Holding

The suit for possession was maintainable in civil court because the parties did not acknowledge a landlord‑tenant relationship, rendering Sections 13 and 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956 inapplicable and a declaration of title unnecessary.

Summary

The plaintiff, who bought agricultural land in 1957, leased it to the defendant in 1971. After the defendant stopped paying rent in 1979, the plaintiff sued for possession and mesne profits, alleging the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant denied being a tenant and claimed ownership by adverse possession since 1957, also asserting the sale deed was nominal. The trial court and High Court held the plaintiff’s title was valid and the defendant had not established adverse possession, granting possession to the plaintiff. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the suit should have been filed under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956, whether a declaration of title was required, and whether the lower courts' findings warranted interference. The Court held that Sections 13 and 16 of the Tenancy Act apply only to landlord‑tenant disputes; here no such relationship existed, so the civil suit for possession was proper and a declaration of title unnecessary. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the plaintiff's suit for possession in a civil court was maintainable or the remedy was limited to an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956.
Whether the suit was untenable for lack of a prayer for declaration of title.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff was the owner and the defendant failed to establish title by adverse possession merit interference.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Subjects

possessionagricultural landtenancy actadverse possessioncivil suit jurisdictiondeclaration of titlelandlord-tenant relationshipSection 13Section 16

Judgment

[2008] 11S.C.R.849

- )r
KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO A
II.
GALLA JANI KAMMA ALIAS NACHARAMMA
(Civil Appeal No. 4788 of .2008)
AUGUST 4, 2008
B
[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 c
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 of suit land either under plaintiff
D
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 posses- E
sion and suit was not maintainable for want of prayer for dee-
laration 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 F
cloud over the title of the plaintiff, there is no need to file a suit
A
for declaration - On facts, plaintiff had title and she only wanted
possession and, therefore, suit for possession was maintain-
able.
The respondent-plaintiff claiming herself to be the G
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 de-
fendant denied the title of the plaintiff and claimed to have
849 H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

'(_ -
A 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
B should have filed petition before the Revenue Court un-
der the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Tenancy Act, -<(
1956. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the High Court
affirmed the decree.
In the instant appeal filed by the defendant, the ques-
c tions for consideration before the Court were: (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 s.13 of the Act; (ii) whether
the suit was not maintainable for want of a prayer for dee-
D la ration 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 interfer-
ence.
E Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Section 13 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra
Areas) Tenancy Act, 1956 requires an application to be
made to the Special Officer under the Act only when a land~
F lord wants to terminate the tenancy and evict his cultivat-
ing tenant and not otherwise. Termination of tenancy and
eviction petition under s.13(e) are contemplated only ,.4.
..
where (a) the defendant is the cultivating tenant; and (b)
the defendant wilfully denies the landlord's title to the land.
[Para 10, 11] [858 B-C, E & F]
G
1.2. It is true that in the instant case, the plaintiff had ~
averred in the plaint that the defendant was closely re- .
lated to her and·on her request, she had leased the suit 'i _,..
· land to him in the year 1971. But the plaintiff further spe-
H cifically alleged that the defendant had denied her title and
KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. 851
GALLA JANI KAMMAALIAS NACHARAMMA
-y
claimed title in himself, and he had also denied the rela- A
tionship 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 averment 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 B
~ suit land. Significantly, the defendant in his written state-
ment did not allege that he was the cultivating tenant of
the suit land either under the plaintiff or anyone els.e. On
the other hand, he denied the title of plaintiff and asserted
ownership and title in himself bY. adverse possession. c
Thus neither the plaintiff nor the defendant claimed or
admitted that there was relationship of landlord and agri-
cultural tenant between them. Consequently tenancy was
not an issue in the suit nor was the suit for eviction of an
agricultural tenant. Therefore Section 13 of the Act was
D
not attracted. [Para 1O] [857 E,F,G,H]
y 1.3. Mere denial of the title of the plaintiff by the de-
fendant in respect of an agricultural land would not mean
that only the authorities under the Act will have jurisdic-
tion and that plaintiff should sue for eviction under the E
Ac,t by approaching the Special Officer. Only a civil suit
was the remedy to obtain possession from a trespasser.
Further, to attract Section 16 of the Act, the person ap-
proaching the Special Officer should contend that he is
either a landlord or a cultivating tenant, and admit the ex- F
istence of the relationship of landlord and cultivating ten-
).
ant between the parties. S.16 is only a provision enabling
a landlord or cultivating tenant to approach the Special
Officer for settlement of any dispute arising under the Act
and it does not operate as a bar for a suit by an owner
G
against a trespasser. [Para 11, 13] [859 B,C & 860-E,F]
Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa 1985 (2) SCC 54 - relied on.
- ~
D. Venkata Reddy v. B.Bhushireddy AIR (1971) A.P. 87
- referred to.
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S. C.R.

A i.1. A mere claim by the defendant that he had per-
fected his title by adverse possession, 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
B of the plaintiff, there is no need to file a suit for declara-
tion. Plaintiff had title and she only wanted possession
and therefore a suit for possession was maintainable.
[Para 14] [861 B,C,D]
Anathula Sudhakar v. P Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. &
C Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 594 - relied on.
2.2. Both the courts have entered a concurrent find-
ing that the defendant did not establish adverse posses-
sion, and that mere possession for some years was not
sufficient to claim adverse possession, unless such pos-
0
session was hostile possession, denying the title of the
true owner. The courts have pointed out that if according
to defendant, plaintiff was not the true owner, his posses-.
sion hostile to plaintiff's title will not be sufficient and he
had to show that his possession was also hostile to the
E title and possession of the true owner. After detailed analy-
sis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court
and High Court also held that the appellant was only man-
aging the properties on behalf of the plaintiff and his oc-
cupation was not hostile possession. [Para 17] [862 E,F,G]
F
3. The trial Court and the High Court have concur-
rently held that (i) plaintiff had established her title to the
suit land by purchase under sale deed dated 10.4.1957;
(ii) the sale in favour of plaintiff was not nominal as al-
G leged 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 the courts have considered the issues
of fact in detail with reference to the evidence and re-
H co.rded concurrent findings against the defendant. Nei-
KURELLA NAGA DRUVAVUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. 853
GALLAJANI KAMMAALIAS NACHARAMMA[R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.]

ther any perversity nor omission to consider evidence nor A
any error of law has been pointed out with reference to
consideration and appreciation of evidence by the trial
court and the High Court. [Para 6 and 18] [855 F,G 862,H,
863-A,B]
Case Law Reference B
1985 (2) SCC 54 relied on Para 12
AIR (1971) A.P. 87 referred to Para 13
(2008) 4 sec 594 relied on Para 14
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4788 C
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.9.2006 of
the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in First Appeal No. 1990 of 1988
D
Ravindra Shrivastava and A.TM. Ranga Ramanujam,
Kunal Verma, Rajul Shrivastav, Supriya Jain, K. Krishna Kumar,
Anup Jain, P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, Anu Gupta and Rami
Jethmalani for the Appellant.
P.S. Narasimha, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beera P. And E
Sud ha Gupta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard learned
counsel. F
2. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No.232of1979
on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Rajmundry. The said suit
was filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking possession of
suit property and mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the G
trial court on 13.9.1988 and the decree was affirmed by the
High Court on 27.9.2006.
3. The case of respondent-plaintiff in the plaint was that
she is the owner of the suit schedule property (Survey No.100
of Rajanagaram Village), having purchased it under a regis- H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A tered sale d.eed dated 10.4.1957 from the previous owners
Sathyanarayana Rao and Suryaprakash Rao represented by
their mother Varalakshmamma. She paid the entire consider-
ation of Rs.10000/- and obtained possession of the land from
her vendors. The appellant-defendant, who is her close relative
B (son-in-law of her husband's brother) offered to manage the suit
land by identifying suitable persons to cultivate the said land.
The suit land was given on lease by the plaintiff to various per-
sons suggested by the defendant, from time to time. In the year
1971, the defendant offered that he himseJf will take the suit
c land on lease on an annual rent of 40 bags of paddy. The plain-
tiff agreed and accordingly, from 1971 onwards, defendant was
cultivating the land. He was delivering .40 bags of paddy every
year as rent, till Sankranti, 1978. He did not pay the rent by way
of share in produce, due on Sankranti, 1979. Therefore, she
issued a registered notice dated 12.7:1979 through her coun-
0
sel, demanding payment of agreed rent and possession of the
land. The defendant issued a reply dated 13.7.1979 alleging
that he was not the tenant of plaintiff; that he had occupied the
land in the year 1957 and had been ·cultivating the land ever
since then in his own right; and therefore, the question of deliv-
E ering possession to the plaintiff did not arise. As the defendant
claimed ownership and denied being a cultivating tenant under
the plaintiff, the plaintiff treated the defendant to be a trespasser
from the date of such reply notice. The plaintiff prayed for a.de-
cree for possession of the suit schedule land and consequen-
F · tial reliefs.
4. The defendant filed a written statement claiming that he
was occupying and cultivating the land from 1957 and had per-
fected his title by adverse possession. He contended that the
G plaintiff-respondent was never in possession and the sale deed
dated 10.4.1957 in her favour was a nominal deed, that one
Mahalaxmamma (a common relative) had paid the sale con-
sideration and was the true owner, and that plaintiff had admit-
ted this position in an agreement dated 18.4.1959 executed by
her in favour of Mahalaxmamma and her husband. The defen-
H
KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. 855
GALLA JANI KAMMAALIAS NACHARAMMA [R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.]

dant also contended that the suit was not maintainable for two rea- A
sons : (i) The plaintiff had stated in the plaint that she had leased
the land to defendant and the relationship between them as that of
landlord and cultivating tenant; and.therefore, she ought to have
filed an eviction petition before the Special Officer (Tenancy Court)
undertheAndhra Pradesh (AndhraAreas) Tenancy Act, 1956 ('Act' s
> for short) and civil court had no jurisdiction. (ii) A mere suit for pos-
session was not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for decla-
ration, 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'- C
· 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 admit-
ting that the sale deed dated 10.4.1957 in her favour was a
nominal document; whether the said agreement dated D
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 E
possession (and mesne profits to be determined by a sepa-
rate enquiry). The defendant filed an appeal befdre the High
Court in FA No.1990 of 1988 which was dismissed by judg-
ment dated 27.9.2006. The trial court and High Court have con-
currently held that (i) plaintiff had estaplished her title to the suit F
} 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 es-
tablish title by adverse possession. Both courts have also re- G
jected 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 :
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.

A (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
B 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
c made out title by adverse possession call for
interference?
Re : Question No. (i) :
8. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff had specifi-
D cally admitted in the plaint that the defendant was her tenant in
regard to suit land. He contended that in view of the said spe-
cific admission in regard to relationship of landlord and cultivat-
ing tenant, a civil suit for possession was barred by sections 13
and 16 of the Act.
E 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
F
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
G 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
H
KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. 857
GALLA JANI KAMMAALIAS NACHARAMMA [R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.]
y
(b) has done any act or has been guilty of any neglect, A
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
B
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." c
"16. Adjudication of disputes 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, D
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"
E
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
F
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 there-
fore, the defendant was a trespasser and she was entitled to
sue for possession to evict the 'trespasser'. The averments re-
lating to defendant earlier being the tenant, furnish the factual G
background leading to the caµse of action for the suit. The aver-
ments 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. H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS '
[2008] 11 S.C.R. r
•
)-c

A 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
B 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
c 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) con-
templated termination of tenancy and filing of an eviction peti-
E tion 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. Termina-
F ti on of tenancy and eviction petition under section 13(e) are con-
templated 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
G 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 some-
one else by setting up title in someone other than the plaintiff- ..,._ .,.,,
landlord, section 13(e)would have certainly been attracted. In
H

,
.I
KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. 859
GALLA JANI KAMMAALIAS NACHARAMMA [R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.]
~

'¥ this case, as noticed above, the plaintiff alleged she was the A
owner and the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant as-
serted that he was the owner by adverse possession and de-
nied that he was a cultivating tenant at any point of time. When
neither party to the suit claimed that defendant was the .cultivat-
ing tenant, and as the suit was not for eviction of a cultivating B
tenant, the mere denial of the title of the plaintiff by the defen-
dant in respect of an agricultural land, would not mean that only
the authorities L!nder the Act will have jurisdiction and that plain-
tiff should sue for eviction under the Act by approaching the
Special Officer. Only a civil suit was the remedy to obtain pos- c
session 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 prof- D
its, 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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
.-
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. I-
'
t-
A that the plaintiff had alleged that defendant 2 was a tenant but '( ~

on the denial of the tenancy and the title of the plaintiffs-
appellants 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-
B 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 non-
suiting the plaintiffs-appellants on the ground that the civil
court had no jurisdiction."
c 13. It was next contended that having regard to section 16
of the Act any disputel
in regard to an agricultural tenancy had to
be filed before the Special Officer under the Act. Section 16
provides that any dispute arising under the Act between a land-
lord and a cultivating tenant in relation to a matter not other-
D wise 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 rela-
E tion 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 ei-
ther a landlord or a cultivating tenant, and admit the existence
F 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
G
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
H 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 A
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 regis- B
tered 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
c
the defendant raises a serious cloud over the title of the plain-
tiff, 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. D
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
E
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 F
'f without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent
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) : G

15. The appellant-defendant ne>-.1 contended that the courts
,. ., 1-- below committed an error in holding that the respondent- plain-
tiff was the owner of the suit property and he (the appellant) had
not established title by adverse possession.
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R

'f
A 16. In support of his contention that plaintiff is not the real
owner and that the sale deed dated 10.4.1957 in her favour '
I.-

r-
was nominal, the defendant relied on an alleged agreement
dated 18.4.1959 said to have been executed by the plaintiff in ,.
0.--

!
favour of Mahalaxmamma and her husband acknowledging that
B 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
c suit property. The trial court and High Court also found that the
stamp papers used for the alieged agreement dated 18.4.1959 ,I
.._
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
~
D 17. The defenda.nt claimed that he had perfected his title
by adverse possession by being in open, continuous and hos-
tile possession of the suit property from 1957. He also produced ~
some tax-receipts showing that he has paid the taxes in regard ~
to the suit land. Some tax receipts also showed that he paid the r-r
E 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 pos- r
session, and that mere possession for some years was not I-
sufficient to claim adverse possession, unless such posses- t
F 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,
G
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
H two issues of fact in detail with reference to the evidence ·and

..
KURELLA NAGA DRUVA VUDAYA BHASKARA RAO v. 863
GALLA JANI KAMMAALIAS NACHARAMMA [R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.]

recorded concurrent findings against the defendant. This Court A
will not convert itself into a third court of facts and re-examine
the facts or disturb concurrent findings offacts. Neither any per-
versity nor omission to consider evidence nor any error of law
has been pointed out with reference to consideration and ap-
preciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court. We B
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. c

.. -t