The entry of possession in some revenue records simplicitor does not confer any right to retain the possession: SC [Read Judgment]
The entry of possession in some revenue records simplicitor does not confer any right to retain the possession, the Supreme Court has reiterated.The Bench comprising of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra made this observation in Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) vs. Muddasani Sarojana wherein it upheld the decreeing of a suit by First Appellate Court.The suit was filed by a person who...
The entry of possession in some revenue records simplicitor does not confer any right to retain the possession, the Supreme Court has reiterated.
The Bench comprising of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra made this observation in Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) vs. Muddasani Sarojana wherein it upheld the decreeing of a suit by First Appellate Court.
The suit was filed by a person who brought the property of one Yashoda from her heirs. The defendant plea was that she is an adopted daughter of Yashoda. The Court rejected the plea that plaintiff should have filed suit for declaration of title by observing that “The main plea of defendant no. 3 that she was an adopted daughter of Yashoda has not been found to be established by the trial Court, the first Appellate Court or by the High Court.”
The Court referring to Kurella Naga DruvaYudayaBhaskara Rao v. GallaJaniKamma (2008) 15 SCC 150, said “Unless there is serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff there is no need to file suit for declaration of title. The suit for possession was maintainable.”
Restoring the Appellate Court judgment decreeing the suit for possession the Court held “it is apparent that Yashoda was enjoying the property in her lifetime, though it appears that defendant no. 3 was residing with Yashoda, but she has not claimed any derogatory title to Yashoda nor has claimed adverse possession. Her claim of an adopted daughter of Yashoda has not been found established. The entry of possession in some revenue records simplicitor does not confer any right to defendant no. 3 to retain the possession of the property. The property on the death of Yashoda had been passed on to Buchamma being class IInd heir, as such she had the right to sell the property to plaintiff. Even if Buchamma had not placed plaintiff in possession of property on strength of his title conferred by way of sale deed in question he had right to recover possession.”
Read the Judgment here.