Benami sale, adverse possession and withdrawn suit rules: title passed, adverse possession failed, and later suit was not barred.

A sale deed supported by an earlier oral sale, part cash payment and a promissory note for the balance was treated as a real transaction; benami character was not proved, and title was found to have passed to the plaintiffs' predecessors. Claims of adverse possession failed because the earlier possession was referable to an agreement to purchase and later possession was permissive once the sale was accepted as valid. An earlier withdrawn suit did not bar the later action, as the withdrawal order showed no final adjudication and no procedural bar arose on the facts stated. The concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiffs were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale in favour of Hampayya was a benami transaction and did not convey title to the plaintiffs' predecessors; (ii) Whether the defendants had acquired title to the suit lands by adverse possession; (iii) Whether the present suit was barred by the earlier withdrawal of O.S. No. 531 of 1918 and the order passed therein.

Issue (i): Whether the sale in favour of Hampayya was a benami transaction and did not convey title to the plaintiffs' predecessors.

Analysis: The disputed sale deed recited an earlier oral sale, payment of part consideration in cash, and execution of a promissory note for the balance. The concurrent findings of the courts below were that the transaction was real and that title passed to Hampayya. The surrounding circumstances, including the account-book entries relied on by the appellant and the long possession of Pompayya and Mallayya, were insufficient to displace those findings.

Conclusion: The transaction was not established to be benami, and title was held to have vested in the plaintiffs' predecessors.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants had acquired title to the suit lands by adverse possession.

Analysis: Possession by Pompayya and Mallayya from 1899 to 1903 was referable to an agreement to purchase and therefore was not adverse to the original owners. After 1903, their possession was treated as permissive, as the purchase in favour of Hampayya was found to be valid and complete.

Conclusion: Title by adverse possession was not proved.

Issue (iii): Whether the present suit was barred by the earlier withdrawal of O.S. No. 531 of 1918 and the order passed therein.

Analysis: The earlier suit had been withdrawn, but the order permitting withdrawal did not record that it was with or without liberty to institute a fresh suit. There was no final adjudication of the subject-matter, and the present suit was brought within the statutory period. The withdrawal did not operate as a bar to the plaintiffs pursuing the same relief in the present suit.

Conclusion: The present suit was not barred by the earlier withdrawal order.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiffs were affirmed, and the second appeal failed, with the connected memorandum of objections also failing.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior suit withdrawn without any final adjudication does not bar a later suit on the same subject-matter where the earlier withdrawal order does not show that the court refused or granted liberty in a manner creating a res judicata or equivalent procedural bar; similarly, benami and adverse possession must be proved on the evidence and will not be inferred from long possession alone.

---