P. LAKSHMI REDDY versus L. LAKSHMI REDDY

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 05-12-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS, BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
195 
was· fired from the pistol 
Ex. III 
produced 
by 
the 
appellant from his house. 
There can, therefore, be no 
room for thinking, in the circumstances established ·in 
this case, that any one else other than the 
appellant 
might 
have shot 
Daya Ram. 
He 
was, 
therefore, 
rightly convicted for the offence of murder. 
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 
P. LAKSHMI REDDY 
ti. 
La LAKSHMI REDDY 
(JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SrNHA and 
JAFER IMAM, JJ.) 
Adverse 
Possession-Possession 
of co-heir, when 
adverse,-
Ottster-Possession of Receiver pendente lite, if can be tacked. 
V died an infant in 1927 and H, an agnatic relation, filed a 
suit for the recovery of the properties belonging · to V which were 
in the possession of third parties, on the ground that he was the 
sole nearest male agnate entitled to all the properties. 
During 
the pendency of the suit a 
Receiver was appointed for the pro- · 
pcrties in 
February, 1928. 
The suit having been decreed 
H 
obtained possession of the properties from the 
Receiver on Janu-
ary 20, 1930, and after his death in 1936, his nephew, the appel-
lant, got into possession as H's heir. 
On 
October 23, 1941, -the 
respondent brought the present suit 
for the recovery of a one-
third share of the properties from the appellant 
on the footing 
that he and his brother were agnatic 
relations of V of the same 
degree as H, that all the three were equal co-heirs of V and that 
I-I obtained the decree and got into possession on behalf of all the 
co-heirs. 
The appellant resisted the suit and contended that the 
respondent lost his right by the adverse possession 
of 
H and his 
successor and 
that for this 
purpose not only 
the period 
from 
January 20, 1930, to October 23, 1941, was to be counted but also 
the prior period when the Receiver was in possession of the pro-
perties during the pendency of H's suit. 
It was found that the 
respondent's case that H o'btained the decree and got possession 
from the 
Receiver on behalf of the other co-heirs was not true : 
Held, that the respondent did not lose 
his right by adverse 
posses~ion. 
Even assuming that H's possession from January 20, 
1930, was adverse and amounted to ouster of 
the other co-heirs, 
such adverse possession was not adequate in time to displace the 
title of the respondent and the period during which the Receiver 
was in possession could not be added, because (I) the 
Receiver's 
Kalua 
"· 
The Stat1 ef 
U1tar Pradesh 
Imam]. 
De&1mbtr, 5. 
1956 
P. /4Jhmi R1dd7 
v. 
{4,hmi R1d<f:I 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
possession could not be tacked on to H's possession, as a Receiver 
is an ofliCer of the Court and is not the agent of any party to the 
suit and notwithstanding that 
in law his 
possession is ultin1ately 
treated as possession of the 
successful 
party on 
the termination 
of the suit, he could not be considered as the agent of such party 
with the animus of claiming sole and exclusive 
title 
with the 
view to initiate adverse possession ; and (2) during the ti1nc of the 
Receiver's possession the respondent could not sue H, and limita-
tion could not therefore run against him. 
The possession of one co-heir is considertd, in law, as posses-
sion of all the co-heirs and _in 
order to establish 
adverse possec;-
sion ouster of the non-possessing co-heir 
should be made out and 
as between the.rn there must be evidence 
of 
open 
assertion 
.of 
hostile 
title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by 
one of thetn to the knowledge 
of 
the other so as to constitute 
ouster. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
j URISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 178 of 1955. 
Appeal by, special leave from the 
Judgment 
and 
decree dated December 3, 1951, of the 
High Court of 
Judicature at 
Madras in 
Second Appeal No. 766 of 
1947 against the · decree dated 
November 
19, 1946, of 
the District Court of 
Anantapur in Appeal No. 130 of 
1945 arising out of the decree dated 
january 31, l94~,, 
of the Court of Subordinate 
Judge, 
Anantapur, in 
Original Suit No. 10 of 1944. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of 
Reddy, K. Sundararajan and M. S. K. 
the appellant. 
India, P. Ram 
Aiyangar, 
for 
C. K. Daplitary, Solicitor-General of India, an<l g, R. 
Chaudhury, for the respondent. 
1956. December 5. 
The 
Judgment 
of the 
Court 
was delivered by 
JACANNADHADAS J.-The plaintiff in the action out 
of which this appeal arises brought a suit for declaration 
of his title to a one-third sha

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