In Brief
The plaintiff purchased disputed agricultural property from Buchamma (a Class II heir) by registered sale deed dated 25 April 1981 and sued for possession after being evicted. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it. The High Court reversed this, holding a suit for declaration of title was necessary. The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that a suit for possession based on title does not require a concurrent declaration suit unless a serious cloud is raised on the plaintiff's title. Buchamma's authority to sell was not specifically challenged; her denial for want of knowledge was insufficient. Defendant No. 3's claimed adoption by the deceased Yashoda was not established. The Court restored the decree for possession.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.