pendency

In a suit filed for declaration of title and consequential mandatory injunction, two aspects become necessary. First is that the plaintiff must independently prove his title over the property without depending upon the weakness of the defendant. The second is that even if the plaintiff has proved his title, the defendant can successfully resist the suit in case, he proves a title, which is superior to the one pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. Many a time both these aspects are dealt with together and a finding is recorded. In the instant case, the respondents proved their title by filing Ex.A-1, dated 21-03-1966. Both on account of the fact that the document is more than 30 years old and that there is no controversy as to its execution, the document was held proved.Though a plea was taken that a deed of settlement was executed in favour of the Mosque in respect of the suit schedule property, the document was not made part of record. Thereby, the presumption provided for under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act gets attracted. Even if the document was made part of record, the fact remains that it is almost a quarter century later to the transaction covered by Ex.A-1.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.218 OF 2011 24-06-2011 Shaik Rahim S/o.Habibulla Shaik Nasar Ahmed S/o. Late Ahmed and others Counsel for the Appellant:Mr. M.V. Suresh Counsel for the Respondents: None. :ORDER: This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments rendered by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur … Continue reading →