HARI KRISHNA PATEL AND ANR. versus STATE OF A.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 28-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARI KRISHNA PATEL AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. AND ANR. 
• 
NOVEMBER 28, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Suit for declaration of Title-No documentary evidence in support of 
claim-Revenue record showing Government asserted its title-Plaintiffs' 
predecessor acknowledgi1.ig Government title-Penalty imposed on plaintiffs' 
predecessor for unauthorised occupancy-Suit filed within 13 years-Held 
plaintiffs' title was not peifected by prescription. 
A 
B 
c 
A suit filed by the appellants for declaration of title in respect of suit 
property and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from 
interfering with appellants possession was decreed by the Trial Court. The 
appellants' claim that the property was purchased from one k was not D 
supported by any documentary evidence. The High Court relied upon the 
entries in the Revenue Records and found that (i) Government had as-
serted its title to the land and plaintiffs' predecessor acknowledged the 
same; and (ii) penalty was collected from K and plaintiffs' predecessor 
being an unauthorised occupier. Accordingly, the High Court reversed the E 
decree of the Trial Court 
In appeal to this Court on the question whether the appellants have 
perfected their title by prescription; 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The findings of the High Court do not warrant interference. 
Imposition of penalty and payment by appellants' father and K amount to 
accepting the title of the Government. From the year 1932 to 1963, there 
F 
was no evidence as to the nature of the possession and enJoyment by the 
appellants' predecessor. Therefore, a presumption arises that the same G 
state of things continued from 1932 to 1963. Same state of things having 
continued from 1932 to 1963, the Government asserted its title and the 
appellants' predecessor acknowledged the same. The suit having been filed 
within 13 years, the appellants had not perfected their title by prescription 
as against the Government. [763-D-F] 
H 
761 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R .. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 206 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.85 of the AP. High Court 
in C.C.C.A Nos. 142 and 152 of 1978. 
• 
B 
A Subba Rao for the Appellants. 
c 
Altaf Ahmed, ASG, A Raghuvir, G. Prabhakar and B. Parthasarthy 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree 
dated July 16, 1985 made by the High Court of AP. in C.C.C.A. Nos. 142 
and 152 of 1978. The appellants laid the suit for declaration of the title in 
respect of Survey No. 6 of Musheerabad village, Hyderabad, AP. ad-
measuring 12.958 sq. mtrs. and for perpetual injunction restraining the 
D respondents from interfering with the appellants' possession over the suit 
land and for costs of the suit. The trial court though decreed the suit on 
June 14, 1976, on appeal the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed 
the suit. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
E 
The only question raised in this case is whether th~ appellants had 
perfected title by prescription. Though the appellants had sought declara-
tion of title, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, the appellants had 
not produced any documentary evidence except Ex. A-1 sale deed dated 
August 21, 1968 executed by his father and that, therefore, it did not 
conclude the matter. The claim was that the property was purchased from 
F 
one Kulsum Bi. No documentary evidence was produced in proof thereof. 
Under these circumstances, there is no proof of title having been passed 
from J(ulsuni Bi to the father to the appellants. 
The only question is whether the appellants have perfected title by 
prescription. The High Court has decided the period of prescription prior 
G to 1932 to 1963 and from 1963 to 1970 and thereafter. The evidence in 
support thereof was negatived by the High Court relying upon entries in 
the revenue record. Ex. A-13 is relevant for the period from 1928 to 1932. 
In column 10, the account-holder is described as 'Government' and in 
column 12 the name of the possessor is described as "Kulsum Bi, w/o 
H Ahmed, possessor Mizar Mehdi Khan-Kandi Bala Kistaiah and Lax-
H.K.PATELv. STATE 
763 
minarayana". In column 25 it was stated that "In no. 13, old number 5 on A 
account of unauthorisedly making bricks, the land is being rendered uncul-
tivable during the previous year on account of the land being dry penalty 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.