2016 (5) TMI 1509 - SC - Indian Laws

Possession of disputed property - right of class IInd heir in the property - HELD THAT - In the instant case as per concurrent findings of all the courts Defendant No. 3 has failed to prove the factum of her adoption by deceased Yashoda in the year 1959. There was no corresponding document of adoption and other documentary evidence showing that Defendant No. 3 had ever been adopted by the deceased Yashoda. True it is that in some of the revenue entries the name of Defendant No. 3 has been shown as person in possession but not in the capacity of adopted daughter. Yashoda was admittedly the owner of the property. The Plaintiff has based his case to recover possession on the strength of the sale deed executed by Buchamma in his favour. It is settled law that denial for want of knowledge is no denial at all. The execution of the sale deed was not specifically denied in the written statement. Once the execution of the sale deed was not disputed it was not necessary to examine Buchamma to prove it. The provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 5 require pleadings to be answered specifically in written statement. It is also settled law that passing of consideration under a sale deed cannot be questioned by third party. Defendant No. 3 has not been able to establish her case that she is an adopted daughter of the deceased Yashoda and thus she being the third party could not have questioned the execution of the sale deed by Buchamma on the ground of passing of consideration. 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. The first appellate Court was thus right in decreeing the suit. The High Court has erred in allowing appeal - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the disputed property.
2. Validity of the adoption of Defendant No. 3.
3. Authority and execution of the sale deed by Buchamma.
4. Necessity for the Plaintiff to seek a declaration of title.
5. Possession of the disputed property and the right to recover possession.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the disputed property:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mesne profits based on the title, claiming that the property was to revert to him after the death of Yashoda, who had a widow's estate. The trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the Plaintiff had not proven the passing of consideration under the sale deed and that Buchamma was not the sole surviving sister of Balaiah. However, the first appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, establishing that Buchamma was a Class II heir and had the right to sell the property to the Plaintiff. The High Court reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court restored the first appellate Court's judgment, confirming the Plaintiff's title based on the sale deed executed by Buchamma.

2. Validity of the adoption of Defendant No. 3:
The Defendants contended that Defendant No. 3 was the adopted daughter of Yashoda and thus inherited the property. The trial Court, first appellate Court, and the High Court all found that the factum of adoption was not established. There was no documentary evidence or corresponding documents to prove the adoption. The Supreme Court concurred with these findings, stating that Defendant No. 3 failed to prove her adoption by Yashoda.

3. Authority and execution of the sale deed by Buchamma:
The trial Court questioned the authority of Buchamma to execute the sale deed and found that the passing of consideration was not proven. The first appellate Court, however, established that Buchamma was the sole surviving heir and had the authority to execute the sale deed. The High Court reversed this finding, stating that the sale deed was not proven due to the non-examination of Buchamma. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the denial for want of knowledge is no denial at all and that the execution of the sale deed was not specifically denied in the written statement. The Supreme Court held that the sale deed was valid and binding.

4. Necessity for the Plaintiff to seek a declaration of title:
The High Court held that the Plaintiff should have sought a declaration of title due to the cloud on his title. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that there was no serious cloud on the Plaintiff's title that necessitated a declaration of title. The Plaintiff's suit for possession was based on the strength of the sale deed executed by Buchamma, who was the rightful heir. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including Kurella Naga Druva Yudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma and Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, to support the view that a suit for possession is maintainable without a declaration of title unless there is a serious cloud over the Plaintiff's title.

5. Possession of the disputed property and the right to recover possession:
The trial Court found that the Plaintiff had not proven that Buchamma delivered possession of the property to him. The first appellate Court ruled that even if possession was not delivered, the Plaintiff had the right to claim possession based on his title. The High Court did not address this issue directly but dismissed the suit on other grounds. The Supreme Court held that the Plaintiff, having a valid title, had the right to recover possession, regardless of whether Buchamma had delivered possession initially. The Supreme Court emphasized that the entry of possession in revenue records does not confer any right to Defendant No. 3 to retain possession.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the first appellate Court's decree, confirming the Plaintiff's title and right to possession of the disputed property. The Plaintiff was not required to seek a declaration of title, and the sale deed executed by Buchamma was deemed valid and binding. The Defendant No. 3's claim of adoption was not established, and she had no right to challenge the sale deed or retain possession of the property.

← Previous Next →