Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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