//
you're reading...
legal issues

1. Whether the plaintiff acquired title to the schedule lands by adverse possession? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession under law and whether he can claim positive relief of perpetual injunction in his favour in a suit filed by him?=a person who obtained the possession of the property under executory terms of contract of sale, cannot ask for declaration of his title even on the ground that he remained in possession of the property for more than 12 years period and contending that his possession is adverse to the real owner. The Apex Court said in the above two judgments that possession of such person cannot be adverse and he cannot set up the plea of adverse possession. Therefore, in my view the trial court has fallen into error in declaring the title of the plaintiff holding that he perfected his title to the schedule mentioned property by adverse possession against the defendants 1 and 2 who are the real owners and defendants 3 and 4 who are the subsequent purchasers. However, by virtue of the doctrine of part performance embodied in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff can protect his possession from defendants 1 and 2 who sold the property to him under the simple sale deed, so also he can protect his possession from defendants 3 and 4 who have knowledge of the earlier sale transaction in his favour under Exs.A-1 and A-1(a) sale deed. It is argued before me by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the plaintiff having recourse to the doctrine of part performance can only protect his possession but he cannot file a suit for simple injunction by his positive act seeking a decree in his favour. It is true that Section 53-A only operates as a bar against the defendants in the present case from enforcing any rights against the plaintiff other than those which were provided under Exs.A-1 and A-1(a) simple sale deed. Although the section does not confer title on the person who took possession of the property in part performance of the contract, the law is now well settled that when all conditions of the section are satisfied as in the present case, the possession of the person must be protected by the court whether he comes as a plaintiff or defendant. The only embargo is that Section 53-A cannot be taken in aid by the transferee to establish his right as owner of the property. But the transferee can protect his possession having recourse to Section 53-A either by instituting a suit for injunction as a plaintiff or by defending the suit filed by the transferor or subsequent purchasers as a defendant. It is also well settled that the transferee can very well file a suit for injunction to protect his possession even though his remedy to file a suit for specific performance of contract is barred by limitation.no adverse possession. injunction for protection can be granted

An icon from the Crystal icon theme.

Image via Wikipedia

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 
A.S. No.713 OF 1993 

08-06-2011 

M.Gopal and another 

K.Janga Reddy and another 

Counsel for petitioners: Sri Yadaiah

Counsel for respondents:Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy 

:JUDGMENT: 

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1992 passed by
the Subordinate Judge at Sanga Reddy in O.S.No.49 of 1986. 

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the
respondents. 

For the convenient sake, I would like to refer the parties as 'the plaintiff and
the defendants' i.e. as they were arrayed in the suit.

Defendants 3 and 4, being unsuccessful, preferred the present appeal. The first
respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title
and possession and permanent injunction in respect of three items of the landed
property, which is more fully described in the schedule and the suit was
decreed.

The short facts necessary for considering the questions involved in the present
appeal may be stated as follows:

The original owner of the schedule mentioned lands is the first defendant. With
a view to sell away the lands, he had put them to private auction in which the
second defendant became the highest bidder and purchased the schedule lands from 
the plaintiff under a private (unregistered) sale deed on 07.04.1957 for an
amount of Rs.1720/-. It so happened on the same day, the plaintiff, who was
present there, offered to purchase the suit land for the same price, for which
the second defendant and the first defendant consented and whereupon the first
defendant executed a private sale deed, which transaction was endorsed on the
reverse of the private sale deed dated 07.04.1957 executed by the first
defendant in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff's version is that he
has been in continuous possession of the schedule lands having been put in
possession of the same under the private sale deed dated 07.04.1957 and has been 
raising seasonal crops. Thus, he asserts that after his purchase, he has been
in possession of the schedule lands and the said fact is known to each and every
body in and around the village, including the defendants. He also pleaded that
by continuously remaining in possession and upon asserting his title to the
knowledge of the defendants he perfected the title to the schedule property by
adverse possession. He further submitted that defendants 3 and 4 with a mala
fide intention to grab away the schedule property from him, brought into
existence two registered sale deeds dated 17.09.1985 and 19.09.1985 in respect
of the schedule mentioned lands in collusion with the first defendant.
According to the plaintiff, these sale deeds are brought up documents executed
by the first defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and, in fact, no
consideration was paid under the said sale deeds. He alleged that the sale
deeds are sham and bogus documents. According to him, he is the absolute owner 
of the property and the defendants without any manner of right or interest in
the schedule mentioned property have been trying to occupy the same by force
which situation led him to file the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration of
title and permanent injunction.

The first defendant remained ex parte after filing the written statement before
the trial Court and the suit against the second defendant was abated. The suit
was resisted by the defendants on the following grounds viz., the first
defendant denied in the written statement about the open auction held on
07.04.1957 and his selling away the property to the plaintiff by means of
private sale deed on 07.04.1957. The schedule property according to the
defendants is a coparcenery property of the 1st defendant and his brother
Sathaiah and, therefore, their contention is that the first defendant alone had
no right to sell the entire property without concurrence or consent of his
brother Sathaiah. The defendants' specific plea is that the private sale deed
dated 07.04.1957 under which the plaintiff said to have purchased is not genuine
and it is a brought up document. According to them, the plaintiff has never
been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule lands. The specific
contention urged by defendants 3 and 4 is that they purchased the suit lands
from the first defendant under registered sale deeds dated 17.09.1985 and
19.09.1985 and since then they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment 
of the suit lands. According to them, the private sale deeds in favour of the
plaintiff are brought up documents and even if they are considered to be true,
they do not convey any title to the plaintiff, because they are inadmissible in
evidence. Advancing the above stated contentions, the defendants sought to
dismiss the suit.

Basing on the rival contentions, the learned trial Court framed the following
issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?

Before the learned trial Court, PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the
plaintiff and Exs.A.1 to A.40 were marked and DWs.1 to 5 were examined on behalf
of the defendants and Exs.B.1 to B.13 were marked. 
One of the important pieces of evidence adduced by the plaintiff is that the
first defendant before selling the land to the plaintiff filed a petition
supported by an affidavit before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy
seeking permission to sell the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.23
is the certified copy of the said affidavit of the first defendant. Thus,
Ex.A.23 falsifies the contention of the first defendant that he never sold the
suit lands to the plaintiff. Another important piece of evidence adduced by the
plaintiff in support of his case is that he filed the land ceiling declaration
before the Land Reforms Officer declaring that he is the owner of the suit lands
and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. After duly verifying the
declaration submitted by the plaintiff, the Land Reforms Tribunal accepted the
declaration and included the suit lands in the holding of the plaintiff. Ex.A.39
is the certified copy of the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal in
C.C.No.555/ 
S-75. The said document clearly indicates that the declaration submitted by the
plaintiff was accepted and the scheduled lands were included in the holding of
the plaintiff by the authorities under the Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff also
filed unregistered sale deed dated 07.04.1957. The said document is marked as
Ex.A.1 and A.1 (a). Ex.A.1 is the private sale deed executed by the first
defendant in favour of the second defendant, whereas Ex.A.1 (a) is the private
sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect
of the schedule mentioned lands.

This apart, the plaintiff filed certified copies of pahanies from the years 1955
to 1972, 1980 to 1984. They are marked as Exs.A.2 to A.16 and Exs.A.18 to A.21. 
The plaintiff also filed the land revenue receipts to show that he has been
paying the land revenue for the schedule mentioned lands and the land revenue
receipts are marked as Exs.A.24 to 37.

In the pahanies, the plaintiff's name is shown as purchaser as well as possessor
of the suit lands. Ex.B.11 is the certified copy of order sanctioning mutation
for the year 1985 in favour of defendants 3 and 4 in respect of the suit lands.
Much reliance has been placed by defendants 3 and 4 on the said document. With 
regard to this particular document, the contention of the plaintiff is that by
showing Exs.B.1 and B.2 sale deeds allegedly executed by the first defendant in
their favour, defendants 3 and 4 somehow prevailed over the revenue authorities
without disclosing the true facts and obtained the said order. It is the
version of the plaintiff that subsequently against the order under Ex.B.11 dated
07.11.1985 the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer
and the order passed under Ex.B.11 was set aside on 08.08.1988. Thereafter, the
revision filed by defendants 3 and 4 against the said order was also dismissed
on 28.10.1994. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff is that it is no
longer open for defendants 3 and 4 to canvass that the mutation has been
effected in their names in respect of the suit schedule lands.

Coming to the other documentary evidence adduced by the defendants, the sale 
deeds allegedly executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4
dated 17.09.1985 and 19.09.1985 respectively were marked as Exs.B.1 and B.2, 
they also filed certified copies of pahanies for the years 1972-73, 1975-76,
1976-77, 1977-78, 1970-80, 1984-85 and 1985-86 and they are marked as Exs.B.3 to 
B.10. Ex.B.12 is the faisal patti for the year 1984-85. Ex.B.13 is the land
revenue receipt for the year 1985-86.

Coming to the oral evidence adduced by the parties the plaintiff examined one
Chandramouli as PW.2, resident of Patancheru. He deposed before the trial Court
that he was the scribe of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.1(a) and his version is that the first
defendant sold the suit lands to the second defendant for a total consideration
of Rs.1720/- on 07.04.1957 and the second defendant paid earnest money of 
Rs.500/-. That as the second defendant was not ready to pay the remaining sale
price, the plaintiff offered to purchase the suit lands, paid the sale price to
the first defendant and thereupon the first defendant executed an un-registered
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He had categorically spoken to the fact
of scribing the two sale deeds on the same paper. His evidence is also to the
effect that under Ex.A.1 (a) sale deed, defendants 1 and 2 and others delivered
possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. He further deposed that one
Hanuma Reddy, Shaik Mahaboob, K.Laxmaiah and Narsaiah attested the sale deed- 
Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.1 (a). He identified the signatures of the first defendant and
the second defendant on Exs.A.1 and A.1 (a). He also stated that the second
defendant had put his thumb impression on the said document in his presence and 
that of other attestors. PW.2 also endorsed against thumb impression of the
second defendant to the effect that it is the thumb impression of the second
defendant.

PW.3-Sri Kishan Rao, another witness is also resident of Patancheru. His
evidence discloses that he owns lands by the side of schedule lands. He had
categorically deposed that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of
the suit lands for the last 30 to 34 years.

On behalf of the defendants, the third defendant was examined as DW1 and he 
stated about the execution of Exs.B.1 and B.2 sale deeds dated 17.09.1985 and
19.09.1985 respectively by the first defendant and his brother Sathaiah in his
favour and that of the fourth defendant. DW.2 is the first defendant, who is
the original owner of the suit lands. His evidence is that he sold the suit
lands to defendants 3 and 4 under Exs.B.1and B.2 sale deeds respectively and
since the date of purchase, defendants 3 and 4 have been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit lands. Curiously, he stated in his evidence that he does
not know the plaintiff, he never sold the suit land at any time to the plaintiff
and also that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit lands at any time.
DW.3-Satiah is no other than the younger brother of the first defendant. The
evidence of DW.3 is to the effect that he and the first defendant sold the suit
lands to defendants 3 and 4 about seven years prior to his giving evidence
before the Court. DW.4 is one of the attestors of Exs.B.1 and B.2. He spoke
about the execution of the sale deeds by the first defendant in favour of
defendants 3 and 4. His evidence is also to the effect that under Exs.B.1 and
B.2 sale deeds possession was delivered to defendants 3 and 4 and they have been 
in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. DW.5 is the resident of
Patancheru and he stated that he owns lands by the side of the suit lands and
the fourth defendant has been cultivating the suit lands.

The learned trial Court, upon considering the above evidence, decreed the suit
filed by the plaintiff, upholding the title of the plaintiff and also upholding
his alternative plea that he perfected his title to the suit lands by adverse
possession. 

In this appeal, the following points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff acquired title to the schedule lands by adverse
possession? 
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession under law and
whether he can claim positive relief of perpetual injunction in his favour in a
suit filed by him?

POINTS 1 AND 2: 

The plaintiff filed Exs.A.1 and A.1 (a) private sale deed dated 07.04.1957 and
examined scribe of the said sale deed as PW.2, who had categorically spoken to
the factum of the first defendant executing the un-registered sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff and receiving the entire consideration under the said
sale deed. He had also spoken to the fact of plaintiff being put in possession
of the schedule lands under the said sale deed and continuing in possession of
the said lands. PW.2, the neighbouring land owner, also stated that the
plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land for over a
period of 30 to 34 years from the date of his giving evidence before the Court.
The plaintiff also filed certified copies of pahanies which are referred to
above. At relevant columns in the pahanies, the name of the plaintiff is shown
as purchaser as well as possessor. The declaration submitted by the plaintiff
before the authorities under the Land Reforms Act and its confirmation reveals
that after due enquiry the authorities included the suit lands in the holding of
the plaintiff. This was done long prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiff
when no litigation was contemplated between the parties. The mutation effected
in the name of defendants 3 and 4, basing on Exs.B.1 and B.2 sale deeds for the
year 1985, was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer and also subsequently
it became final in the revision filed by defendants 3 and 4 when it was
dismissed. All these facts clearly prove that the contention of the first
defendant that he never sold the suit land to the plaintiff is absolutely false.
All the documents filed by the defendants are mostly related to the period
subsequent to 1985 i.e., after Exs.B.1 and B.2 sale deeds obtained by them. All
the parties to the litigation belong to one village Patancheru and it is highly
difficult to accept that defendants 3 and 4 had no knowledge about the private
sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that defendants 3 and 4
are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of Exs.A.1 and A.1(a) sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff. If we closely examine the entire evidence, it
is obvious that Exs.B.1 and B.2 sale deeds were brought into existence by the
first defendant and defendants 3 and 4 in collusion so as to defeat the rights
of the plaintiff and to have unfair advantage.
It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/defendants that the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiff on the basis of adverse possession in respect of which no issue has
been framed, and that the trial Court in the absence of any such issue ought not
to have declared the title of the plaintiff by holding that he perfected his
title to the schedule lands by adverse possession. It has been further
contended that the law of adverse possession is not applicable since the
plaintiff claimed his right of ownership and possession under an executory
covenant i.e. Exs.A.1 and Ex.A.1(a). According to the learned counsel, the plea
of adverse possession is available only to such a person who does not acquiesce
to the title of the true owner and the present case being one where the
plaintiff does not dispute the title of the true owner, the judgment rendered by
the trial Court, it was argued, being contrary to law, and is liable to be set
aside.

Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
HEMAJI WAGHAJI JAT v BHIKHABHAI KHENGARBHAI HARIJAN AND OTHERS1 the case in 
which the plaintiff had neither set up adverse possession at any stage nor any
pleading to that effect, nor issues framed. The Supreme Court held that the
suit cannot be decreed on the ground of adverse possession. In ACHAL REDDY v 
RAMAKRISHNA REDDIAR AND OTHERS2 wherein the Supreme Court held that purchaser 
put in possession in pursuance
of the executory contract of sale, his possession
cannot be said to be adverse to that of the true owner. The Supreme Court
rendered the decision on the proposition that adverse possession implies that it
commenced in wrong and is maintained against right, when the commencement and 
continuance of possession is legal and proper, referable to a contract, it
cannot be adverse.
On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent/plaintiff that the defendants are very well knew about the
purchase of the suit lands by the plaintiff under Exs.A.1 and A.1(a) private
sale deed and thereafter the plaintiff dealing with the suit lands as that of
his own property in his own right and it is a case wherein the plaintiff openly
asserted his title to the property as its owner and he being remained in
possession of the property for more than the statutory period even before the
defendants 3 and 4 obtained Exs.B.1 and B.2 registered sale deeds from the first
defendant, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff perfected title by
adverse possession is in accordance with law and the said finding cannot be
interfered with in this appeal.

Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff/respondent in RAJESWARARAO v NARSINGARAO AND ANOTHER3 wherein it has 
been laid down that "adverse possession to have that character need not commence 
with some violent act or incident. The commencement of adverse possession has 
nothing to do with an illegal act independent of the possession itself. If a
man enters or remains in possession unlawfully without a title only under a
fictitious claim or a corrupt title, with the assumption of ownership ostensible
and notorious, character of possession is adverse."

The learned counsel also relied on GANSHAMDOSS NARAYANDOSS AND OTHERS v 
SARASWATHI BAI AND OTHERS4 for the proposition that unopposed possession for 12 
years under an invalid will creates title. The Madras High Court held that
"where a person has been in possession of a property for over 12 years as
legatee with an absolute estate under a Will by a testator who had no disposing
power over the property and no objection has been made by the persons entitled
to the property, the person in possession acquires an absolute title to the
property."
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff further relied on
BONDAR SINGH AND OTHERS v NIHAL SINGH AND OTHERS5 . This is also a case where 
the plaintiff having obtained possession of the land under a unstamped and
unregistered sale deed executed by the predecessor in interest of defendants in
1931, thereafter when the defendants disputed their title they filed the suit
for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defence set up by the
defendants was that the document is unstamped and unregistered and, therefore,
it cannot convey any title to the land in favour of the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court held as follows:
"However legal position is clear that a document like the sale deed in the
present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for
collateral purposes. In the present case the collateral purpose to be seen is
the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The sale deed in
question at least shows that initial possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
land was not illegal or not unauthorized. The plaintiffs were in continuous
possession till 1956 when the defendants by issuing a notice calling upon the
plaintiffs as trespassers to handover possession of the land to them. The
plaintiffs having set up hostile title against the defendants, who started
asserting their title only from 1956, the plea of adverse possession of the
plaintiffs is established."
Having considered thoroughly the several cases cited which are referred to in
the foregoing paras, I do not think that any conflicting views have been
expressed, by the Apex Court on the core issue. The decisions have been
rendered with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no
conflict on the basic issue as to whether a person can perfect his title to the
property by adverse possession while taking property under an executory contract
of sale and remaining in possession of the property for more than the requisite
statutory period for acquisition of title, and whether can be allowed to plead
that he perfected his title by adverse possession against his transferor even
though there is no valid transfer of property in accordance with law. I do not
want to lay much emphasis on the point that an issue has not been framed
regarding the adverse possession because such plea was in fact taken by the
plaintiff, evidence has been let in by both parties and in consideration thereof
a decision has been rendered on the said point by the Courts below. It is
therefore not a case where a decision was rendered surprisingly without
contemplation by the parties. Since the trial court allowed the parties to let
in evidence in respect of the issue relating to adverse possession and the
parties having actively participated in the trial on the said issue and invited
a decision cannot now turn round and say that in the absence of an issue
specifically framed, the finding of the courts below is not binding on them.
Therefore, the point that there was no issue framed on the adverse possession
though there is such plea taken by the plaintiff is of no consequence.
The crucial point therefore requires for consideration is the plaintiff who took
possession of the schedule property under unregistered sale deed having paid the
consideration in full not bringing the suit for specific performance of contract
within the period allowed by law, whether can contend that since he remained in
possession of the property for more than the period of 12 years from the date on
which his rights in the property were disputed by his transferors and the
purchasers from the said transferors can he ask the court to declare his title
on the ground that he perfected his title by adverse possession.
It is established from the evidence available on record that the plaintiff
purchased the property under a contract which is in writing, he paid the entire
sale consideration and was put in possession of the property under Ex.A-1 and
Ex.A-1(a) simple sale deed (unregistered sale deed dated 07.04.1977). The
evidence on record also indicates obviously that he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property from the date of the said simple sale deed.
Since the property being immovable and worth more than rupees one hundred, the 
transfer must be effected by a registered document, otherwise the title in the
property would never be conveyed from defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintiff.
Although the possession of the plaintiff as could be seen from the evidence
available on record indicates that he took possession of the property after
purchasing the same under a simple sale deed by paying the entire sale price,
and for that limited purpose which is co-lateral Exs.A-1, A-1(a) can be taken
into consideration, but without there being a transfer by the registered
instrument or obtaining a decree of specific performance of contract by a
competent civil Court, the title will never pass on to the plaintiff.
Although in the instant case the plaintiff is able to show that all the
essential requirements of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act are
satisfied whether he can ask the Court to declare him as owner of the suit
property on the ground that he having obtained possession of the property under
unregistered sale deed remained in possession of the same for more than the
statutory period with hostile animus and open assertion of his title to the
knowledge of his transferor and the subsequent purchasers and thus perfected his
title by adverse possession.
In ACHAL REDDI v. RAMAKRISHNA REDDIAR AND OTHERS6 the Supreme Court has laid 
down in vivid terms that when the possession of the purchaser is under executory
contract of sale, his possession cannot be said to be adverse. The Apex Court
clarified that adverse possession implies that it commenced in wrong and is
maintained against right. When the commencement and continuance of possession is 
legal and proper, referable to a contract, it cannot be adverse. The
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in RAM GOPAL REDDY v. ADDITINL CUSTODIAN 
EVACUEE PROPERTY, HYDERABAD7 held categorically that "when a suit has been filed 
to establish the right of the appellant as owner of the property, the appellant
cannot take the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Section
53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would come to the aid of the appellant in
defence."
From the above two judgments of the Apex Court it is thus obvious that a person
who obtained the possession of the property under executory terms of contract of
sale, cannot ask for declaration of his title even on the ground that he
remained in possession of the property for more than 12 years period and
contending that his possession is adverse to the real owner. The Apex Court said
in the above two judgments that possession of such person cannot be adverse and
he cannot set up the plea of adverse possession. Therefore, in my view the trial
court has fallen into error in declaring the title of the plaintiff holding that
he perfected his title to the schedule mentioned property by adverse possession
against the defendants 1 and 2 who are the real owners and defendants 3 and 4
who are the subsequent purchasers. 
However, by virtue of the doctrine of part performance embodied in Section 53-A
of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff can protect his possession from
defendants 1 and 2 who sold the property to him under the simple sale deed, so
also he can protect his possession from defendants 3 and 4 who have knowledge of
the earlier sale transaction in his favour under Exs.A-1 and A-1(a) sale deed.
It is argued before me by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that
the plaintiff having recourse to the doctrine of part performance can only
protect his possession but he cannot file a suit for simple injunction by his
positive act seeking a decree in his favour. It is true that Section 53-A only
operates as a bar against the defendants in the present case from enforcing any
rights against the plaintiff other than those which were provided under Exs.A-1
and A-1(a) simple sale deed. Although the section does not confer title on the
person who took possession of the property in part performance of the contract,
the law is now well settled that when all conditions of the section are
satisfied as in the present case, the possession of the person must be protected
by the court whether he comes as a plaintiff or defendant. The only embargo is
that Section 53-A cannot be taken in aid by the transferee to establish his
right as owner of the property. But the transferee can protect his possession
having recourse to Section 53-A either by instituting a suit for injunction as a
plaintiff or by defending the suit filed by the transferor or subsequent
purchasers as a defendant. It is also well settled that the transferee can very
well file a suit for injunction to protect his possession even though his remedy
to file a suit for specific performance of contract is barred by limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, the decree and judgment dated 24.08.1992 passed by 
the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff declaring his title to the schedule
mentioned property on the ground that he perfected his title to the property by
adverse possession is set aside. The decree and judgment dated 24.08.1992 passed 
by the trial Court granting relief of perpetual injunction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants is confirmed. The appeal is partly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.?1 2008(6) ALD 121 SC 
2 AIR 1990 SC 553 
3 AIR (39)1952 HYDERABAD 75 
4 1925 MADRAS 861 
5 (2003)4 SCC 161 
6 AIR 1990 SC 553 
7 AIR 1966 SC 1438 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,166 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: