LAKSHMIDEVAMMA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the Vendor of immovable property under an oral sale is entitled to claim a charge under Section 55 (4) (b) of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 for the unpaid purchase money against the vendee after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the oral sale when the vendee has acquired title by adverse possession ?

(2.) The above question has arisen in a reference under Sec. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act which was disposed of in OP. No. 21/81 by the learned subordinate Judge, Kavali. The contest was between the two respodents before the lower court of whom M. Lakshmi devamma was the first claimant while her brother J Chandras-khara Reddy was the second claimant.

(3.) 2.36 Hectars of land was acquired in the village of Leguntapadu in Nellore District by a notificition published on 16-10 1979 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation payable according to the award was sum of Rs. 67,035-76. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dt. 11-3-81 for the said sum in favour of the rightful owner and made a reference on 14-4-1981 to the Civil Court under Sec. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and meanwhile deposited the amount in the civil court. He pointed out that the acquired land stands registered in the name of the 2nd claimant Sri. J Chandrasekhara Reddy but the land is in the possession of the first claimant who has been paying taxes from 1970 onwards as per Exs. A-1 to A-7. He pointed out that the 2nd claimant gave a statement on 1-12-1980 (Ex. A-2) earlier to the effect that he has orally sold the property to the three sons of the first claimant in 1953 but that subsequently he claimed that the title continued to be vested in himself and that he was entitled to the entire claim that the property was sold to her sons orally in 1953 for Rs. 1, 20,000/- and that subsequently in the family partition in 1970 ac 5-80 cents inclusive of this property was allotted to the first claimant and that she claimed to be the owner. After the reference the claimants filed their respective claim statements before the Sub-Court Kavali. The first claimant M Lakshmidevamma examined hereself as RW. 1 and filed Exs. A. 1 to A. 13 while the 2nd claimant examined himself as RW. 2 but did not file any documentary evidence,