MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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,

 

Latest Legal News