P.H. DAYANAND versus S. VENUGOPAL NAIDU & ORS .

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 706 
P.H. DAYANAND 
v. 
S. VENUGOPAL NAIDU & ORS . 
. (Civil Appeal No. 6570 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 7, 2008 · 
; [S.B. SINHA AND CYRl.AC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Suit for possession - Based on title - Decreed - Courts 
below arrived at finding of fact that plaintiff purchased suit 
property from rightful owner and defendant no.2 did not 
acquire any title over property - Interference with - Held: Not 
called for as defendant no. 2 merely came in permissive 
possession and could not be said to have acquired better title 
than the plaintiff. 
The case of plaintiff-respondent no.1 was that he 
purchased the suit property from the lawful owner. 
Defendant no.2-appellant claimed that he was in lawful 
possession of property in his own right. Plaintiff filed a 
suit claiming title over the property on the ground that 
defendant no.2 was in permissible possession over the 
property. Suit was decreed and High Court affirmed the 
same. Hence the instant appeal. 
The defence of appellant was that the owner of the 
suit property had entered into an agreement of sale with 
one 'K' and a power of attorney was also executed in his 
favour. The said 'K' assigned his rights in favour of 
defendant no.1 and delivered possession of property to 
him. Defendant no.1 filed a suit for specific performance 
of contract, however same was withdrawn. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Both the courts below concurrently found the 
contentions of the plaintiff-respondent that he had 
706 
""' : 
Y-. 
. ...,., 
-1' 
..._
"" 
>..... 
P.H. DAYANAND v. S. VENUGOPAL NAIDU & ORS. 
707 
purchased the property from the rightful owner. Even, A 
according to the appellant, the purported transaction 
between rightful owner and 'K' and defendant No.1 did 
not result in execution of a registered deed of sale in his 
favour. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 himself filed a suit 
for specific performance of the contract against his 
B 
vendor. It was concurrently found by both the courts that 
the defendant No.2 cannot be said to have acquired any 
title over the· property, particularly when the defendant 
. "" 
No.1 himself withdrew the suit for specific performance 
of contract. It was furthermore noticed that even the c 
purported agreement for sale was not produced before 
the trial court by the defendant No.1. When questioned, 
~ 
counsel for appellant conceded that there is nothing on 
record to show that the Bangalore Development Authority 
at any point" of time has acquired the property in suit in 
D. 
terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
, --r· 
or otherwise. Admittedly, the plaintiff's vendor was in 
possession of the suit property. It is only through him, the 
defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 claimed possession. 
As the original owner has transferred his title in favour 
E 
of the plaintiff-respondent, the court was required to go 
into the question of inter se claim between the parties on 
or over the land in dispute. Even if plaintiff and his vendor 
has been in prior possession, the defendant No.2 who 
t 
came in permissive possession of the property through 
F 
..... 
him cannot be said to have acquired a better title than the 
plaintiff. [Paras 9 and 10] (710-D-H; 711-A] 
Somnath Burman v. Dr. S.P. Raju & Anr. (1969) 3 SCC 
129; Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak 
Tanksale (Dead) & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 737, referred to. 
G 
Case Law Reference: 
~. 
(1969) 3 sec 129 
referred to 
Para 10 
(2001) 6 sec 737 
referred to 
Para 11 
H 
.-. • 
708 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
· CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6570 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.8.2006 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal 
B No. 790. of 2006. 
L. Nageshwar Rao, Raghavendra S. Srivastava and 
Abhijat P. Medh for the Appellant. 
P.V. Shetty, D.L. Jagadish, B Vishwanath Bhandarkar, V.N. 
'¥". 
c Raghupathy, Ranji Thomas, Lagnesh Misra, Sandeep and 
Naresh Kumar for ti1e Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this 
appeal is as to whether the Courts below were correct in 
Y, 
decreeing the suit only on the premise that defendant No.2-
appellant could not prove his title. 
E 
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The 
plaintiff-respondent No.1 purchased the suit property in the year 
1991 from one T. Bayarappa. Apparently 

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