1965 (9) TMI 66 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules deity owns land, denies permanent lease claim, rejects adverse possession defense. Plaintiff granted possession.

The Supreme Court upheld the deity's ownership of the suit lands, rejected the claim of a permanent lease under the 1851 arrangement, and dismissed the ... - Issues Involved:1. Ownership of the suit lands by the deity.2. Rights acquired by Peda Narasimhulu under the 1851 arrangement.3. Acquisition of title by adverse possession by Peda Narasimhulu and his successors.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of the Suit Lands by the Deity:The plaintiff claimed that the suit lands belonged to Sri Janardhana Swami Varu, supported by documentary evidence showing the deity as the inamdar in public records. The Inam Fair Register and other village records consistently listed the deity as the owner since 1795. The Subordinate Judge and the High Court both confirmed the deity's ownership, which the Supreme Court upheld. The court found no evidence supporting the defendants' claim that Peda Narasimhulu or Ponnuri Anandu was the owner in 1851.2. Rights Acquired by Peda Narasimhulu Under the 1851 Arrangement:The defendants claimed a permanent lease from the 1851 arrangement, which they argued was evidenced by a Sanad. However, the Sanad was not produced in court, leading the Supreme Court to presume it would have shown a non-permanent tenancy. The court held that the arrangement granted a lease from year to year in exchange for supplying oil to the temple, not a permanent tenancy. The court emphasized that the deity remained the registered inamdar, and the defendants' unilateral declarations could not alter this fact.3. Acquisition of Title by Adverse Possession:The court rejected the claim of adverse possession, noting that the tenancy was lawful and continued until terminated by notice in 1949. The defendants' possession was not adverse to the deity during this period. The court also dismissed the argument that the possession became adverse in 1929 when Nuli Subba Rao asserted a hostile title, as this was insufficient to convert the tenancy into a permanent one. The court cited legal precedents establishing that a tenant cannot acquire a permanent right by prescription against the landlord.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the deity was the rightful owner of the suit lands, the arrangement of 1851 did not grant a permanent lease, and the defendants did not acquire title by adverse possession. The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the lands. The trial court was directed to determine mesne profits, and no costs were awarded in any court.