Eviction Suits Don’t Require Mortgage Redemption: Andhra Pradesh High Court

06 November 2024 9:49 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by Jannada Ramanayya challenging lower court decisions ordering his eviction from land owned by Bobbadi Govindarao. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao concluded that the appeal presented no substantial questions of law, affirming concurrent rulings by the Srikakulam Principal Senior Civil Judge and the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge. The courts had decreed that Ramanayya must vacate the disputed land, rejecting his claims of possession under a "Bogabanda usufructuary mortgage."

The dispute began in 2014 when Govindarao, as plaintiff, filed a suit for the eviction of Ramanayya from agricultural land leased to him. Initially leased for three years beginning in 2002, the lease was informally extended until 2014. When Govindarao sought to reclaim the property, Ramanayya refused, citing an alleged agreement granting him possessory rights. Govindarao asserted that any financial arrangements had been resolved, denying any mortgage on the land.

The trial court ruled in favor of Govindarao, establishing his title to the land and rejecting Ramanayya’s claims. The Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge subsequently upheld this decision, prompting Ramanayya to appeal to the High Court.

The appeal raised several issues, including whether a simple eviction suit was maintainable without redeeming an alleged mortgage. Ramanayya contended that the plaintiff should have filed a mortgage redemption suit, asserting a claim to continued possession due to his initial investment.

However, Justice Gopala Krishna Rao clarified that the case involved only the right to possession, unaffected by any mortgage claim, particularly as no mortgage document was presented. Additionally, the court noted that Ramanayya had not raised the repayment issue in previous proceedings, nor had he filed a counterclaim for the amount allegedly owed.

"The appellant failed to establish a valid possessory claim or mortgage over the suit land, and no substantial questions of law were demonstrated that would warrant revisiting the findings of the lower courts," Justice Rao stated, referencing Supreme Court precedent in Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, confirming the judgments of both the trial and appellate courts. Ramanayya was ordered to vacate the property, with no costs awarded.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2024
Jannada Ramanayya vs. Bobbadi Govindarao,

 

Similar News