LAW FOR ALL

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit in civil court for recovery of possession of agricultural land - Maintainability of - Held: Maintainable as neither plaintiff nor defendant claimed or admitted that there was relationship of landlord and agricultural tenant between them - Plaintiff's case was that defendant was trespasser and case of defendant was that he was owner and was never tenant of suit land either under plaintiff or anyone else - Since suit was not for eviction of agricultural tenant, s.13 of 1956 Act not attracted - Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956 - ss.13, 16. Adverse possession - Suit for possession - Claim by defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession and suit was not maintainable for want of prayer for declaration of title - Held: Mere claim of adverse possession by defendant, does not mean that a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and that the plaintiff who is the owner, should file a suit for declaration of title - Unless the defendant raises a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff, there is no need to file a suit for declaration - On facts, plaintiff had title and she only wanted possession and, therefore, suit for possession was maintainable. The respondent-plaintiff claiming herself to be the owner of certain agricultural land under a sale deed dated 10.4.1957 and alleging the appellant as trespasser, filed suit against him for possession of the suit land. The defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and claimed to have perfected his title by adverse possession. His case was that the sale deed dated 10.4.1957 was a nominal deed as was evident from an agreement dated 18.1.1959 executed by the plaintiff and; that since the plaintiff had stated in the plaint that she had leased out the land to him, she should have filed petition before the Revenue Court under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the High Court affirmed the decree. In the instant appeal filed by the defendant, the questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) whether the plaintiff's suit for possession in the civil court was not maintainable and whether the remedy was only by way of an eviction petition under s.13 of the Act; (ii) whether the suit was not maintainable for want of a prayer for declaration of title; (iii) whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and High Court that plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and that defendant had not made out title by adverse possession call for interference. Citation: 2008(11 )SCR849 ,2008(11 )SCALE160 ,2008(9 )JT295= Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 13 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956 requires an application to be made to the Special Officer under the Act only when a landlord wants to terminate the tenancy and evict his cultivating tenant and not otherwise. Termination of tenancy and eviction petition under s.13(e) are contemplated only where (a) the defendant is the cultivating tenant; and (b) the defendant wilfully denies the landlord's title to the land. [Para 10, 11] [858 B-C, E & F] 1.2. It is true that in the instant case, the plaintiff had averred in the plaint that the defendant was closely related to her and on her request, she had leased the suit land to him in the year 1971. But the plaintiff further specifically alleged that the defendant had denied her title and claimed title in himself, and he had also denied the relationship of `landlord and tenant'; and that therefore, the defendant was a trespasser and she was entitled to sue for possession to evict the `trespasser'. The averment in the plaint should be read as a whole. If so done, it is clear that plaintiff claims that defendant is a trespasser in the suit land. Significantly, the defendant in his written statement did not allege that he was the cultivating tenant of the suit land either under the plaintiff or anyone else. On the other hand, he denied the title of plaintiff and asserted ownership and title in himself by adverse possession. Thus neither the plaintiff nor the defendant claimed or admitted that there was relationship of landlord and agricultural tenant between them. Consequently tenancy was not an issue in the suit nor was the suit for eviction of an agricultural tenant. Therefore Section 13 of the Act was not attracted. [Para 10] [857 E,F,G,H] 1.3. Mere denial of the title of the plaintiff by the defendant in respect of an agricultural land would not mean that only the authorities under the Act will have jurisdiction and that plaintiff should sue for eviction under the Act by approaching the Special Officer. Only a civil suit was the remedy to obtain possession from a trespasser. Further, to attract Section 16 of the Act, the person approaching the Special Officer should contend that he is either a landlord or a cultivating tenant, and admit the existence of the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant between the parties. S.16 is only a provision enabling a landlord or cultivating tenant to approach the Special Officer for settlement of any dispute arising under the Act and it does not operate as a bar for a suit by an owner against a trespasser. [Para 11, 13] [859 B,C & 860-E,F] Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa 1985 (2) SCC 54 - relied on. D. Venkata Reddy v. B.Bhushireddy AIR (1971) A.P. 87 - referred to. 2.1. A mere claim by the defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, does not mean that a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and that the plaintiff who is the owner, should file a suit for declaration of title. Unless the defendant raises a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff, there is no need to file a suit for declaration. Plaintiff had title and she only wanted possession and therefore a suit for possession was maintainable. [Para 14] [861 B,C,D] Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 594 - relied on. 2.2. Both the courts have entered a concurrent finding that the defendant did not establish adverse possession, and that mere possession for some years was not sufficient to claim adverse possession, unless such possession was hostile possession, denying the title of the true owner. The courts have pointed out that if according to defendant, plaintiff was not the true owner, his possession hostile to plaintiff's title will not be sufficient and he had to show that his possession was also hostile to the title and possession of the true owner. After detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court and High Court also held that the appellant was only managing the properties on behalf of the plaintiff and his occupation was not hostile possession. [Para 17] [862 E,F,G] 3. The trial Court and the High Court have concurrently held that (i) plaintiff had established her title to the suit land by purchase under sale deed dated 10.4.1957; (ii) the sale in favour of plaintiff was not nominal as alleged by defendant; (iii) the agreement dated 18.4.1959 put forth by defendant was a fabricated document; and (iv) the defendant had failed to establish title by adverse possession. Both the courts have considered the issues of fact in detail with reference to the evidence and recorded concurrent findings against the defendant. Neither any perversity nor omission to consider evidence nor any error of law has been pointed out with reference to consideration and appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court. [Para 6 and 18] [855 F,G 862,H, 863-A,B] Case Law Reference 1985 (2) SCC 54 relied on Para 12 AIR (1971) A.P. 87 referred to Para 13 (2008) 4 SCC 594 relied on Para 14 Ravindra Shrivastava and A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, Kunal Verma, Rajul Shrivastav, Supriya Jain, K. Krishna Kumar, Anup Jain, P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, Anu Gupta and Rami Jethmalani for the Appellant. P.S. Narasimha, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beera P. And Sudha Gupta for the Respondent.