LexCHATII KONATI RAO & ORS. versus PALLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 923 CHATII KONATI RAO & ORS. v. PALLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO (Civil Appeal No. 6039 of 2003) DECEMBER 7, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] A B LETTERS PATENT (as applicable to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh): · ' C Clause 10 - Letters Patent Appeal - Power of Division Bench of High Court - HELD: Power of Division Bench, hearing a Letters Patent appeal from judgment of a Single Judge in a first appeal, is not limited only to a question of law D u/s 100, but it has the same power which the Single Judge has as a first appellate court in respect of both questions of fact and of law. Adverse Possession: Suit for recovery of possession - Defendants' pleas that they purchased the property and, alternatively, perfected title E by adverse possession claiming to have come in possession under agreement of sale - HELD: Both the pleas have not been substantiated - Neither the purported sale deed nor ttie F agreement of sale have been placed on record. Adverse possession - Ingredients of - Explained - HELD: Animus possidendi is a refluisite ingredient of adverse.· possession - Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the G title of true owner for a period of 12 years - The person who claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the 923 H 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1 A factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and that the possession was open and! undisturbed - A person pleading adverse possession has no' equities in his favour and he has to plead and establish clearly all necessary facts to establish adverse possession - B Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of facts and law - Equities - Pleadings. Plaintiffs no. 1 and 2, the mother and the son, filed a suit against the brother and the sister of plaintiff no. 2 (defendants no. 1 and 2, respectively) for recovery of C possession in respect of certain properties, including four acres of land pertaining to R.S. No. 44/3 (the land in dispute) situate in their village. Their case was that defendant No. 1 was looking after the land in dispute, but when he declined to deliver possession of the land In D dispute, they filed a suit for recovery of. possession and mesne profit. The plea of defendant no. 1 was that he purchased the land in dispute under a stamped agreement from 'VR', the father of plaintiff no. 1 and husband of plaintiff no. 2, for Rs.1600/-; that he paid E Rs.1,000/- to 'VR' and a sum of Rs.225/- to one 'BC' who was the tenant and in possession of the land in dispute and the said tenant relinquished his possession and delivered the land to defendant No. 1; and that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. Though no F issue of adverse possession was framed, but the trial court dismissed the suit, holding that title to the plaintiffs even if proved, got extinguished by adverse possession. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court. However, their Letters G Patent Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the suit was decreed. In the appeal filed by the heirs and legal representatives of defendant No.1, it was contended for the appellants that the concurrent findings of facts of the H CHATT! KONAT! RAO & ORS. v. PALLE VENKATA 925 SUBBA RAO trial court and the appellate court ought not to have been A upset by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal; and that the appellants· had perfected their title by adverse possession and the findings so recorded by the trial court and the appellate court ought not to have been interfered in Letters Patent Appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that the "power of the Division Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 1 O from the c judgme.nt of a Single Judge in a first appeal is not limited only to a question of law u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it has the same power which the Single Judge has as a first appellate court in respect of both questions of fact and of law. [para 10) [932-E·F] o Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao 1975 (1) SCR 611=AIR1974 SC 2048: (1974) 2 sec 492 • relied on. 2.1. Mere possession however long does not necess
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.