G. Thankamma Amma and anr. Vs. N. Raghava Kurup and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 114: [s.b. sinha & markandey katju, jj] presumption effect - claim of title held, presumption by itself would not discharge the burden of proof on claimant and would not create title. [2000 aihc 2029 (ap) reversed]. section 115: acquiescence or estoppel acquisition of title is inference of law arising out of certain set of facts. person not acquiring title in law, same cannot be vested only by reason of acquiescence or estoppel on part of other. [2000 aihc 2029 (ap) reversed]. -- specific relief act, 1963 [c.a. no. 47/1963]. section 34: suit for recovery of possession termination of tenancy tenant running school on property, claimed to have acquired ownership in property by way of oral gift, but failed to prove oral gift delivery of possession not proved tenant did not get mutation done , nor even after termination of tenancy not explained held, construction of large number of structures without objection by owner, would not confer title. in the absence of animus possidendi claim for title by prescription, is not tenable. title not being proved, decree for recovery of possession passed against him is proper. [2000 aihc 2029 (ap) reversed]. article 65; title by prescription claim for possession by tenant based on title held, it had, therefore, no prima facie animus possidendi. thus claim for title by prescription is not tenable. [2000 aihc 2029 (ap) reversed]. orders. rajendra babu, j.1. leave granted.2. heard learned counsel for the parties.3. this appeal is directed against the order made by the high court in a second appeal. perusal of the judgment made by the high court does not disclose that there is any formulation of question of law as contemplated under section 100 of the cpc before deciding the matter. the scope of section 100 c.p.c. has been explained by this court time and again and it is wholly unnecessary to refer to those decisions. in the circumstances of the case, we set aside the order made by the high court and remit the matter to the high court for fresh consideration after framing an appropriate question of law. the appeal is allowed accordingly. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal is directed against the order made by the High Court in a Second Appeal. Perusal of the judgment made by the High Court does not disclose that there is any formulation of question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the CPC before deciding the matter. The scope of Section 100 C.P.C. has been explained by this Court time and again and it is wholly unnecessary to refer to those decisions. In the circumstances of the case, we set aside the order made by the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration after framing an appropriate question of law. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.