TIRUMALA TRIUPATI DEVASTHANAMS versus K.M. KRISHNALAH

TIRUMALA TRIUPATI DEVASTHANAMS versus K.M. KRISHNALAH

The second appellate court erred in reappreciating the evidence and holding the TTD's title extinguished when no such issue was raised in the courts below and no adverse possession was established. As TTD had subsisting title and the plaintiff's suit for possession was filed after more than 6 months from the alleged dispossession, Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was not available. Plaintiff failed to prove better title or possession; therefore, he could not recover possession from the true owner (TTD).

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams; Respondent/plaintiff: K.M. Krishnaiah
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Second Appellate Court/high Court—final Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Suit for Possession, Title to Property, Admissibility of Judgments, Appreciation of Evidence, Adverse Possession
Property Law Civil Procedure Evidence Suit for Possession Title to Property Admissibility of Judgments Appreciation of Evidence Adverse Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Appellant/defendant

K.M. Krishnaiah

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Second Appellate Court/high Court—final Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second appellate court could reappreciate evidence and hold that the defendant's (TTD) title stood extinguished when no such issue was raised in the lower courts.
  2. 2 Whether a judgment not inter partes is admissible in evidence to prove title.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff, dispossessed more than 6 months before filing suit, can recover possession based solely on possessory title when the defendant establishes subsisting title.

Ratio Decidendi

The second appellate court erred in reappreciating the evidence and holding the TTD's title extinguished when no such issue was raised in the courts below and no adverse possession was established. As TTD had subsisting title and the plaintiff's suit for possession was filed after more than 6 months from the alleged dispossession, Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was not available. Plaintiff failed to prove better title or possession; therefore, he could not recover possession from the true owner (TTD).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal set aside.
  • Suit for possession as per amended plaint dismissed with costs.