SATYAMMA Vs. MOHAMMAD YASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below is the appellant. She filed a suit on 16th November, 1974 for declaration of title to and possession of plaint scheduled lands which she purchased from one Shaik Hussain, the owner thereof under Ex. A-1 on 14th August, 1968 for valuable consideration and pursuant thereto she was put in possession of the property. The respondent dispossessed her on 1-1-1971 and. therefore, she filed the suit for the above reliefs and also for mesne profits. The case of the respondent is that his father Shaik Hussain gifted the schedule mentioned lands in the year 1944 for his maintenance and ever since he has been in possession of the same in his own right as owner thereof. He also pleaded that he perfected his title by adverse possession. Though the trial Court upheld the title of the plaintiff, but held that the respondent perfected his title by adverse possession. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of adverse possession. Thus, this second appeal.

(2.) The indisputable facts established in this case are that one Shaik Hussain, the father of the respondent is the owner of the property. He sold the plaint scheduled property to the appellant under Ex. A-1 dated 14th August, 1968. The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 50 (B) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950, The Tahsildar in the enquiry therein by order made in.Ex. A-2, dated 29th December, 1969 validated the same. In an appeal, it was confirmed under Ex. A-3. The necessary mutation was effected under Ex. A-4 and mutation certificate is Ex A-5. The trial Court, on the basis thereof, held that the appel'ant has acquired valid title. In the enquiry before the revenue authorities, the respondent objected laying claim for the property. His father appeared as a witness and asserted his title to the plaint scheduled property. The respondent pleaded in those proceedings that there was a partition between him and his father and the plaint scheduled property fell to his share. That was negatived. The proceedings before the revenue authorises became final. He filed Exs. B-1 toB-11 the Pahani Patrikas for the years 1963-64 to 1973-74 to establish has plea of adverse possession. In columns 11 and 12 of Exs. B-1 to B-7 for the years 1963-64 to 1969-70, Shaik Hussain continued as title holder. He died in the year 1970. In Ex. B-11 for the year 1970-71 and Exs. B-8 to B-10 for the years 1971-72 to 1973-74 in column Nos. 11 and 12, the name of the respondent was shown as owner. He admitted in his evidence that, till the date of the death of his father, in column 11, his father's name was continuing as owner and, after his demise, he applied for mutation and mutation was effected. He also admitted as D.W. 2 that he and has father were living together.

(3.) Under Section 65 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) (for short 'the Act'), when suit for possession of immovable property is based on title, the limitation of 12 years begins to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. It is now well-settled that it is for the defendant to establish that he perfected his title by adverse possession, having been in possession in his own right to the exclusion of the real owner and in assertion of his right to the knowledge of the owner. The question, therefore, is whether the respondent has established this by adduction of evidence. Normally, the finding that the defendant is in possession is a finding of fact and it does not warrant interference in this second appeal, if it is based purely on appreciation of evidence. But, such question is open to assailment when proper conclusions have not been drawn from proved facts in a given case.