TIRUMALA TRIUPATI DEVASTHANAMS versus K.M. KRISHNALAH

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 02-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

TIRUMALA TRIUPATI DEVASTHANAMS 
A 
v. 
K.M. KRISHNAlAH 
MARCH 2, 1998 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Specific Relief Act. 1963 : 
Section 6: Suit for possession-Filed after lapse of 6 months from date 
of dispossession-Held-Plaintiff cannot claim benefit of Section 6 and C 
question of title can he raised by the defendant-Since the title of the 
defendant has not heen extinguished and is subsisting Plaintiff cannot recover 
possession from true oivner. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section I 00 : Powers of second 
appellate court-Trial court and first appellate court held on the basis of D 
documentary and oral evidence that possession of property was with 
defendant ·-Plaintiff did not produce any docu111c11ta1:y evidence-Second 
appellate court rejected oral and documentary evidence accepted by courts 
below and gave· a finding that title of defendant stood extinguished-In 
appeal-Held-It is not open to second appellate court to re-appreciate E 
evidence and reject evidence accepted by courts below on question of 
possession-f-1-'hen there was no issue on question of adv.erse possession in 
courts below, second appellate court could not have given finding that title 
of defendant stood extinguished. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section J 3: Evidence of an assertion of F 
right to property-To prove title, appellant relied upon a judgment in another 
suit declaring title-Respondent was not a party in that si!it-Held-A 
judgment not inter parties is admissible in evidence. 
On 14.1.68 the rcs11ondcnt-11laintiff filed a suit for 11c1-mancnt injunction 
against A1111ellant-Tirumala Tiru11ati Dcvcasthaanams in res11ect of Acres G 
2.29, of land in Tirumala Hills. The trial court dismissed the suit holding 
that the t1laintitT had 11rowd neither title nor 11osscssion and that the 1llaintiff 
had tm.11assed in October 1967 and was not entitled to 11ermancnt in,iunction 
against the true owner i.e. the deity. 
The plaintiff filed an a1ipeal and during 11emlency of the appeal, the H 
9 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A plaintiff was dispossessed on 30.8.1969 On 25. 7. 70, that is after more than 
6 months of dispossession, he moved for amendment of plaint into one for 
possession. The appellate com1 also held that the plaintiff had proved neither 
title nor 11osscssion. Both the com1s relied upon judgment dated 15.6.42 in 
another suit wherein the com1 had declared the defendants title to this 
B property. Subsequently, dcliYery was obtained by the defendants under Ex B 
6, deliver)· receipt, on 12.1.46. Based on oral and documentary evidence 
adduced by defendant, including governmental surl'ey report, annual auctions 
of lease held interest of these lands, cultivation accounts, receipts for leasing 
etc., both courts found that Jllaintiff has neither title nor possession. It was 
pointed out that no documentarJ' C\'idence such as cultivation accounts, tax 
C receipts etc. were produced by the plaintiff. It was also obsen•ed that the 
defcndant-TTD had filed a criminal complaint again~i the plaintiff alleging 
trespass and the plaintiff had filed the present suit for injunction one day 
later: Howeve1; the second appellate comi rejected the oral and documentary 
evidence adduced by both sides. It held that the defendants's titled stood 
D 
"extinguished" inasmuch as, the delh•erJ· receipt dated 12.1.46 showed some 
encroachers to Ire in possession. Accordingly, a decree for possession was 
passed in fal'our of the plaintiff. 
fn the present :111peal filed hy the defendant-TTD it was contended that 
it was not 011cn to second ll)lpellate comi to re:tp)Jreciatc evidence and reject 
E the oral and docurncnt;iry C\'idence which was accc11ted by the courts below 
and held that TTD 's title ~food 'e:1.iini,'llished' when no such issue was raised 
in the lo•yer co111is. F111ihermore, if the suit was to be decided only on the 
basis of )Jossessory title and if section 6 of the S)lccific relief Act was not 
:l\'ailahle to the plaintiff, the suit for possession was liable to he dismissed 
F 
G 
since the TTD had proved title which was subsisting. 
The plaintiff-res)londent contended that the judgment in another suit 
relied UJIOn hy the lower courts was not admissible or binding in the present 
suit since the plaintiff was not a 11a11y thereto. He also contended that the 
delivery recei)lt, Ex B6 dated 12.1.46 in the earlier suit showed that as far 
as acres 2.29 was concerned, the land was being cult

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