WUNTAKAL YALPI CHENABASAVANA GOWD versus RAO BAHADUR Y. MAHABALESHWARAPPA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 15-04-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
_) . 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
131 
very party who complains about it. Even apart from 
this, we are satisfied that no prejudice was caused to 
the appellants by their appeal having been heard 
by 
the District Court. There was a fair and full hearing 
of the appeal by that Court ; it gave its decision on 
the merits on a consideration of the entire evidence in 
the case, and no injustice is shown to have resulted in 
its disposal of the matter. The decision of the learned 
Judges that there were no grounds for interference 
under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is correct. 
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismmised with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
WUNTAKAL YALPI CHENABASAVANA GOWD 
v. 
RAO BAHADUR Y. MAHABALESHWARAPPA 
AND ANOTHER. 
[BIJAN KUMAR MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, GHULAM 
HASAN and T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Co-sharers-faint property-Adverse possession 
by a co-sharer 
against another co-sharer-Ouster-Principles applicable thereto. 
Once it is held that a possession of a co-sharer has 
become 
adverse to the other co-sharer as a result of ouster, the mere asser-
tion of his joint title by the dispossessed co-sharer would not inter-
rupt the running of adverse 
possession. 
He must actually 
and 
effectively break up the exclusive possession of 
his 
co-sharer by 
re-entry 
upon the 
property or by 
resuming 
possession in such 
manner as it was possible to do. It may also check the running of 
time if the co-sharer who is in exclusive possession acknowledges 
the title of his co-owner or discontinues 
his exclusive 
possession 
of the property. 
The fact that one co-sharer who had allowed himself to be dis-
possessed by another co-sharer as a result of ouster exhibited later 
on his animus to treat the property as 
the joint property of him-
self and his co-sharer cannot arrest the running of adverse posses-
sion in favour of the co-sharer. 
A mere mental act on the part of 
the person dispossessed unaccompanied by any change of 
posses-
sion cannot 
affect the 
continuity of adverse possession of the 
<leseizor. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
No. 89 of 1953. 
JuRisDICTION : Civil· 
Appeal 
1954 
Kiran Singh and 
Others • 
v. 
Chaman Paswan 
and Others. 
Venkatarama 
AyyarJ. 
1954 
April 15. 
1954 
Wuntakal ralpi 
Chenabasavana 
Gowd 
V• 
Rao Bahadur 
r. Mahabnlesh· 
warappa and 
·Another. 
132 
SUPREME' COURT REPORTS· 
(1955]! 
Appeal. from the Judgment and Decree dated the-
28th day of March, 1949, of .the High Court of Judica..c 
ture at Madras· in Appeal No.· 654 of 1945, arising out 
of the f udgment and Decree . dated the 23rd day . of 
July, 
1945, of the Court of the District Judge, Bellary,. 
in Original Suit No. 17 of 1944. 
K. S. Krishnaswami. Iyengar (K; R. Chowdhury, 
D. Gundu Rao, A. Rama Rao and Rajinder Narain, with. 
him) for the appellant. 
B. Somayya (M. V. Ganapathi and Ganpat Rai,. 
with him) for respondent No. 1. 
1954. April 15. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MuKHERJEA J.-This 
appe~l arises out of a suit,. 
commenced by the plaintiff respondent, in the Court of 
the District Judge of Bdlary, being Original Suit No. 17 
of 1944, for establishment of his title to one-half share 
of the land described in the schedule to the . plaint and 
for recovery of possession of the same after partition: 
with defendant No. 1, who is the appellant before us. 
The suit· was dismissed by the trial Judge by,his judg-
ment dated the 23rd of July, 1945. On an appeal being 
taken against that decision by the plaintiff to the High 
Court of Madras, a Division Bench of· the High . Court 
by its judgment dated the. 28th. qf March, 1949, allowed 
the appeal and reversed the judgment of the trial Court. 
The defendant No.· 1 has now ·come ·up· on· appeal 
t0o 
this Court 'on the strength of a 
certifi~ate · granted' · by: 
the High Court under . article · 133 of the Constitution 
read. with sections 109 and ·110 of the., Civil Procedure: 
Code .... 
To appreciate the .contentions that have been raised' 
before us it may be necessary to give a short resmne-
of the material facts. The !:ind in suit, · which has · an· 
area of a little over. 9 acres, was admittedly die pro-
perty of one Basappa who died some time befor.e 
1918,. 
leaving three daughters, to wit P~ramma, Pompamma 
and 
Hampamma. Under a settlement entered into 
with the immediate reversioner of Basappa which is 
evidenced by two registered deeds-Exhibits P-2 
and 
P-3'-executed respectively in the years 1918 and 
1919, 
the

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