In a recent case, the Gauhati High Court held that possession of the property would be in the name of a person who paid property tax and cleared electricity dues. The court dismissed the second appeal.
Heard Sri V. Nitesh, counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff.
The respondent herein had applied before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for permanent injunction restraining the appellant, and others claiming through him, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the respondent. The said plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.5.41 cents of land in Sy.No.478 of Penumuru Revenue Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, including a terraced residential building and an asbestos sheet roofed church situated in the land.
The respondent had purchased the land in the suit schedule property under a registered deed of sale dated 18.08.2005 from the original owners and had subsequently constructed an asbestos-roofed building to be used as a church and an RCC residential building as the residential quarters of the pastor of the church.
The respondent had obtained an electricity service connection for the church and the house and was paying electricity consumption charges to the department. The respondent had undertaken the development of the property by raising various additional amenities and structures.
The appellant had approached the respondent and had requested that he should be appointed as pastor to the church of the respondent. After considering this request, the respondent appointed the appellant as a pastor on an honorary basis after obtaining an undertaking from the appellant that the appellant could be removed at any time or replaced by any other pastor at the sole discretion of pastor A.
The defendant filed an additional written statement also stating that certain pleadings had been amended in the plaint after filing of chief examination of PW.1 and cross-examination had been completed and that such change in the pleadings is not permissible and should be disregarded.
The trial Court, after consideration of the evidence placed before it as well as the submissions made on both sides, had held that it was the respondent, who was in possession of the plaint schedule property and that the appellant was not in possession of the property.
Both the appellant and respondent claim that the construction made in that site was made by them and not the other side in the suit. To ascertain as to who is in possession, both the trial Court and the appellate Court took into account the admissions of DW.1 (appellant) and DWs.2 & 3 that the appellant has his own house about half a kilometre away from the suit schedule property.
Both the trial Court and the appellate Court also took into account the fact that the property tax was being paid in the name of the respondent and that the electricity dues arising out of the electrical connection were being paid in the name of the respondent only. It held in favour of the respondent that it is in possession of the property and granted injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the said possession.
The single bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao did not find any substantial question of law that needs to be answered and dismissed the second appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
