NDLI: Sri. K.m. Krishna Reddy Vs. Sri. Vinod Reddy & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Suit
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration:When in a suit simpliciter for a perpetual injunction based on title,the defendant pleads perfection of his title by adverse possessionagainst the plaintiff or his predecessor, is it necessary for theplaintiff to claim a declaration of ownership.Suit – For perpetual injunction based on title – Perfection of titleby adverse possession pleaded by defendant – If necessaryfor plaintiff to claim a declaration of titleHeld: Respondents admitted the ownership of the appellant’s fatherthrough whom the appellant claimed title – Even going by therespondents' case, the appellant was the co-owner of the property,and the respondents admittedly had no title in respect of the suitproperty – Thus, there was no issue involved about the title of theplaintiff and his father – It is not as if the respondents had set upa title in themselves or were claiming through somebody who wasclaiming the title – Their plea was of adverse possession againstthe appellant, which presupposes that the appellant was the owner– When in a suit simpliciter for a perpetual injunction based on title,the defendant pleads perfection of his title by adverse possessionagainst the plaintiff or his predecessor, it cannot be said that there isany dispute about the title of the plaintiff – Hence, the plaintiff neednot claim a declaration of title in such a case as the only issuesinvolved in such a suit are whether the plaintiff has proved that hewas in possession on the date of the institution of the suit and whetherthe defendant has proved that he has perfected his title by adversepossession – Therefore, in the present case, it was not necessary forthe appellant to claim a declaration of ownership – There was no cloudon his title – Therefore, the suit, as originally filed, was maintainable– Burden was on the respondents to prove their plea of adversepossession, as there was a counter-claim (which is in the nature ofa cross-suit) seeking a declaration of ownership based on adversepossession – High Court decided only one issue as to whether theamendment sought by the appellant for a prayer for declaration ofownership and possession, was barred by limitation – As the HighCourt did not consider the merits of the suit and counter-claim, regularsecond appeal remanded to the High Court – Impugned judgmentset aside – Regular Second Appeal restored to the file of the HighCourt – Adverse Possession. [Paras 14, 16, 18, 20 and 21]Adverse Possession – Plea of – When defeated – Twoalternative pleas – Suit for perpetual injunction based ontitle filed by the appellant, respondents pleaded perfection oftitle by adverse possession – Respondents though admittedthe title of the appellant’s father to the suit property, theydisputed that the suit property was allotted to appellant’s shareunder the family settlement and claimed that the appellant’sbrother ‘J’ was the allottee of the suit property in partitionand respondents’ mother was put in possession of the suitproperty by ‘J’ in part performance of the agreement for salein favour of their mother:Held: This contention completely militates against the plea ofadverse possession as it completely defeats the plea of adversepossession – This contention shows that the respondents are notclaiming hostile possession, which is an essential ingredient of aplea of adverse possession – At the trial stage, the respondentsought to have elected one of the two alternative pleas – However,issues framed by the Trial Court indicate that the respondents reliedupon their plea of adverse possession as well as their plea basedon the agreement for sale executed by the said ‘J’ – Further, thedeed of partition pleaded by the respondents, based on which,according to them, ‘J’ became the owner, was admittedly notproved – In fact, in the written statement, the bare particulars ofthe partition on the basis of which ‘J’ became the owner were noteven pleaded by the respondents. [Para 13]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay.S. Oka
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 877
Petitioner	Sri. K.m. Krishna Reddy
Respondent	Sri. Vinod Reddy & Anr.
SCR	[2023] 13 S.C.R. 210
Judgement Date	2023-10-06
Case Number	4471

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sri. K.m. Krishna Reddy Vs. Sri. Vinod Reddy & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Muni Reddy Ans Anr. Vs. C. Nagaraju and Ors.

Vishwabandhu Vs. Sri Krishna and Anr.

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs. Sri Muninarayanappa

The Depot Manager Vs. Sri R. K. Reddy

K.m. Ibrahim Vs. K.p. Mohammed and Anr.

The Depot Manager & Ors. Vs. Sri S. Krishna

M/s Sri Krishna Agencies Vs. State of A.p. & Anr.

S. M. Banerji Vs. Sri Krishna Agarwal

P. Satyanarayana Vs. Nandyala Rama Krishna Reddy

Sri. K.m. Krishna Reddy Vs. Sri. Vinod Reddy & Anr.

Sri. K.m. Krishna Reddy Vs. Sri. Vinod Reddy & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Muni Reddy Ans Anr. Vs. C. Nagaraju and Ors.

Vishwabandhu Vs. Sri Krishna and Anr.

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs. Sri Muninarayanappa

The Depot Manager Vs. Sri R. K. Reddy

K.m. Ibrahim Vs. K.p. Mohammed and Anr.

The Depot Manager & Ors. Vs. Sri S. Krishna

M/s Sri Krishna Agencies Vs. State of A.p. & Anr.

S. M. Banerji Vs. Sri Krishna Agarwal

P. Satyanarayana Vs. Nandyala Rama Krishna Reddy

Sri. K.m. Krishna Reddy Vs. Sri. Vinod Reddy & Anr.