Case Note & Summary
The present regular second appeal was filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Sudheendra Rao Kasabe, challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2011 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-I, Raichur, in R.A. No. 15/2010, which had set aside the trial court's decree dated 20.03.2010 in O.S. No. 153/2004 and dismissed the suit. The suit was for declaration of title by adverse possession and for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52, measuring 1 acre 38 guntas, situated in Raichur district. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1, Narasayya, had sold the suit land to him under an unregistered sale deed dated 21.12.1979, and that since then he had been in continuous, open, and adverse possession as owner, thereby perfecting his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff also relied on an earlier registered sale deed dated 13.06.1979 for 4 acres 32 guntas in the same survey number. Defendant No.1 disputed the execution of the unregistered sale deed and denied the plaintiff's adverse possession. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, held that the plaintiff had proved delivery of possession under the unregistered sale deed and had perfected title by adverse possession, and decreed the suit. The first appellate court, in defendant's appeal, reversed that finding, holding that the plaintiff had not pleaded when his possession became hostile to the true owner, and that the unregistered sale deed could not be looked into even for collateral purpose. Aggrieved, the plaintiff's legal representatives filed the second appeal before the High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed two substantial questions of law: (1) whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree; and (2) whether the first appellate court was justified in holding that an unregistered sale deed cannot be looked into for collateral purpose to establish possession for adverse possession. Arguments were heard on both sides. The appellants' senior counsel contended that the unregistered sale deed was admissible in evidence for collateral purpose to show the nature and fact of possession, and relied on decisions of the Privy Council and Karnataka High Court. The respondents' counsel argued that the plaintiff's pleadings were contradictory, claiming both title and adverse possession, and that the plaint averments showed that the plaintiff was inducted by the defendant, thus the possession was permissive and could not become adverse without renunciation of title and hostile assertion. They also contended that the plaintiff did not plead the date when possession became hostile. After considering the arguments and perusing the record, the court proceeded to examine the matter. The judgment excerpt includes the court's observation of the plaint averments, highlighting the plaintiff's statement that defendant No.1 had sold the property and executed a sale deed, and that the plaintiff was in possession adversely to the knowledge of the defendant. The text of the judgment as provided, however, does not contain the final decision or the court's conclusion on the substantial questions of law. Therefore, the ultimate outcome of the appeal remains unknown from the given text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Questions of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court framed two substantial questions of law: whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree, and whether the first appellate court was justified in holding that an unregistered sale deed cannot be considered for collateral purpose to establish possession for adverse possession. (Paras 3-4) B) Evidence - Unregistered Sale Deed - Admissibility for Collateral Purpose - Registration Act, 1908, Section 49; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 17 - The appellants contended that the unregistered sale deed dated 21.12.1979 (Ex.P-1) could be looked into for the collateral purpose of establishing the plaintiff's possession, relying on N. Varda Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal and other decisions. The respondents argued that the document was insufficiently stamped and could not be used, and that the plaintiff's pleadings were contradictory as they claimed both title and adverse possession. (Paras 13-18) C) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Pleading and Proof of Hostile Possession - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - The respondents argued that the plaintiff failed to plead the specific date when possession became hostile to the true owner, and that possession derived from an unregistered sale deed is permissive in origin, which cannot mature into adverse possession unless the plaintiff renounced title and asserted hostile possession. The court noted the plaint averments where the plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 'sold' the property and executed a sale deed, thereby inducting the plaintiff. (Paras 15-17, 20)
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court? 2. Whether the first appellate court was justified in holding that an unregistered sale deed cannot be looked into for collateral purpose for establishing possession based on adverse possession?
Law Points
- Unregistered sale deed is admissible for collateral purpose to show nature of possession
- adverse possession requires specific pleading about when possession became hostile to the true owner
- contradictory pleas of title and adverse possession are not maintainable unless title is renounced
- possession permissive in origin cannot become adverse without clear hostile intent
