KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. GALLA JANI KAMMA ALIAS NACHARAMMA

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 849

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. GALLA JANI KAMMA ALIAS NACHARAMMA.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 11S. C. R. 849 - )r KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO II. GALLA JANI KAMMA ALIAS NACHARAMMA (Civil Appeal No. 4788 of . 2008) AUGUST 4, 2008 [R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] 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 ofsuit land either underplaintiff 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 deelaration 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 suit A 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, - for short) and civil court had no jurisdiction. (ii) A mere suit for possession was not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for declaration, as he had disputed her title to the suit property. 5. The court framed issues as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession; whether the defendant had acquired title'- · by adverse possession; whether the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits (damages for wrongful occupation); whether the plaintiff had executed an agreement dated 18. 4. 1959 admitting that the sale deed dated 10. 4. 1957 in her favour was a nominal document; whether the said agreement dated 18. 4.

1959 put forth by defendant was a forged document; and . ,,. to what relief plaintiff was entitled. No issue was framed about tenancy or jurisdiction of the court. 6. After considering the evidence - oral and documentary, the trial court by judgment dated 13. 9. 1988 decreed the suit for possession (and mesne profits to be determined by a separate enquiry). The defendant filed an appeal befdre the High Court in FA No. 1990 of 1988 which was dismissed by judgment dated 27. 9. 2006. The trial court and High Court have concurrently held that (i) plaintiff had estaplished her title to the suit } land by purchase under sale deed dated 1OA. 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 courts have also rejected the contentions that civil court had no jurisdiction and the suit was not therefore maintainable. 7. On the contentions urged by the defendant-appellant, the following questions arise for our consideration : (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 section 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? Re : Question No. (i) : 8. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff had specifically admitted in the plaint that the defendant was her tenant in regard to suit land.

He contended that in view of the said specific admission in regard to relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant, a civil suit for possession was barred by sections 13 and 16 of the Act. 9. Sections 13 and 16 of the Act relied on by the appellant read as under: "13.

Termination of tenancy - Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 10, 11 and 12, no landlord shall be entitled to terminate the tenancy and evict his cultivating tenant except by an application made in that behalf to the Special Officer and unless such cultivating A tenant- (a) has failed to pay the rent due by him within a period of one month from the date stipulated in the lease deed, or in the absence of such stipulation, within a period of one month from the date on which the rent is due according to the usage of the locality; and in case the rent is payable in the form of a share in the produce, has failed to deliver the produce at the time of harvest; or y (b) has done any act or has been guilty of any neglect, which is destructive of, or permanently injurious to the land; or (c) has sub-let the land; or (d) has violated any of the conditions of the tenancy regarding the uses to which the land may be put; or (e) has wilfully dented the landlord's title to the land; or (f) has failed to comply with any order passed or direction issued by the Special Officer or the District Judge under this Act.

" "16. Adjudication ofdisputes and appeal- [1] Any dispute arising under this Act, between a landlord and a cultivating tenant in relation to a matter not otherwise decided by the Special Officer under the provisions of this Act, shall, on application by the landlord or the cultivating tenant, as the .. , case may be, be decided by the Special Officer after making an enquiry in the manner prescribed; x x x x x" 10. It is true that the plaintiff had averred in the plaint that the defendant was closely related to her and she had entrusted the management of the schedule land to him; and that on his request, she had leased the suit land to him in the year 1971 and he had paid the rent by way of share in crop up to 1978.

But the plaintiff further specifically alleged that the defendant had j, 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 averments relating to defendant earlier being the tenant, furnish the factual background leading to the caμse of action for the suit. The averments 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. ' • )-c On the other hand, he denied the title of plaintiff and asserted ownership and title in himself by adverse possession alleging that he was in occupation of the suit prope1iy eversince 1957 in his own right. He categorically stated that plaintiff was never his landlord.

Neither plaintiff nor defendant claimed or admitted that there was relationship of landlord and agricultural tenant them. To repeat, plaintiff's case was that the defendant was a tres- ·-f passer. Consequently; tenancy was not an issue in the suit. Section 13 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. When plaintiffs case is that the defendant is a trespasser and the case of defendant is that he was the owner and he was never a tenant of the suit land either under plaintiff or anyone else, the suit was not for eviction of an agricultural tenant, and therefore, section 13 of the Act was not attracted. 0 11. The appellant-defendant contended that as he had denied the title of the plaintiff, the case would squarely fall under ~ t section 13 (e) of the Act.

He submitted that section 13(e) contemplated termination of tenancy and filing of an eviction petition against the cultivating tenant, if the cultivating tenant wilfully denies the landlord's title to the land; and therefore the remedy of the landlord was to terminate the tenancy and seek eviction of the cultivating tenant by making an application under section 13(e) of the Act, and a civil suit was not maintainable. Termination of tenancy and eviction petition under section 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. In this case the defendant denied that he was the cultivat". ~ng tenant of the suit land and plaintiff claimed that defendant was a trespasser. Hence the first requirement for application of section 13 (e) was not satisfied.

If the case of plaintiff had been that the defendant was the cultivating tenant under her and that defendant was claiming to be the cultivating tenant under someone else by setting up title in someone other than the plaintiff- .. ,. _ . ,. ,, landlord, section 13(e)would have certainly been attracted. In . I , ~ '¥ this case, as noticed above, the plaintiff alleged she was the owner and the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant asserted that he was the owner by adverse possession and denied that he was a cultivating tenant at any point of time. When neither party to the suit claimed that defendant was the . cultivating tenant, and as the suit was not for eviction of a cultivating tenant, the mere denial of the title of the plaintiff by the defendant in respect of an agricultural land, would not mean that only the authorities L! nder 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. Therefore the contention that the suit was not maintainable, is liable to be rejected. 12. We are fortified in this view by a decision of this Court in Abdulla Bin Ali V. Galappa [1985 (2) SCC 54]. In that case, the appellants had filed a suit for possession and mesne profits, treating the defendants - respondents as trespassers. One of the defences in the written statement filed by the respondents 'f therein was that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try a suit as plaintiffs had pleaded in the plaint that the second defendant was the tenant of the disputed plots and therefore they could seek possession only by filing an application in the Revenue court under the Tenancy Act. This Court did not agree.

This Court found that though the plaintiffs had referred to the tenancy of the second defendant in the plaint, they had filed a suit treating the defendants as trespassers, as the defendants had denied their title. This Court held that a suit against the trespassers would lie only in the civil court and not in the revenue court. This Court observed: "6. ln our opinion the High Court was not quite correct in observing that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant. Indeed, when the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and the tenancy, the plaintiffs filed the present suit treating them to be ~ ~ trespassers and the suit is not on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is no doubt true .

- ' tthat the plaintiff had alleged that defendant 2 was a tenant but '( ~ on the denial of the tenancy and the title of the plaintiffsappellants they filed a suit treating the defendant to be a trespasser and a suit against a trespasser would lie only in the civil court and not in the revenue court. r- 7·. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that on the ~ allegations made in the plaint the suit was cognizable by the ~ ~ civil court and that the High Court has erred in law in nonsuiting the plaintiffs-appellants on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction. " 13. It was next contended that having regard to section 16 of the Act any dispute in regard to an agricultural tenancy had to l be filed before the Special Officer under the Act.

Section 16 provides that any dispute arising under the Act between a landlord and a cultivating tenant in relation to a matter not otherwise decided by the Special Officer under the provisions of the Act, shall, on an application by the landlord or the cultivating tenant, as the case may be, be decided by the Special Officer :>; after making an enquiry in the manner prescribed. But when both the plaintiff and the defendant claim that there is no relation of landlord and cultivating tenant, there is no question of any dispute arising under the Act between them as landlord and cultivating tenant. Further to attract section 16, 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.

Section 16 is only a provision enabling a landlord or cultivating tenant to approach the Special Officer for settle- ¥ ment of any dispute arising under the Act and it does not oper- ? ate as a bar for a suit by an owner against a trespasser. This t. ~ position is long recognized in Andhra Pradesh as is evident from the following observations of theAndhra Pradesh High Court • in 0. Venkata Reddy v. B. Bhushireddy [AIR 1971 A. P. 87]: c "A reading of section 16(1) clearly shows that the necessary -f ,_ condition for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tahsildar under that section is the existence of the relationship of landlord KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. 86'1 GALLA JANI KAMMAALIAS NACHARAMMA [R. VRAVEENDRAN, J. ] and cultivating tenant. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute which is not between a landlord and a cultivating tenant. " Re : Question (ii) : 14. The plaintiff had purchased the suit land under registered sale deed dated 10. 4. 1957.

Defendant did not claim title with reference to any document but claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession. A mere claim by the defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, does not mean that a cloud is raised over plaintiffs 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 pos- ~ session was maintainable. We are fortified in this view by the following observations of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. PBuchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. [2008 (4) SCC 594] : '1 "We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property.

A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent 'f title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration..... " Re : Question No. (iii) : 15. The appellant-defendant ne>-. 1 contended that the courts ,... , 1-below committed an error in holding that the respondent- plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and he (the appellant) had not established title by adverse possession. 'f 16. In support of his contention that plaintiff is not the real I.

' owner and that the sale deed dated 10. 4. 1957 in her favour r was nominal, the defendant relied on an alleged agreement 0. dated 18. 4. 1959 said to have been executed by the plaintiff in ,. ! favour of Mahalaxmamma and her husband acknowledging that the sale deed in her favour on 10. 4. 1957 was nominal, and Mahalaxmamma and her husband had paid the sale consider- ~ ation for the said sale. Hoth the courts have rightly pointed out that neither Mahalaxammma during her lifetime nor her legal heirs after her death, had put forth any claim in respect of the t suit property. The trial court and High Court also found that the I stamp papers used for the alieged agreement dated 18. 4. 1959 , .. _ were purchased on 6. 10. 1961 and that supporred the plaintiffs contention that the defendant had used a blank stamp paper ~ which contained the signatures of herself and her husband. I ~ 17. The defenda.

nt claimed that he had perfected his title by adverse possession by being in open, continuous and hostile possession of the suit property from 1957. He also produced ~ some tax-receipts showing that he has paid the taxes in regard ~ rto the suit land. Some tax receipts also showed that he paid the r tax on behalf of someone else. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, both the courts have entered a concur- \_ rent finding that the defendant did not establish adverse posr session, and that mere possession for some years was not Isufficient to claim adverse possession, unless such possest sion was hostile possession, denying the title of the true owner. ;- The courts have pointed out that if according to defendant, plain- )/ tiff 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. ,,; -+ "lo 18. We find that both the courts have considered these two issues of fact in detail with reference to the evidence ·and .. recorded concurrent findings against the defendant. This Court will not convert itself into a third court of facts and re-examine the facts or disturb concurrent findings offacts. 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. We do not therefore find any reason to re-examine the facts. 19. Consequently the appeal is dismissed as having no merit. D. G. Appeal dismissed. .. -t