defendant. Therefore, the claim for possession is not barred by
limitation and there is no limitation for such a claim.
23/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
27.10. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has filed
additional written submissions on his behalf and contended that the
boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property are the same for 6
guntas even after the sale of 32 guntas which was elicited in the cross-
examination of PW.1 and the boundaries can be compared with the
boundaries pleaded in the written statement.
Boundaries in the Plaint Boundaries in the written observation
statement pleaded at
para 3
East : Land of Lakkineni Satish Lakkineni Sri Krishna No change in eastern
Kumar Bhavani mother of boundary
Lakkineni Satish Kumar
West : Land of Lakkineni Joint family property of No change in western
Venkateswar Rao and Venkateshwara Rao and boundary
Others his family
North: Nagarjun Sagar Main There is no clear pleading As per agreement of
Canal as to the northern sale - Appellant's
boundary own document, the
northern boundary
shown by the
Appellant is also
Canal
South Land of Lakkineni Chakravarthi In the cross
Rambhadraiah Seshacharyulu examination the
Respondent (PW1)
clearly states that the
southern boundary is
shared between
C.Seshacharyulu and
Ramabhadraiah.
27.11. Counsel submits that sale of Ac.00-32 guntas does not affect
the existing boundaries of the suit schedule property and the claim is
confined to Acs.06-00 gts., there was no occasion for amending the
boundaries, it is settled law that boundaries prevail over the extent.
24/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
28.1. The admission made by the plaintiff (respondent herein) in the
course of his cross-examination is that the suit property is in respect of
Acs.06-00 gts., only in Sy.Nos.144 and 145 of Laxmipuram and he got
Ac.06-32 gts., in Sy.No.144/A/A, out of two survey numbers he sold
the entire land by keeping Acs.06.00 gts., to his remembrance two
persons got registered sale deed in respect of Acs.04-00 gts., of land,
one among them is Mannem Ram Babu and he gave instructions to
draft the plaint in respect of Ac.06-00 gts., of land and the suit is filed
in respect of Acs.06-32 gts. Witness voluntarily stated that he has no
claim in respect of Ac.00-32 gts., of land and the land on the Eastern
side of suit schedule property is recorded in the name of Lakkineni
Srikrishna Bhavani in the Revenue Records. On the Southern side of
the suit schedule property there are lands of Lakkineni Ramabhadraiah
and Chakravarthla Sesha Charyulu, after filing the case he never
visited the property and the Commissioner has taken note of the
physical features of the land in OS.No.174 of 2002.
28.2. PW.1 further stated in the cross-examination that on the
Eastern side therein NSP Canal and the land is cultivated with same
water unauthorisedly and he filed IA.No.217 of 2005 in OS.No.174 of
2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Sathupalli to send the Agreement
of Sale, dated 10.08.1996 to Expert for comparision of his signature
with that of the Agreement of Sale and the petition was dismissed as
not pressed. It is true that injunction suit filed by me was dismissed
by giving a finding that I am not in possession of the property and that
25/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
the defendant (appellant herein) is in possession. It is true that he
filed an application before MRO, Kalluru stating that the name of the
defendant is recorded in the Revenue Records as possessor and that is
to be deleted and his name to be incorporated from 1997-1998 and he
filed WP.No.10058 of 2004 for a direction to MRO, Kalluru to dispose of
his petition. MRO gave orders on 18.03.2006 (Ex.B21) stating that he
is the pattadar and the defendant is in occupation and he did not file
any Appeal or Writ Petition against the orders of MRO, dated
18.03.2006 and he do not know whether the name of the defendant
(appellant herein) is continuing as occupant in the Revenue Records in
respect of the suit plan.
28.3. PW.1 further went on to say that his name is not recorded as
cultivator in respect of suit lands since 1996. Witness adds that it is
managed and he was not present at the suit property on 15.09.2009
on the date of cause of action, he sold the land to Manne Rambabu
and another in the year 2004 and he can identify the hand-writing of
Venkateswar Rao and his signatures if shown to him, witness is shown
the Agreement, dated 10.08.1996 (B1), he expressed that he cannot
identify for want of spectacles. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he
has executed Ex.B1-Agreement of Sale in favour of the defendant
(appellant herein) and he is in possession since then i.e., 10.08.1996.
26/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
29.1. PW.2 is the brother of the respondent-plaintiff and father of
appellant-defendant he deposed that the suit schedule property is an
agricultural land to an extent of Acs.06-00 gts., in Sy.Nos.144 and 145
of Laxmipuram Revenue Village which is owned by PW.1 (respondent
herein) and the land is bounded by East land of L.Sateesh, West
remaining land of plaintiff and L.Satyanarayana Das, North-NSP Canal,
South-Lakkineni Rambhadraiah. Defendant (appellant herein) has
coerced him to draft the Agreement of Sale on 10.08.1996 taking
advantage of the absence of PW.1 that the sale of the land is for
Rs.1,80,000/-, the defendant has paid the entire sale consideration to
PW.1 and that PW.1 had put the defendant in possession of the above
said land on the same day. During that time, himself and the
defendant were living jointly in one house, he persuaded the defendant
that what he is doing is wrong and immoral but in vain. PW.1 was not
present on 10.08.1996 and he did not sign the Agreement of Sale, the
signature appearing on the Agreement of Sale drafted by him is not
that of PW.1 and PW.1 has no need to sell the schedule property to
anyone much less the defendant. Defendant is his eldest son and he is
arrogant and greedy. PW.1 continued to be in physical possession of
the suit property till the year 2008 and the defendant has occupied the
schedule property in the year 2008 in the absence of PW.1.
29.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he do not know
whether the land on the Southern side is in possession of
Charkravarthula Sesha Chari and do not remember whether the
27/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
Eastern side boundary is land of Lakkineni Srikrishna Bhavani, himself
and the defendant lived jointly till 15 years i.e. till about 2000 and that
he gave evidence in OS.No.174 of 2002. The writing on Ex.B1 is that
of him, as per Ex.B1 the land was sold to defendant by plaintiff on
10.08.1996, he do not know whether the plaintiff received
Rs.1,80,000/- on 10.08.1996 from the defendant in his presence and
he did not go to the village for the past 10 years, the schedule
property is vacant land, he do not know whether the defendant is in
possession of the schedule property since the date of Ex.B1 and he did
not inform the plaintiff at any time about the scribe of Ex.B1 and that
the defendant has forced him to scribe the same. PW.2 denied the
suggestion that defendant is in possession of the suit schedule
property since 1996.
30. PW.3 is the Tahsildar of Kalluru Mandal and he deposed that the
lands in Sy.No.144/AA/A/1 and to an extent of Acs.4-35 gts., and
Sy.No.144/AA/A to an extent of Acs.2-00 gts., stands in the name of
Lakkineni Suryanarayana (respondent-plaintiff) for the year 1996-97.
The adangals for the year 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000-01 were not
available in the office as the same were destroyed in the fire accident
in the year 2013. The name of Lakkineni Ramesh (appellant herein)
was incorporated in the possessory column in Sy.No.144/AA/A for the
year 1999-2000, such entry was based on private sale transaction.
Pahani for the year 2003-04, 2005-06 to 2012-13 is in the names of
Manne Rambabu to an extent of Ac.0-35 gts., and Ramesh to an
28/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
extent of Acs.04-00 gts., and Acs.02-00 gts., are present in the
possessory column and in the pahani for the year 2004-05, the name
of Lakkineni Suryanarayana and Ramesh are present in the possessory
column. For the year 2016-17, Sy.No.144/AA/AA to an extent of
Acs.06-00 gts., stands patta in the name of Lakkineni Suryanarayana
and in the possessory column the name of Lakkineni Ramesh is
recorded. In his cross-examination, he could not identify the signature
on the certified copy of Ex.B8.
31.1. PW.5 is the Deputy Director, C.F.S.L., Hyderabad, his evidence
is that case was allotted to him for examination and opinion. On
preliminary examination of the signatures on Ex.A1, Ex.B1, Vakalath
and Plaint it has been observed that there is a time gap of
approximately 14 years between the Dispute and Admitted signatures.
Moreover, the model and design of the signatures on Ex.B1 is different
with that of the Admitted signatures. In order to assess the nature
and extent of variations in the writing habits of Sri L.Suryanarayana, it
is desirable to have his admitted genuine signatures near about of
disputed signatures as well as the specimen signatures taken in open
Court for further examination. He admitted the letter given by him on
06.08.2018 which is marked as Ex.C1. The signatures on the Plaint
and Vakalath are of the year 2010. Ex.A1 does not contain any date
or issuance.
29/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
Q:- Whether the Signatures on Exs.A1 and B1 are different or not?
Ans:- The model and designs of these two signatures are found
different, it may be due to time gap or different penmanship.
Q:- If the Signatures on Ex.A1 is contemporaneous with the
signature on Ex.B1 what is your Opinion?
Ans:- That is based on single signature I cannot express any opinion.
To study the natural variations in the writing habits of a person
it requires a few more signatures.
31.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that the contemplatory
signatures as requested by the Laboratory vide Letter dated
06.08.2018 (Ex.C1) were not received by the Laboratory and he has
not given any report as he has not received any further documents and
he has sent only a Letter and not a Report. Ex.C1 is the Letter and not
a Report and it is not a conclusive Report.
32. The schedule given by PW.2 in his chief-affidavit for Acs.06-00
gts., of land in Sy.Nos.144 and 145 of Laxmipuram Revenue Village,
Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District do not match with the Western
boundary of the suit schedule property with that of the Western
boundary mentioned by the witness. Suit schedule Property is in
Sy.No.144/AA whereas the Survey numbers mentioned by PW.2 is in
Sy.Nos.144 and 145.
33. Ex.B1 is the Agreement of Sale, dated 10.08.1996. The
schedule property shown therein is land admeasuring Acs.06-00 gts.,
in Sy.No.144/AA of Laxmipuram (Ralabanjara) Village, Kalluru Mandal,
30/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
the contents therein shows that the sellar (Lakkineni Suryanarayana
respondent-plaintiff) sold the property for his family necessities @
Rs.30,000/- per acre and the total sale consideration is Rs.1,80,000/-
which is received by him by way of cash and from today onwards i.e.,
10.08.1996 he may enjoy the property with all absolute rights. The
boundaries shown therein is East: land belongs to Moppidi Lalaiah,
West: Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao, North: NSP Main Canal, South: land
belonging to Chakravathula Sesha Charyulu. It is to be noted that
there are no witnesses to Ex.B1.
34. The evidence of DW.1 is the same with that of his written
statement. In his cross-examination, he stated that as on the date of
Ex.B1 he was only getting the income through his salary and was not
getting any income from agricultural lands and there are no witnesses
to Ex.B1, there is no recital therein that the plaintiff (respondent
herein) should execute the registered sale deed in his favour as and
when he requested. The boundaries to the schedule property is East:
Lakkineni Sri Krishna Bhavani and Muppidi Lalaiah, West: Lakkineni
Venkateswara Rao and his sons, North: N.S.P. Canal and South: land
of Chakravarthula Seshacharyulu. The Eastern boundary holder is now
changed to one Mangya and he has not issued any notice nor filed suit
for specific performance seeking execution of registered sale deed and
he did not seek any mutation of patta of suit property in his name from
the name of the plaintiff and for issuance of ROR passbooks and title
deeds. Witness adds that due to the pendency of the litigation he did
31/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020not do so. The scribe of Ex.B1 did not sign on it and he filed the
certified copies of pahani for the year 1997-98 to 2006-07 relating to
the suit schedule property and they were marked as Exs.B2 to B11 in
OS.No.174 of 2002 and he do not remember whether the pahanies
were got returned and he do not remember whether there are any
corrections and change in the ink in possessory column in the Note
underneath the pahanies. For the first time, his name was entered in
the possessory column of pahani in the year 1997 on the application
given by him in the year 1996. In the year 1998, he obtained
electricity connection and raised Palm Oil trees. DW.1 denied the
suggestion that he has no title or lawful possession over the suit
property, manipulated the records and highhandedly occupied the suit
property in the year 2009 without any right and he is liable to deliver
the possession.
35. Ex.B8 is the certified copies of pahanies for the year 1997-98 to
2007-08 which goes to show that the name of the appellant-defendant
is recorded in the possessory column to an extent of Acs.06-00 gts.,
Ex.B33 is the certified copies of pahanies for the year 2007-08 to
2010-11 and 2014-15 which shows that the name of the appellant-
defendant is recorded in possessory column to an extent of Acs.06-00
gts., Ex.B31 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02 which
supports the case of the appellant-defendant that his name is recorded
in the Revenue Records right from 1997-98.
32/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
36. PW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he made an
application before the MRO, Kalluru stating that the name of the
appellant-defendant is recorded in the Revenue Records as possessor
and that has to be deleted and his name has to be incorporated from
1997-98 and he further admitted that his name is not recorded as
cultivator in respect of the suit land since the year 1996. Witness adds
that the appellant-defendant managed the Revenue Authorities.
Respondent-plaintiff further admitted in his cross-examination that he
was not present at the suit property on 15.09.2009 on the date of
cause of action.
37. When the appellant-defendant was cross-examined, he stated
that he submitted copy of Ex.B1 before the Revenue Authorities in the
year 1996 with a covering letter to mutate his name and his name was
entered in the possessory column of the pahanies in the year 1997.
38.1. Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in SopanRao and Another
Vs. Syed Mehmood and Others 8 observed at Para 9 which reads as
under:
“9. The limitation for filing a suit for possession on
the basis of title is 12 years. In a suit filed for
possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove
his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of
the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot
succeed unless he is held to have some title over the
land. However, the main relief is of possession and,
therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. This Article deals with a suit for
possession of immovable property or any interest therein8
(2019) 7 SCC 76
33/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020based on title and the limitation is 12 years from the
date when possession of the land becomes adverse to
the plaintiff.
38.2. The decision cited by the respondent’s counsel in Para Nos.27.6
and 27.8 do not assist his case in view of the ‘3’ Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court which held that the main relief is of possession,
therefore the suit will be governed by Article 65 of Limitation Act.
39. The admission made by the plaintiff (respondent herein) is
sufficient to come to a conclusion that he is aware that the name of
the appellant-defendant is entered in the Revenue Records in the year
1996.
40. There is no dispute with regard to the title of the respondent-
plaintiff and the burden is on the respondent-plaintiff to prove and
establish that the appellant-defendant’s possession is adverse to his
title. Suit for recovery of possession based on title must be filed within
12 years from the date, the defendant’s possession becomes adverse
to the plaintiff. 12 years period starts running when the defendant’s
possession becomes adverse to the rightful owner. Respondent-
plaintiff has admitted that since 1996, defendant’s name is in
possession column in respect of suit schedule property in the Revenue
Records. In Ex.B4, the learned Junior Civil Judge at Sathupalli basing
on Ex.B26 (Ex.B21 in OS.No.28 of 2010) held that the appellant-
defendant is in possession since 1997.
34/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
41. Respondent-plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination in
OS.No.174 of 2002 that he has alienated Ac.0-35 gts., to third parties.
Plaintiff is trying to take advantage of his own wrong that he instructed
his counsel to file the suit for declaration and recovery of possession
only to an extent of Acs.06-00 gts., but the suit came to be filed for
Acs.06-32 gts., Plaintiff has to stand on his own pleadings and he
cannot take a ‘U’ turn and say that the suit is for only Acs.06-00 gts.,
but not for Acs.06-32 gts.
42. There is no dispute that the boundaries prevail over extent. The
pahanies filed by the appellant-defendant under Ex.B8 goes to show
that the appellant-defendant name is recorded in the possessory
column right from 1997. The cross-examination of PW.1 even
supports his contention that the name of the defendant is incorporated
in respect of suit schedule property right from 1996.
43. The Trial Court while answering Issue No.3 has held that
“plaintiff failed to establish his dispossession in the year 2009” and
presumed that the dispossession must be the date of the previous suit
which is 2002. When the Trial Court came to a conclusion that when
the respondent-plaintiff failed to establish his dispossession in the year
2009, it ought to have answered the issue in favour of appellant-
defendant but instead thereof presumed and arrived at a conclusion
that the dispossession must be the date of previous suit in the year
2002.
35/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
44. The Trial Court has not considered the admissions made the
respondent-plaintiff as PW.1 with that of Exs.B8, B21, B31, B32, B33
coupled with the findings of the Junior Civil Judge in OS.No.174 of
2002 under Ex.B4 and the judgment passed by Senior Civil Judge at
Sathupalli in AS.No.2 of 2008 under Ex.B5 supports the case of the
appellant-defendant that he is in possession of the suit schedule
property since 1997.
45. Appellant-defendant is in possession of suit schedule property
since 1997 and the suit in OS.No.28 of 2010 is presented on
13.04.2010 and numbered on 20.04.2010 which goes to show that the
suit came to be filed after 13 years which is beyond the period of
12 years.
46. This Court is not answering the other contentions raised by the
respondent’s counsel in respect of Ex.B1 in view of the fact that the
suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is barred by limitation. As stated
in the preceding paragraph as the appellant-defendant restricted his
arguments to the point of limitation the same is answered and I am
not inclined to venture into the other points raised in the grounds of
Appeal.
47. Appellant has made out a case that the suit filed by the
respondent-plaintiff is barred by limitation, Appeal deserves to be
36/34 BRMR,J
AS.No.146_2020
allowed and is allowed, hence Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered
accordingly.
48. In the result, Appeal is allowed, judgment and decree passed by
the Principle District Judge, Khammam in OS.No.28 of 2010, dated
17.12.2019 is set aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the
respondent-plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Interim Orders, if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous
application/s shall stands closed.
_________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
21st August, 2025.
PLV
[ad_1]
Source link