MUDDASANI SAROJANA versus MUDDASANI SAROJANA

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 05-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 655 
MUDDASANI VENKATA NARSAJAH (D) TH. LRS. 
A 
. , 
v .. 
MUDDASANI SAROJANA 
(Civil Appeal No. 4816 of2016) 
MAY05,2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.) 
B 
Title - Suit for possession of property based npon the title. -
Property enjoyed by widow as widows estate during life time -
After widows death, widows late husbands sister succeeded to the 
C 
property and sold it to the plaintiff - Thereafter. forcible eviction of 
plaintiff by defendant - Suit for possession by plaintiff based upon 
title - Case of defendants that defendant no. 3 was adopted 
daughter of the widow and succeeded to. the property by inheritance 
- Trial court dismissed the suit - First appellate court decreed the 
suit - However, High Court held that the sale deed was not proved 
for want of examination of the surviving sister and thus, it was 
necessary for th~ plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title, thus, 
suit for possession could not have been filed - On appeal held: 
Widow was enjoying the property in her lifetime, though it appears 
that defendant no. 3 was residing with the widow, but she did not 
claim any derogatory title to .. the widow nor claimed adverse 
possession - Her claim of adopted daughter of the widow not 
established - Entry of possession in some revenue records simp/icitor 
does not confer any right to defendant no .. 3 lq retain the possession 
of the property - Property on the death o/ the widow passed on to 
widow :S late husbands sister being class !Ind heir, as such she had 
the right to sell the property to plaintiff - Plaintiff could succeed in 
suit for possession on the strength of ifie title - Even if the sister 
had not placed plaintiff in possession of property on strength of his 
title conferred by way of sale deed,· he had right to recover 
possession - Order passed by High Court dismissing the suit set 
aside and the judgment and decree passed by the first 'appellate 
court restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HE,LD: 1.1 As per concurrent findings of all the courts, 
defendant no. 3 has failed to prove the factum of her adoption by 
H 
655 
656 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
deceased 'Y' in the year 1959. There was no corresponding 
document of adoption and other documentary evidence showing 
t.hat defendant no. 3 had ever been adopted by 'Y'. In some of 
the revenue entries' the name of defendant no. 3 has been shown 
as person in possession, but not in the capacity of adopted 
daughter. 'Y' was admittedly the owner of the property. The 
plaintiff has based his case to recover possession on the strength 
of the sale deed executed by 'B' in his favour. [Para 11] [661-E-
F] 
1.2 The plaintiff filed the suit for possession on the strength 
for title and not only on the basis of prior possession. It was not 
C 
a summary suit for ejectment. Thus, plaintiff could succeed in 
suit for possession on the strength· of the title. The issue had 
been framed on the question of title of the plaintiff as well as on 
the question of adoption of defendant no.3. On the basis of title 
claimed in the suit, both the parties have adduced their evidence 
D. 
in support of their respective cases. The main plea of defendant 
no. 3 that she was an adopted daughter of 'Y' has not been found 
to be established by the trial court, the first appellate court or by 
the High Court. Tb us, there was no serious cloud on the title of 
the plaintiff so as to force him to seek the relief for declaration of 
title in the instant case which was in fact based on the strength of 
E. 
the sale deed executed by 'B' who was the sole surviving heir of 
BL as such succeeded to the property and had the right to execute 
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. [Para 12) [661-H; 662-A-
F 
G 
H 
C) 
1.3 Denial for want of knowledge is no denial at all. The 
execution of the sale deed was not specifically denied in the 
written statement. Once the execution of the sale deed was not 
disputed it was not necessary to examine B to prove it. The 
provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 5 CPC require pleadings 
to be answered specifically in written statement. [Para 15] [663-
F-G] 
1.4 There was no effective cross-examination made on the 
plaintiff's witnesses with respect to factum of execution of sale 
deed. The High Court gravely erred hi law in reversing the 
findings of the first appellate court as to the factum of execution 
of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Passing of cons

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