Failure to Seek Declaration and Recovery of Possession Proves Fatal in Property Dispute Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Share:
property property bail Driving elections dna 139 N.I. Act High Court Not the ‘Court’ for Arbitration Extensions under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act:  Andhra Pradesh High Court Call state Notice High Court Documents Physical Government Teacher's Accident Evidence Property Dispute Amendment Sale Agreement Police Collector investigationsTrafficking Domestic Violence Bicycle injury Cheque conviction dowry sale property payment

In a significant judgment on property disputes and mandatory injunctions, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, dismissed a second appeal in the case of Akki Tirupathaiah vs Yedlapalli Subba Rao, highlighting the importance of seeking declaration and recovery of possession in cases of alleged property encroachment.

The case, Second Appeal No. 1128 of 2010, delivered on February 1, 2024, revolved around a dispute where the appellant, Akki Tirupathaiah, claimed that the respondent, Yedlapalli Subba Rao, had encroached upon his property by erecting pipelines and taps. The initial suit was decreed in favor of the appellant, but was subsequently reversed by the appellate court.

In his judgement, Justice Krupa Sagar observed, “In a case of this nature, failure to seek declaration and recovery of possession is a legal hurdle in granting any relief to a suitor.” This observation underlines a key principle in property law disputes, emphasizing the need for clear legal claims when seeking redressal in cases of alleged encroachment.

The court also delved into the burden of proof in property disputes, where the appellant claimed exclusive rights over a disputed pathway, while the respondent maintained that it belonged to the Gram Panchayat. The court found that the appellant failed to prove exclusive ownership of the pathway, and therefore could not claim relief based on their assertions alone.

Moreover, the appeal for additional evidence, filed under I.A.No.3 of 2019, was dismissed. The court held that the documents presented, including a legal notice, a sale deed, and a notarized deed of undertaking, were not crucial for deciding the appeal.

The court’s decision to uphold the judgement of the first appellate court, which set aside the original decree in favor of the appellant, underscores the intricate legal nuances in property law and the vital role of proper legal framing in such disputes.

Date of Decision: 1st February 2024

AKKI TIRUPATHAIAH VS YEDLAPALLI SUBBA RAO

Download Judgment

Share: