NARASAMMA & ORS. versus A. KRISHNAPPA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 26-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
NARASAMMA & ORS.
v.
A. KRISHNAPPA (DEAD) THROUGH  LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2710 of 2010)
AUGUST 26, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJAY RASTOGI AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Suit – Possession – Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents
(original plaintiff) filed a suit against the predecessor-in-interest
of the appellants (original defendant) in respect of a schedule
property – Original plaintiff claimed himself to be the full and
absolute owner of the schedule property and sought directions for
defendant to remove the temporary structure on the schedule
property and put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the said
property – The suit was resisted by the original defendant and it
was stated that plaintiff’s brother had executed sale agreement on
10.10.1976 in favour of defendant’s wife and she was put in
possession of the schedule property – However, sale deed was not
registered – Defendant also pleaded adverse possession in his
written statement – It was also stated that a General Power of
Attorney was executed in favour of defendant’s wife on 08.08.1988
by plaintiff’s brother – The trial Court held that it was a case of
continuous possession since 1976, thus defendant had perfected
their title to the schedule property and relief of possession to plaintiff
was declined – However, the judgment of the trial Court also showed
inconsistencies in documents i.e. agreement of sale, General Power
of Attorney, affidavit and deposition of DW-2 – The High Court
decreed the suit against the heirs of the original defendant, as
original defendant expired – On appeal, held: The High Court re-
examined in extenso the evidence produced by both the parties and
affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court regarding the
inconsistencies in the agreement of sale and General Power of
Attorney – Further, it was also held that the General Power of
Attorney dated 08.08.1988 revealed that plaintiff’s brother was in
possession of property as on 08.08.1988 – As the sale deed was
not registered and ground taken that there was bar/prohibition on
transfer of land was not proved – There is no reason to disturb the
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 528
528
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
concurrent findings of the courts below – Thus, plea of possessed
title of defendant’s wife was not established on basis of the documents
propounded – As far as alternative plea of adverse possession is
concerned, the claim of title from 1976 and plea of adverse
possession also from 1976 cannot simultaneously hold – In order
to establish adverse possession an enquiry is required to be made
into the starting point of such adverse possession and, thus, when
the recorded owner got dispossessed would be crucial – In the
instant case, this fact has not been proved – The plea of adverse
possession is lacking in all material particulars – The legal position
stands as evolved against the appellants herein in advancing a plea
of title and adverse possession simultaneously and from the same
date – Therefore, appellants directed to hand over vacant and
peaceful possession of the schedule property.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1.  It is relevant to note that on the crucial issue of
the factual matrix regarding the documents and the conclusion
to be drawn from them, both the Courts are ad idem. Not only
grave doubt has been thrown on the story of the appellants herein,
but both Courts also record that the documents sought to be
propounded by the appellants, i.e., the Agreement of Sale, the
Power of Attorney and the affidavit, have too many discrepancies
to be treated worth their while. This is apart from the fact that
the non-registration of the title document in favour of defendant’s
wife-appellant 1 herein, was sought to be explained away on the
ground of there being a bar/prohibition on transfer of land, which
aspect was however not proved by the appellants by leading any
evidence. There is also adverse comment on the testimony of
the witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, more so
DW-2, who was alleged to have scribed Exhibits D-1 and D-2. As
noticed above, the conclusion of the Trial Court was that this
witness had either forgotten all facts or had given tutored evidence
as he claimed that both Exhibits D-1 and D-2 were prepared on
the same date while the documents were twelve (12) years apart.
In fact, the Trial Court has succinctly set out that the treasury
seals were found to be erased and fresh dates affixed on Exhibit
D

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