- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M. Arthur Paul Ratna Raju And Others v. Gudese Garaline Augusta Bhushanabai And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1 (plaintiff) filed OS No. 70 of 1970 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, seeking partition of B- and C-Schedule properties. She claimed a share through her mother, Karunamma, daughter of the original owner Mark, and also relied on a Will said to have been executed by Karunamma. Defendants 2-7, co-sharers and present appellants, contested the suit, denying the validity of the Will and asserting that they had acquired title by adverse possession.
The trial court held the Will invalid but nevertheless decreed the suit in part, recognising the plaintiff’s title to the C-Schedule (house) property. On appeal (AS No. 564 of 1975), a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the plaintiff’s claim, finding the Will valid and rejecting the adverse-possession defence. Defendants 2-7 then preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 70 of 1979, which was dismissed on 6-11-1985. The present civil appeal challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Defendants 2-7, as co-sharers, had perfected title to the suit properties by adverse possession against Respondent 1.
- Whether the Will allegedly executed by Karunamma in favour of Respondent 1 was genuine and valid.
- If the Will were found invalid, whether Respondent 1 nevertheless inherited an undivided share in the properties through intestate succession.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent 1 (Plaintiff/Appellee)
- Claimed title to B- and C-Schedule properties through her mother Karunamma, heir of the original owner Mark.
- Relied on a Will executed by Karunamma bequeathing the properties to her.
Defendants 2-7 (Appellants)
- Contended that the Will set up by the plaintiff was not valid.
- Asserted that they had acquired absolute title by long, hostile, and open possession amounting to adverse possession, thereby extinguishing the plaintiff’s title.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first recognised that Mark’s estate devolved equally upon his son Joseph and daughter Karunamma after the death of their mother, Morthamma. Respondent 1 therefore had an inherent right to claim through her mother.
Addressing adverse possession, the Court emphasised that co-sharers cannot perfect title against another co-sharer merely by exclusive possession; they must prove ouster by “convincing evidence.” Mere assertion of ownership and possession is insufficient. The appellants failed to establish any act amounting to ouster of Respondent 1.
Regarding the Will, the High Court had already found it genuine. The Supreme Court saw no reason to disturb that finding. Moreover, even if the Will were disregarded, Respondent 1’s title through intestate succession was independently established, rendering the Will’s validity ultimately immaterial to the appellants’ claim.
On these grounds, the Court concluded that the High Court rightly dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, and the present appeal lacked merit.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal by Defendants 2-7, with no order as to costs.
Implications: Respondent 1’s title to the disputed properties stands confirmed, and Defendants 2-7 remain co-owners without an exclusive right. The decision resolves the dispute between the parties but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond reiterating the stringent requirement of proving ouster for adverse possession among co-sharers.
1. Substitution is allowed if not allowed by previous order.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-11-1985 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 70 of 1979. Defendants 2 to 7 in the partition suit OS No. 70 of 1970 are the appellants before us. Respondent 1 filed the said OS No. 70 of 1970 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Tanuku for partition of B and C Schedule properties, inter alia, contending that she had inherited the share in the said B and C Schedule properties through Karunamma who was the daughter of Mark, the admitted owner of the property. The said Respondent 1 also claimed title to the said property under a Will executed by her mother Karunamma. The contesting Defendants 2 to 7 who are appellants before this Court, filed a written statement, inter alia, disputing the claim of the plaintiff. It was inter alia contended by the said contesting defendants that the Will executed by Karunamma was not a valid one. In any event, the plaintiff lost her title to the said property because of adverse possession exercised by Defendants 2 to 7.
3. The trial court did not accept the validity of the Will but decreed the suit in part by accepting the title of the plaintiff in respect of C Schedule property, namely, the house property. The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal being AS No. 564 of 1975 against the said judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the said appeal inter alia on the finding that the Will set up by the first respondent is valid. It was also held that the appellants, namely, Defendants 2 to 7 did not acquire title to the suit property by adverse possession. Thereafter, Defendants 2 to 7 preferred LPA No. 70 of 1979 in the High Court. By the impugned judgment, such LPA has also been dismissed.
4. It has already been indicated that there is no dispute that one Mark was the owner of the disputed property and Respondent 1, the plaintiff had been claiming title through her mother Karunamma being the daughter of Mark. It is also not in dispute that Mark died leaving behind his son Joseph, daughter Karunamma and widow Morthamma. There is also no dispute that after the death of Morthamma her interest in the property left by Mark devolved equally on the son Joseph and the daughter Karunamma.
5. Defendants 2 to 7 being the co-sharers cannot succeed in claiming absolute title by adverse possession unless it is established by convincing evidence that there had been ouster of Respondent 1, an admitted co-sharer from the disputed property. In the case of a co-sharer, mere exercise of possession as of right, cannot make out a case of ouster of co-sharer and consequential exercise of adverse possession by the other co-sharer so that ultimately the title of the ousted co-sharer is extinguished on account of adverse possession for the prescribed period.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court of appeal below has rightly indicated that such case has not been established by the appellants and the LPA has also been dismissed. Therefore, the appellants cannot succeed in this appeal. The question whether the Will was genuine or not has also been answered against the appellants and we do not find any reason to interfere with such finding made by the Single Bench of the High Court since upheld by the Division Bench. It may be stated here that whether the Will is valid or not loses its significance because the plaintiff's title through Karunamma even by intestate succession has been established. The present defendants have no concern with the Will and title to the property of Karunamma by testamentary succession through the Will concerns the natural heirs of Karunamma and the legatees under the Will. This appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert