LexKURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO versus GALLA JANI KAMMA ALIAS NACHARAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11S.C.R.849 - )r KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO A II. GALLA JANI KAMMA ALIAS NACHARAMMA (Civil Appeal No. 4788 of .2008) AUGUST 4, 2008 B [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, ·1908 - Suit in civil court for recovery of possession of agricultural land - Maintainability c of - Held: Maintainable as neither plaintiff nor defendant claimed or admitted that there was relationship of landlord and agricultural tenant between them - Plaintiff's case was that defendant was trespasser and case of defendant was that he was owner and was never tenant of suit land either under plaintiff D or anyone else - Since suit was not for eviction of agricultural .,,,. tenant, s. 13 of 1956 Act not attracted - Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956 - ss. 13, 16. Adverse possession - Suit for possession - Claim by defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse posses- E sion and suit was not maintainable for want of prayer for dee- laration of title - Held: Mere claim of adverse possession by defendant, does not mean that a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and that the plaintiff who is the owner, should file a suit for declaration of title - Unless the defendant raises a serious F A cloud over the title of the plaintiff, there is no need to file a suit for declaration - On facts, plaintiff had title and she only wanted possession and, therefore, suit for possession was maintain- able. The respondent-plaintiff claiming herself to be the G owner of certain agricultural land under a sale deed dated 10.4.1957 and alleging the appellant as trespasser, filed ~ suit against him for possession of the suit land. The de- fendant denied the title of the plaintiff and claimed to have 849 H 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A perfected his title by adverse possession. His case was '(_ - that the sale deed dated 10.4.1957 was a nominal deed as was evident from an agreement dated 18.1.1959 executed by the plaintiff and; that since the plaintiff had stated in the plaint that she had leased out the land to him, she B should have filed petition before the Revenue Court un- der the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, -<( 1956. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the High Court affirmed the decree. In the instant appeal filed by the defendant, the ques- c tions for consideration before the Court were: (i) whether the plaintiff's suit for possession in the civil court was not maintainable and whether the remedy was only by way of an eviction petition under s.13 of the Act; (ii) whether the suit was not maintainable for want of a prayer for dee- D la ration of title; (iii) whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and High Court that plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and that defendant had -. ~ not made out title by adverse possession call for interfer- ence. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 13 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956 requires an application to be made to the Special Officer under the Act only when a land~ F lord wants to terminate the tenancy and evict his cultivat- ing tenant and not otherwise. Termination of tenancy and ,.4. .. eviction petition under s.13(e) are contemplated only where (a) the defendant is the cultivating tenant; and (b) the defendant wilfully denies the landlord's title to the land. G [Para 10, 11] [858 B-C, E & F] 1.2. It is true that in the instant case, the plaintiff had ~ averred in the plaint that the defendant was closely re- lated to her and·on her request, she had leased the suit . 'i _,.. · land to him in the year 1971. But the plaintiff further spe- H cifically alleged that the defendant had denied her title and KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. 851 GALLA JANI KAMMAALIAS NACHARAMMA -y claimed title in himself, and he had also denied the rela- A tionship of 'landlord and tenant'; and that therefore, the defendant was a trespasser and she was entitled to sue for possession to evict the 'trespasser'. The averment in the plaint should be read as a whole. If so done, it is clear that plaintiff claims that defendant is a trespasser in the B ~ suit land. Significantly, the defendant in his written state- ment did not allege that he was the cultivating tenant of the suit land either under the plaintiff or anyone els.e. On the other hand, he denied the title of plaintif
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.