9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Benami character of the sale to Hampayya. 2. Ownership of the suit lands by adverse possession. 3. Maintainability of the present suit based on a previous court order. Detailed Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the benami character of the sale to Hampayya. The lower courts found that the sale deed (Ex. A) conveyed title to the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4, rejecting the argument that it was a benami transaction. The sale deed stated that the lands were sold to Hampayya for a certain amount, with part payment made in cash and the rest through a promissory note. The appellant challenged this finding, relying on account-book extracts showing the initial intention to sell to Pompayya and Mallayya. However, both lower courts concluded that Hampayya purchased the property for himself, based on the evidence presented. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that the conclusion was supported by the facts presented in the case. 2. The second issue concerns ownership of the suit lands by adverse possession. The lower courts determined that Pompayya and Mallayya's possession was not adverse to the original owners, as the sale had not been completed, and the Racherla family still considered themselves as the owners. The possession after 1903 was deemed to be by permission of Hampayya, indicating that defendants Nos. 4 and 5 did not acquire ownership through adverse possession. The appellant only briefly touched upon this argument, focusing more on the benami transaction aspect. The High Court concurred with the lower courts' findings on adverse possession, emphasizing that the possession was not adverse and did not confer ownership rights. 3. The final issue addresses the maintainability of the present suit based on a previous court order. The third defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable due to an order in O.S. No. 531 of 1918. However, the High Court analyzed the sequence of events, noting that the present suit was filed within a year of the order on the claim petition. The court found that the plaintiffs were not precluded from raising the same issue in the present suit, as the previous order did not result in a final adjudication of rights. The court concluded that the present suit was not barred by the order in O.S. No. 531 of 1918, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their claim for a declaration of title to the suit lands. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and the memorandum of objections, upholding the lower courts' decisions on the issues of benami transaction, adverse possession, and the maintainability of the present suit.
|
