SRI. K.M. KRISHNA REDDY versus SRI. VINOD REDDY & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 06-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 210 : 2023 INSC 877
210
CASE DETAILS
SRI. K.M. KRISHNA REDDY
v.
SRI. VINOD REDDY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 2010)
OCTOBER 06, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: When in a suit simpliciter for a perpetual 
injunction based on title, the defendant pleads perfection of his title by 
adverse possession against the plaintiff  or his predecessor, is it necessary 
for the plaintiff  to claim a declaration of ownership.
Suit – For perpetual injunction based on title – Perfection of title 
by adverse possession pleaded by defendant – If necessary for plaintiff  
to claim a declaration of title:
Held: Respondents admitted the ownership of the appellant’s father 
through whom the appellant claimed title – Even going by the respondents' 
case, the appellant was the co-owner of the property, and the respondents 
admittedly had no title in respect of the suit property – Thus, there was no 
issue involved about the title of the plaintiff  and his father – It is not as if 
the respondents had set up a title in themselves or were claiming through 
somebody who was claiming the title – Their plea was of adverse possession 
against the appellant, which presupposes that the appellant was the owner 
– When in a suit simpliciter for a perpetual injunction based on title, the 
defendant pleads perfection of his title by adverse possession against the 
plaintiff  or his predecessor, it cannot be said that there is any dispute about 
the title of the plaintiff  – Hence, the plaintiff  need not claim a declaration of 
title in such a case as the only issues involved in such a suit are whether the 
plaintiff  has proved that he was in possession on the date of the institution of 
the suit and whether the defendant has proved that he has perfected his title 
by adverse possession – Therefore, in the present case, it was not necessary 
for the appellant to claim a declaration of ownership – There was no cloud on 
211
his title – Therefore, the suit, as originally fi led, was maintainable – Burden 
was on the respondents to prove their plea of adverse possession, as there was 
a counter-claim (which is in the nature of a cross-suit) seeking a declaration 
of ownership based on adverse possession – High Court decided only one 
issue as to whether the amendment sought by the appellant for a prayer for 
declaration of ownership and possession, was barred by limitation – As the 
High Court did not consider the merits of the suit and counter-claim, regular 
second appeal remanded to the High Court – Impugned judgment set aside 
– Regular Second Appeal restored to the fi le of the High Court – Adverse 
Possession. [Paras 14, 16, 18, 20 and 21]
Adverse Possession – Plea of – When defeated – Two alternative 
pleas – Suit for perpetual injunction based on title filed by the 
appellant, respondents pleaded perfection of title by adverse possession 
– Respondents though admitted the title of the appellant’s father to 
the suit property, they disputed that the suit property was allotted to 
appellant’s share under the family settlement and claimed that the 
appellant’s brother ‘J’ was the allottee of the suit property in partition 
and respondents’ mother was put in possession of the suit property by ‘J’ 
in part performance of the agreement for sale in favour of their mother:
Held: This contention completely militates against the plea of adverse 
possession as it completely defeats the plea of adverse possession – This 
contention shows that the respondents are not claiming hostile possession, 
which is an essential ingredient of a plea of adverse possession – At the trial 
stage, the respondents ought to have elected one of the two alternative pleas 
– However, issues framed by the Trial Court indicate that the respondents 
relied upon their plea of adverse possession as well as their plea based on the 
agreement for sale executed by the said ‘J’ – Further, the deed of partition 
pleaded by the respondents, based on which, according to them, ‘J’ became 
the owner, was admittedly not proved – In fact, in the written statement, the 
bare particulars of the partition on the basis of which ‘J’ became the owner 
were not even pleaded by the respondents. [Para 13]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs. and Others (2008) 
4 SCC 594 : [2008] 5 SCR 331 – relied on.
SRI. K.M. KRISHNA REDDY v. SRI. VINOD REDDY & ANR.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
212
O

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