Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from the judgment and decree dated July 16, 1985 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.A.C.A. Nos.142 and 152 of 1978. The appellants, Hari Krishna Patel and another, had filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of Survey No.6 of Musheerabad village, Hyderabad, admeasuring 12.958 sq. mtrs., against the State of Andhra Pradesh and another. The trial court decreed the suit on June 14, 1976, but the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal. The appellants claimed title to the suit land but produced only one documentary evidence, Ex.A-1 sale deed dated August 21, 1968 executed by the appellant's father, Laxminarayan. They alleged that the property was purchased from one Kulsum Bi, but no documentary evidence of that purchase was produced, so there was no proof of title passing from Kulsum Bi to the father and then to the appellants. The only question was whether the appellants had perfected title by prescription. The High Court examined three periods: prior to 1932, 1932 to 1963, and 1963 to 1970 and thereafter. Revenue record Ex.A-13 for 1928-1932 described the account-holder as 'Government' and the possessor as Kulsum Bi, with brick kilns being made and penalties imposed for unauthorised brick making. Similar entries in Ex.A-1 showed the appellant's father, Laxminarayan, as unauthorised occupier making bricks and penalty imposed on him. The court found that imposition and payment of penalty amounted to acceptance of Government title, making the possession permissive, not adverse. The core issue was whether the appellants had perfected title by prescription against the Government despite lacking documentary title and despite revenue records showing government ownership and penalties. The appellants contended that long possession from 1932 onwards entitled them to title by prescription. The State relied on revenue records showing Government as owner and payment of penalties by predecessors, arguing that such possession was permissive and could not ripen into title. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the appellants had not produced any documentary evidence of title except the sale deed from the father, which did not establish tracing of title from Kulsum Bi. The court relied on the revenue record entries from 1928-1932, which clearly showed Government as owner and penalties imposed on Kulsum Bi and later on Laxminarayan. Payment of penalties by the predecessors was held to be an acknowledgment of Government title, rendering their possession permissive. For the gap period 1932-1963, the court applied the settled law of presumption of continuity of the same state of affairs, both backward and forward, concluding that the Government continued to assert title and the predecessors continued to acknowledge it. Since the suit was filed in 1975, within 13 years of 1963, the appellants had not completed the statutory period for prescription against the Government. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court's findings and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Title by Prescription - Permissive Possession and Acknowledgment of Title - Not mentioned - The appellants sought declaration of title based on prescription, but revenue records from 1928-1932 showed Government as owner and imposed penalty on predecessors for unauthorised brick kiln; payment of such penalty constituted acknowledgment of Government title, making possession permissive and not adverse. Held that the appellants did not perfect title by prescription because the suit was filed in 1975, within 13 years of 1963, and continuous acknowledgment of Government title precluded adverse possession. B) Evidence Law - Presumption of Continuity - Continuity of State of Affairs - Not mentioned - In the absence of evidence for 1932-1963, the court drew a presumption that the same state of things continued, operating both backward and forward; this presumption reinforced that government ownership and predecessor acknowledgment of title persisted. Held that such presumption supported the finding of permissive possession and no prescription in favour of the appellants.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants had perfected title by prescription over the suit land as against the Government.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and decree, holding that the appellants had not perfected title by prescription because their possession was permissive and they had acknowledged Government title through payment of penalties. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Possession becomes permissive when occupant pays penalty imposed by owner
- acknowledgment of title precludes adverse possession
- presumption of continuity applies to state of affairs
- prescription against government requires statutory period of adverse possession
