LexATLA SIDDA REDDY versus BUSI SUBBA REDDY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 7 S.C.R. 624 ATLA SIDDA REDDY V. BUSI SUBBA REDDY AND ORS. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4549 of 2008) MAY 06, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Suit: Suit for declaration of title - Suit property sold by D\N-4 by registered sale deed in 1968 - Petitioner claiming C title over property on the basis of registered sale deed executed by DW-4 in 1974 - Held: DW-4 was not competent to execute the subsequent sale deed in 1974 in respect of same property - Petitioner therefore did not acquire any title D to the suit property - Deeds and documents. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit property. The basis of petitioner's claim was that suit property was sold by DW-4 to 'SG' by a registered deed dated 10.5.1974 (Ext.A-1) from whom the petitioner E purchased the suit property in 1984. The defence of defendant was that DW-4 sold the suit property by a registered deed dated 22.5.1968 (Ext.B-1) to one 'TH' who then sold it on 17.5.1982 to 'PP'. The defendant then purchased the suit property from 'PP' by registered deed in 1985. F The trial court dismissed the suit and held that in view of registered deed dated 22.5.1968 by DW-4, she was no longer competent to execute the subsequent sale deed in respect of same property in favour of 'SG' through G whom the petitioner claimed title. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the evidence of DW- 4 was not reliable as she neither knew 'TH' nor the scribe H 624 ATLA SIDDA REDDY v. BUSI SUBBA REDDY AND 625 ORS. of the sale deed. However, the High Court accepted the A evidence of DW-4 and held that since Ext.B-1 was prior in point of time in relation to the subsequent document executed in favour of 'SG', the petitioner, who had acquired his title through 'SG', did not acquire any title to the suit properties. On such finding, the High Court B reversed the decision of the first Appellate Court. Aggrieved petitioner filed special leave petition. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court HELD: Ext.B2 was a crucial document and was C admittedly anterior in point of titne to Ext.A1 subsequently executed by DW-4 when she had already divested herself of title to the suit properties. The petitioner did not, therefore, acquire any title to the suit property and the suit was rightly dismissed. [Para 11] [629 D -A-BJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO: SLP (Civil) No. 4549 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 18.4.2007 of the High E Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Second Appeal No. 656 of 1997. A. Subba Rao for the Petitioner. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Despite service of notice, the respondents have not appeared to contest the Special Leave Petition which is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th April, 2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G S.A. No.656 of 1997. 2. In September, 1988, the petitioner filed O.S. No.735 of 1988 in the Court of District Munsif, Cuddapah, inter alia, for declaration of the petitioner's title to the plaint schedule property H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 and his men from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession therein and enjoyment thereof. The Ill Additional District Munsif dismissed the petitioner's suit on 29.11.1990, upon holding that the petitioner had failed to establish the title B of his predecessor-in-interest in the suit land. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being A.S. No.113 of 1990, in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, which was allowed on 26th March, 1997. The judgment and order of the trial court was set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of the c petitioner. 3. It may be indicated that the defendant No.1 Koppolu Subba Reddy, died during the pendency of the appeal before the 1st Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, and the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 herein were brought on record as his D legal representatives. The respondents herein filed Second ~ppeal No.656of1997, in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 18th April, 2007. The judgment and decree of the 1st Additional District Judge was set aside and the judgment and decree of E the trial court dismissing the petitioner's suit was restored. F 4. In order to appreciate the submissions of Mr. A. Subba Rao, lear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.