A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.1 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :AT: MANTHANI.
PRESENT:BRUNGI SRINIVASULU
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GODAVARIKHANI.
FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANTHANI.
FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
APPEAL SUIT NO.6 of 2023
Between:
Boddu Swarupa, W/o. Sammaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Eglaspur Village of Manthani Mandal. …Appellant/Plaintiff AND
1.Boddu Venkatamma, W/o.Late Mallaiah, Age: 70 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o.Eglaspur village of Manthani Mandal (Died when the suit was pending in the lower Court).
2.Gattu Mahadev, S/o.Narayana, Age: 60 years, Occ: not known, R/o. Nadiveedhi, Manthani Village and Mandal, Peddapalli District. …Respondents/Defendants.
Memorandum of Appeal filed under Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated.25.07.2023 passed in
O.S.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the Learned IAdditional Junior Civil
Judge at Manthani.
Between:
Boddu Swarupa, W/o. Sammaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Eglaspur Village of Manthani Mandal. …Plaintiff AND
1.Boddu Venkamma, W/o.Late Mallaiah, Age: 70 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o.Eglaspur village of Manthani Mandal (Died when the suit was pending in the lower Court).
2.Gattu Mahadev, S/o.Narayana, Age: 60 years, Occ: not known, R/o. Nadiveedhi, Manthani Village and Mandal, Peddapalli District. …Defendants.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.2 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
This appeal is coming before me for a final hearing in the presence of Sri M.A.Baig, Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff and Sri S.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants.
APPEAL SUIT NO.7 of 2023
Between:
Boddu Swarupa, W/o. Sammaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Eglaspur Village of Manthani Mandal. …Appellant/Plaintiff AND
Gattu Mahadev, S/o.Narayana, Age: 60 years, Occ: not known, R/o. Nadiveedhi, Manthani Village and Mandal, Peddapalli District. …Respondent/Defendant
Memorandum of Appeal filed under Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated.25.07.2023 passed in
O.S.No.90 of 2017 on the file of the Learned IAdditional Junior Civil
Judge at Manthani.
Between:
Boddu Swarupa, W/o. Sammaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Eglaspur Village of Manthani Mandal. …Plaintiff AND Gattu Mahadev, S/o.Narayana, Age: 60 years, Occ: not known, R/o. Nadiveedhi, Manthani Village and Mandal, Peddapalli District. …Defendant. This appeal is coming before me for a final hearing in the presence of Sri M.A.Baig, Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff and Sri S.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants.
The above matters having been heard both sides and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::
A.S.No.6 of 2023
1.This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the
IAdditional Junior Civil Judge at Manthani.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.3 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
2.The Plaintiff/Appellant filed the suit for Perpetual Injunction against the Defendants, and the averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows: 2(a). The brief averments of the plaint are that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property i.e., land in Sy No.373/A to an extent of 029 Gts., and the land in
Sy.No.374/A admeasuring Ac.009 Gts., i.e., total to an extent of
Ac.038 Gts., situated at Manthani Revenue Village of Manthani
Mandal. Initially the father of Plaintiff purchased the suit land on 10041986 through a simple sale deed by delivery of possession, in the course of time the father of the Plaintiff gave the suit land to the Plaintiff in her marriage to get legal title. At the same time concerned Revenue authorities issued documents such as pattedar pass book. Pahanies for the year 20112012, 20132014, dated. 21.10.2013. vide fasli No. 1422 in respect of Sy.No.374/A admeasuring Ac.009 Gts., and in Sy.No.373/A admeasuring
Ac.029 Gts., i.e., total to an extent of Ac.038 Gts., in favour of the Plaintiff.
2(b). It is pleaded that on 20.10.2013, the defendants without having any rights over the suit land interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff and tried to dispossess
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.4 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
suit land, but the Plaintiff resisted the illegal activities of the
Defendants with the help of her servants and adjacent cultivators
However, the Defendants warned that they would come at any time and damage her crop in the circumstances. Plaintiff has got no other efficacious remedy expecting to approach the Hon'ble
Court, otherwise Plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which can not be compensated by way of money. Hence, the suit.
3. Defendant No 1 to 2 filed their Written Statement denying all the adverse allegations made against them. The contention of the
Defendant No.1 and 2 is that the Plaintiff is not the owner the possessor of the suit land in Sy.No.373/A to an extent of Ac.029
Gts., and the land in Sy.No.374/A admeasuring Ac.009 Gts., i.e., total to an extent of Ac.038 Gts., situated at Manthani Revenue
Village and Mandal. It is also pleaded in the Written statement of
Defendant No.1 and 2 that the Defendant No.2/Gattu Mahadev
S/o.Narayana is the absolute owner and possessor having clear marketable title to the suit land and cultivating the suit lands uninterruptedly even to till today. That the suit land was given to the Defendant No.1 by the Defendant No.2 on yearly crop share basis. The Plaintiff was created the false documents with the help of Revenue officials on false ROR proceedings vide file No.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.5 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
B/187/2008. But, the Defendant No.2 was produced the documents such as Pahanies from the year 1984 to the present year which categorically shows that the Defendant No.2 was the
Pattedar and possessor of the suit land up to the year 2007 2008.
3(a). It is further pleaded in the Written statement of Defendant
No. 1 and 2 that due to over sight the Defendant No.2 happens to be Government Officer, could not able to observe the Revenue records, due to which by taking advantage the Plaintiff who is daughterinlaw of the Defendant No.1 created fabricated documents colluded with Revenue Officials, such as created pahanies and 1B entry in the file with out any documentary evidence. i.e., there is no sale transactions between the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2. The said fact was cleared by the
Revenue Inspector who visited the spot conducted panchanama and concerned officer submitted the report to the RDO, Manthani and recommended for cancellation of Pattas in the name of the
Plaintiff. That the Defendant No.1 also submitted before this
Court that her husband never purchased the suit land from the
Defendant No.2 at any point of time. The relief sought is under valued and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.6 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of plaint Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
A.S.No.7 of 2023
5.This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.90 of 2017 on the file of the I
Additional Junior Civil Judge at Manthani.
6.The Plaintiff/Appellant filed the suit for Rectification of the wrong entries in R.O.R and Pahanies against the Defendants, and the averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows: 6(a). The brief averments of the plaint are that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property i.e., land in Sy.No.373/A to an extent of 029 Gts., and the land in
Sy.No.374/A admeasuring Ac.009 Gts., i.e., total to an extent of
Ac.038 Gts., situated at Manthani Revenue Village of Manthani
Mandal. Initially the father of Plaintiff purchased the suit land on 10041986 through unregistered simple sale deed by delivery of possession, in the course of time the father of the Plaintiff gave
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.7 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
the suit land to the Plaintiff in her marriage to get legal title. The said land was regularized in favour of the Plaintiff in the Tahsildar
Office, Manthani. Vide file No.B/187/2008/ROR, dated:
27.10.2008 issued 13(B) Certificate declaring Plaintiff as owner
Pattedar and cultivator of the suit land in exercised of the powers confirmed under 5(A)(4) r/w rules 22(5), 11 of Record of Rights
Act, and Pattedar pass book, Title deed book to Plaintiff declaring her as Pattedar and cultivator her name is also uploaded in
Revenue web site for transparency of public record. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the name of the Plaintiff was reflected in all the relevant Revenue records including ROR, dated.13.05 2017 but surprisingly on 03.06.2017 Plaintiff found her name was deleted from ROR and pahanies, dated.03.06.2017 In respect of suit land on against her interest.
6(b). Further, the Plaintiff filed a suit for Perpetual Injunction in respect of plaint Schedule Property on 28.10.2013 against the defendant Gattu Mahadev and Boddu Venkatamma. That the said plaint was registered in favour of the plaintiff in
OS.No.65/2013 on the file of this Hon'ble Court at the same time
she also sought AdInterim Injunction order Vide I.A
No.171/2013, dt.28.10.2013, the said proceedings are still
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.8 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
pending against the Defendant and deceased/Boddu
Venkatamma who is Motherinlaw of the Plaintiff. That the Late
Boddu Venkatamma during her life time openly declared in the presence of elders that this Defendant and his followers made malfeasance could succeed in getting her thumb impression on against her interest got her thumb impression the printed material can't be admitted as evidence in any proceedings.
6(c). It is further pleaded in the plaint that on 28.02.2013 Gattu
Mahadev/Defendant filed a petition addressed to the Tahsildar.
Manthani resorting to issue certified copies of Pattedar names changed entries for the years 20072008, 20082009 in respect of
Sy.No.373/A, admeasuring Ac.029 Gts., and Sy.No.374/A admeasuring Ac.009 Gts., situated at Manthani Village and that the said petition was marked to the District Collector, Karimnagar and RDO Manthani, after that the copy acknowledged by the office of the RDO, Manthani filed in the material documents and another petition, dated.17.03.2013 addressed to the Collector.
Karimnagar and according the said petition the RDO. Manthani
Registered Lr.No.A/106/2013, dated.17.09.2014 issued notices to
Plaintiffs, Defendants and Tahsildar Manthani.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.9 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
6(d). It is further pleaded in the plaint that on 22.01.2015
Plaintiff filed her grievance petition addressed to the Collector and
District Magistrate, Karimnagar suspecting the fidelity of the
RDO, Manthani. In addition to that the Plaintiff also filed a petition and requested the RDO, Manthani on 24.01.2015 not to pronounce any order in A/106/2013, but RDO, Manthani lured by economic gain to cause wrongful loss to Plaintiff under the high handed influence of defendant with unfair means passed the impugned orders, dated.30.05.2015 in A/106/2013.
6(e). It is further pleaded that the orders passed by the RDO,
Manthani. the Plaintiff preferred revision in the office of the Joint
Collector ROR, Karimnagar on 12.11.2015, she also reported that the pendency of revision to the Tahsildar. Manthani with a request not to alter Entries basing on the impugned order passed by the RDO Manthani, since the order dated.30.05 2015 in
A/106/2013 is pending before the Collector, Karimnagar for correctness, legality and propriety of Impugned Order u/Sec.9 of the ROR Act. According to Sec.3(3), Sec.5(5), Sec.5A are subject to orders passed in Sec.9 of Act shall be final.
6(f). That on 13.05.2017 the Plaintiff name is reflecting in ROR and Pahanies obtained from MeeSeva generated pahanies and
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.10 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
ROR in respect of suit land on against her physical possession and enjoyment over the suit land, hence in these factual matrix the Tahsildar changed the Entries abusing process of law. Hence this suit for declaring that to Declare the Wrong Entries i.e., name of Defendant is illegal null and void liable to be set aside and the name of Plaintiff may be Incorporated as usually in the Pahanies and ROR.
7.On the other hand, defendants No.1 and 2 filed their
Written Statements by denying all the averments in the plaint and submitted that the defendant No.2/Gattu Mahadev is the absolute owner and possessor and having clear marketable title to the Suit Schedule Properties and cultivating the suit lands uninterruptedly even to till today. Further, submitted that defendant No.2 produced the pahanies from the year 1984 to 1985 to the present year which categorically shows that he was the pattedar and possessor up to 2007 to 2008. Further, submitted that due to over sight the defendant No.2 happens to be Government Servant, as such he could not able to see the
Revenue records. Further, submitted that selling of suit lands by the defendant No.2 to the father of the plaintiff never arises and it is a fabricated story created by the plaintiff. It is
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.11 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
therefore, prayed in view of the facts stated above, the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed and a decree for Perpetual
Injunction may be awarded against the plaintiff from her interference in the cultivation of the Suit Schedule Lands by the defendant No.2, for ends of justice. Further, the cost of the counter may be awarded to the defendant No.2 against the
Plaintiff. Hence, the Written Statement.
8.Basing on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for rectification of the entries in the Revenue records by declaring such entries are null and void as prayed for?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for incorporate his name in Revenue records as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
9.Both suits are clubbed, common evidence adduced in
O.S.No.65 of 2013.
10.During the trial, Plaintiff got examined as PW.1 in this case by name Boddu Swarupa and got marked Exs.A1 to A14 documents. PW.2 is the father of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 are the supporting witnesses. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.12 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
No.2 got examined as DW.1 in this case by name Gattu Mahadev and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.32 documents.
11.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suits without costs by way of common Judgment.
12.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the
Plaintiff/Appellant preferred the present appeals. The grounds of appeal, in brief, are as follows:
12.1. The judgment passed by the trial court is incorrect, contrary to the facts, opposed to evidence and pleadings on record, and liable to be set aside. The trial court totally erred in appreciating the evidence, came to the wrong conclusion, and passed the impugned judgment and decree under appeal, which is liable to be set aside.
12.2. The trial court failed to consider the documentary evidence and appreciate the documents, i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 and Ex.B1 to Ex. B32, with careful observation, ignored the admitted facts, and passed the wrong judgment.
12.3. The appellant submit that she has filed a case against the respondent in O.S.No.90 of 20107 restoring the relief of
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.13 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
declaration to alter/cancel/change the wrong entries in the revenue records reflecting wrong name of respondent/Gattu
Mahadev in Sy.No.373/A, Adm.Ac.029 Gts., and Sy.No.374/A,
Adm.Ac.009 Gts, total extent Adm.Ac.038 Gts situated at
Manthani village and Mandal proper are as illegal, null and void and not binding on this appellant and that to incorporate name of appellant as usually in the Revenue record on are before 1305.2017 my be altered/changed granting the relief as prayed for according to law in the interest of justice.
12.4. The trial court totally failed to consider, the legal notices and reply notices, and appreciate the material placed
before the court. Even though the defendant established his
possession, the trial court decreed the suit.
12.5. The finding of the trial court in passing the judgment is perverse, erroneous, against the law and facts on record, hence unsustainable, and liable to be set aside. Hence, the
Plaintiff/Appellant prayed to allow the appeal.
13.Noadditionaldocuments were marked on behalf of both sides.Both the learned counsel addressed oral arguments; the learned counsel for the appellant also filed written arguments.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.14 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
The parties are referred to as "arrayed" in the original suit before the Trial Court.
14.Heard both counsels at length. Both counsels filed written arguments. Perused the record.
15.Considering the contentions of both parties, the following points are framed for determination:
1. Whether the plaintiff is possession over the suit schedule property and entitled for Perpetual Injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rectification of Revenue entries as prayed for?
3. Whether the Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and law in a proper way?
4. The common Judgment of Trial Court is perverse and liable to set aside?
5. To what relief?
16.In both suits plaintiff is common and Suit Schedule
Properties are common. Trial Judge has passed the Judgment commonly. For sake of convenience, this Court also disposed off both appeal suits by delivering common Judgment.
17.For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, points in O.S.No.65 of 2013 and O.S.No.90 of 2017 are taken together for consideration.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.15 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
Point Nos.1 to 4 :
18.Admittedly, onus is on plaintiff to prove the possession over the Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of this suit.
Plaintiff Counsel has vehemently argued that plaintiff is in lawful possession over the Suit Schedule Property by producing oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 documents.
19.In a suit for Injunction Court has to see the possession as on the date of filing of this suit. Plaintiff has filed the documents under Exs.A.1 to A.14. Ex.A.1 to A.14 shows her possession over the Suit Schedule Property. This suit is filed in the year 2013.
Plaintiff got Ex.A.2 prior to it, plaintiff also validated simple sale deed. Plaintiff is having pattedar passbook same was marked as
Ex.A.1. As on the date of filing of suit the Plaintiff is having possession, her name reflected in pahanies. Ex.A.4 pahanies shows her possession for the year 2011. Ex.A.5 is pahanie issued by Tahsildar Office shows her possession for the year 2011 to 2012. Plaintiff also filed tax receipts.
20.This Court cannot go into enquiry with regard to title.
Plaintiff also got 13C certificate i.e., Mutation. Due to increasing of land values defendant interfered into the Suit Schedule
Property without any manner of right. Way back 1986 Plaintiff
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.16 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
father has purchased the suit land under simple sale deed and it was regularized later.
21.Plaintiff got regularization of the simple sale deed under due process of law, in the year 2008. Due to increasing of land rates,
D2 in OS.No.65 of 2013 interfering her possession. Plaintiff has discharged initial onus. It is a civil case in order to decree the suit the preponderance of probabilities only and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Plaintiff also examined PW.1 to PW.4 to show her possession over the Suit Schedule land as on the date of filing of suit.
22.Plaintiff Counsel further argued that plaintiff also entitled for Rectification of Entries. Without following due process again
Revenue Department issued title book in favour of the defendant.
Defendant approached to Collectorate Office by objecting the wrong mutation. Without following procedure RDO passed the
Orders for Rectification of Entries by deleting the name of the plaintiff for suit lands under Ex.B.4 against which plaintiff also approached the Joint Collector. Joint Collector also confirmed the
Order of the RDO.
23.This Court is temple of Justice. Having power for
Rectification of Entries. Civil Court is competent for declaration of
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.17 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
title. Increasing of land values is the root cause of the litigation.
Plaintiff is a household woman and she neither managed the
Revenue Department. Defendant has managed the revenue department. As such the name of the plaintiff is deleted. For wrongful interference also filed suit for Perpetual Injunction.
Plaintiff is entitled for Perpetual Injunction and also Rectification of the Entries.
24.Contra to it, Counsel for the Respondents/Defendants Sri
S.Chandrasekhar argued that plaintiff manipulated the record.
Plaintiff has taken inconsistent pleas. Plaintiff is not entitled for
Rectification of Entries and also Perpetual Injunction. Plaintiff not filed the alleged sale deed. Evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is contra to each other. Plaintiff is not in possession over the Suit Schedule
Property. Plaintiff by managing the Revenue Department got the patta. What is prevented the plaintiff to file the original sale deed.
It is an undisputed fact that the D2 in O.S.No.65 of 2013 is the original owner of the suit land. Plaintiff also pleads that PW.2 purchased the suit land in the year 1986 from D2. As such title of the D2 is not disputed one. Plaintiffs claim possession of the suit lands by way of purchase in the year 1986 under simple sale deed.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.18 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
25.This suit is filed on the file of this Court in the year 2013. If really plaintiff is in possession or PW.2 is in possession certainly their names will be reflected in the kabja column pahanies and remarks column i.e., possession column as purchased. Suddenly, in the year 2008 plaintiff managed the Revenue Department and got patta passbooks and same is cancelled by the Revenue
Department after due enquiry.
26.Moreover, plaintiff has failed to discharge her onus to prove her possession and suit for Rectification of Entries also defective as plaintiff not made competent Revenue Authorities i.e., RDO and District Collector as necessary parties to the suit. As such, both appeals are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
27.After hearing rival submissions perusing the common
Judgment of the Trial Court, originally O.S.No.65 of 2013 is filed on the file of this Court for Perpetual Injunction by the plaintiff
Smt.B.Swarupa. In the plaint she pleads that she is the owner and possessor of the suit land in Sy.No.373/A Admeasuring
Ac:029 Gts., and in Sy.No.374/A Admeasuring Ac:09 Gts., in total Ac:38 Gts., situated at Manthani revenue village.
28.This is the suit land and she pleads in the plaint that her father purchased the suit land by simple sale deed by delivery of
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.19 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
possession and after her marriage suit land was given and it was regularized in the Tahsildar Office, Manthani in favour of the plaintiff. D1 and D2 colluded and tried to dispossess her. This is the case of the plaintiff in the Injunction.
29.In the written statement filed by the defendant denied about the sale transaction. D2/G.Mahadev is absolute owner and possessor of the suit land. Suit land was given to D1 after cultivation on yearly crop share basis. Plaintiff is daughter in law of D1 created document with the help of Revenue Officials. From the year 19841985 up to 20172018, D2 name was recorded as pattedar and possessor of revenue record, D2 being a
Government servant, he is not able to see revenue records and
Revenue Officials created the pahanies and 1B entries. RDO recommended the cancellation of pattas in the name of plaintiff.
Plaintiff has played fraud with the help of Revenue Officials. D2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule
Property.
30.As per the above Written Statement, defendant has pleads title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property. The admitted facts need not be proved.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.20 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
31.Upon perusal of the record plaintiff has not filed her simple sale deed which is relied by her. It is also settled law that mere mutation of revenue record does not create ownership. Revenue entries does not create any title. Revenue entries only for the collection of tax only. For the same the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held in 2023 INSC 1009, between P. Kishore Kumar
Appellant vs Vittal K Patkar – Respondent, Dt.20.11.2023.
32.It is settled law that in the suit for possession the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. As per the Section 110 of the Indian
Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to ownership of the property lies on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. Plaintiff has to stand on her own legs, she cannot take weakness of defendant.
33.Plaintiff pleads that she is in possession and also incidentally claiming title by virtue by relying on the revenue record i.e., pattedar passbooks issued by revenue department in the year 2008. Plaintiff also denying title of D2. It is also admitted fact that, plaintiff also filed suit vide O.S.No.90 of 2017 for Rectification of wrong entries in the revenue record in which also she pleads that plaintiff father purchased suit land in the
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.21 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
year 1986 and gave the suit land at the time of her marriage and regularized in the year 2008.
34.As per the defendant he is far away from Manthani due to job and land was given to D1 who is mother in law of the plaintiff. D2 is pattedar he never sold the land to the father of the plaintiff or any body. Admittedly, in the plaint also not mentioned that from whom the PW.2 purchased the land and for what consideration. Also not mentioned whether it is stamped paper, who scribed the sale deed and names of attestors.
35.Non filing of simple sale deed as relied by the plaintiff is effect on her case. Rightly, the Trial Court has categorically held
Injunction simpliciter is not maintainable by relying on the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ananthula Sudhakar vs P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs & Others,
AIR 2008 (SC) 2033, Dt.25.03.2008. Recently, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 2024 SCC SC 169 between Tehsildar, Urban
Improvement Trust and Another – Appellants vs Ganga Bai
Menariya (Dead) Through Lrs. and Others Respondents. At para No.23 of Judgment has held: “Injunction simpliciter is not maintainable as title of the property of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendants. In such a situation it was required for the plaintiff to prove the title of property while praying for Injunction” and the same is also held by the (Ananthula Sudhakar vs P.Buchi Reddy).
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.22 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
36.Further, in the same Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.20 also held: “The respondentplaintiffs while filing civil suit did not implead the Gram Panchayat as a party to the suit. In such circumstances, the respondent plaintiffs were required to prove document as the competence of the Gram Panchayat to lease out the land itself was in question. The Gram Panchayat could have filed the written statement admitting or denying execution of lease deed and place complete facts before the Court as per records”.
37.The above case facts are identical to this case facts. Since the plaintiff not impleaded the RDO and Tahsildar and District
Collector as party to the suit. On one hand, plaintiff pleads she got mutation from the Revenue Department by due process and again she sought rectification in this, as Revenue Department cancelled her patta certificate after due enquiry then sought for
Rectification. Even this Court decreed the suit for Rectification of
Entries and the decree also not executable because RDO,
Tahsildar and District Collector are not made as party to the suit.
38.On this aspect also appeal of the plaintiff in O.S.No.90 of 2017 is not maintainable. Rightly, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit. If really the PW.2 is purchased the suit land in the year 1986 certainly his name will be reflected in the possession
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.23 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
column. Moreover, granting of Perpetual Injunction is equitable relief who ever approached the Court must come to the Court with clean hands.
39.Though the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that plaintiff is in physical possession by virtue of Ex.A.1 to A.4 as on the date of filing of suit and she is entitled for
Perpetual Injunction. In the suit for Injunction title also incidently can gone into. Even otherwise plaintiff admitted, the title of the
D2 i.e., G. Mahadev as owner of the Suit Schedule Property and her father purchased in the year 1986.
40.It is true that in the suit for Injunction Court is restricted discussion with regard to possession of plaintiff over the suit land as on the date of filing of suit, but the defendant is lawful owner of the suit land. Against lawful owner no Injunction can be maintainable. The mutation and pahanies obtained by the plaintiff deceitfully. If really the plaintiff father purchased suit land in the year 1986 certainly the purchase transaction i.e., “Sada bainama” sale deed will be produced by her. Even there is no whisper on which date under what consideration amount in whose presence sale transaction was occurred and what was the sale consideration amount. Sale transaction pleaded by the
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.24 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
plaintiff in the year 1986 and mutation is in the year 2008. As such time gap also for mutation and date of sale also doubtful about the case of the plaintiff.
41.If really plaintiff is in possession over the suit land from date of her marriage certainly the pahanies obtained by her to show her possession over the suit land i.e., as in possession column. In such pahanies obtained by the plaintiff to show her possession from the date of marriage to 2008 her continuous possession over the suit land. Without such documents this Court cannot infer that plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit land by virtue of purchase of suit land by her father.
42.As per the evidence it is admitted fact that D2 in O.S.No.65 of 2013 is having title and possession over the suit land and plaintiff themselves pleads purchase from him. As such admitted fact need not be proved as per the Section 58 of the Indian
Evidence Act, it is for the plaintiff to show that DW1 i.e.,
G.Mahadev is not owner and he lost his title in view of the execution of simple sale deed.
43.The Trial Court appreciated the evidence on record property and also documents and also plaintiff admitted her father purchased the suit land under simple sale deed with delivery of
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.25 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
possession. As per pleadings of appellant that her father has purchased the Suit Schedule Property in the year 1986 with delivery of possession but no pahanies are filed from 1986 to 2008 with regard to possession of the PW.1 and PW.2 over the Suit
Property.
44.In the pahanies there will be entry with regards to possession column. Moreover, statement of the DW.1 not recorded by the Revenue Authorities before validating the alleged sale deed of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also examined her father as PW.2, who is strangely stated in the cross examination of Defendant (DW.1 got executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff). Further, PW.2 admitted that he did not filed any pahanies to show his possession over the suit land after purchase. Evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 cannot be relied to show the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.
45.Upon perusing the cross examination of DW.1 nothing has been elicited except admission by DW.1. It is true that, he sold away the suit land during pendency of the present suit.
46.From the above discussion onus is on the plaintiff to prove for the title as defendant pleads plaintiff is not having title and
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.26 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
possession over the suit land. There is a cloud over the title of the plaintiff over the suit land as such Injunction simpliciter is not maintainable as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ananthula Sudhakar vs P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by
Lrs & Others, AIR 2008 (SC) 2033, Dt.25.03.2008 and also in
2024 SCC SC 169 between Tehsildar, Urban Improvement
Trust and Another – Appellants vs Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead)
Through Lrs. and Others – Respondents.
47.On the same preposition recently the Hon’ble High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in 2024 (4) ALT 474 (AP)
between N.Subrahmanyam Reddy & others vs. V.Chellappa
Reddy has categorically held that: “When there is a cloud on the title, or where the defendant claim title thereto and there is also threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction”.
48.In the above citation also the High Court has categorically discussed the Apex Court Judgment of Ananthula Sudhakar vs
P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs & Others, AIR 2008 (SC) 2033,
Dt.25.03.2008. The said facts are also identical to the present
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.27 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
case facts of the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court and confirmed the Order of the First Appellate Court. Hence, from the above discussion it is settled law when there is a could on the title and defendant claim title plaintiff has to sue for Declaration of Title and Injunction.
49.Moreover, Injunction against the true owner is not maintainable. Physical possession of the plaintiff on the alleged entries cannot be taken into consideration to show her lawful possession over the suit land. Hence, from the above discussion plaintiff failed to discharge her onus. Plaintiff not approached the
Court with clean hands.
50.Rightly, the Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence on record and documents in proper perspective with the settled law.
The another appeal filed by the plaintiff with regards to the
Rectification of Entries. Rightly, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit for non joining of necessary parties. It is admitted fact that plaintiff sought for Rectification of Entries against the DW.1.
Without challenging the Orders passed by the RDO and Joint
Collector before the proper Court i.e., Hon'ble High Court and without impleading the Tahsildar, RDO and Joint Collector suit
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.28 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
for declaration declaring entries in the revenue records is not proper. Joint Collector, Tahsildar and RDO are proper necessary parties. They are competent to rectify the revenue record either in the name of the plaintiff or defendant.
51.Even the suit of the plaintiff is decreed that decree also not executable and in operative since Tahsildar, RDO and Joint
Collector not made as party to this suit. They are proper necessary parties and on what basis of record they deleted the name of plaintiff in the revenue record. DW.1 is not competent person either for correction or alteration or deletion of the revenue record. DW.1 approached the Revenue Department for illegal entries in the name of the plaintiff and after conducting enquiry as per the R.O.R Act, name of the plaintiff deleted and digital passbook issued in favour of the DW.1. For cancellation of the passbook and title deed of the DW.1, plaintiff has to made the party i.e., Revenue Department without impleading them this suit is also not maintainable.
52.Moreover, plaintiff also not filed her sale deed as relied by her. Without impleading proper necessary parties the suit is not maintainable and rightly at Para No.7.6 and 7.7 of the Judgment
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.29 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
of the Trial Court has rightly observed the conduct of the plaintiff.
Without declaration of title she is also not entitled for Rectification of the Entries. Admittedly, revenue entries does not confer any title civil Court is competent to decide the title.
53.As per the evidence and documents relied upon both parties it is a title dispute in between them. Plaintiff seeks title under un registered sale deed (Sadabainama) which is not filed and also claims Injunction basing on the said simple sale deed and also manipulated the revenue record.
54.If plaintiff files the simple sale deed and also filed the statement of the DW1 before entering the name of the plaintiff in the revenue record and also pahanies filed her continuous possession from the date of marriage to date of filing of the suit.
Then there will be the case of the plaintiff with preponderance of probabilities. As per the evidence on record defendant is owner of the suit land and even plaintiff PW.2 pleads that he purchased the land from him. Hence, from the above discussion plaintiff is not entitled for Injunction and also Rectification of Entries.
A.S.No.6 of 2023
Page No.30 of 30 &
A.S.No.7 of 2023
AS.No. 6 of 2023 & AS.No.7 of 2023
Point No.5 :
55. IN THE RESULT, both appeals are dismissed without costs, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned IAdditional
Junior Civil Judge, Manthani in O.S.No.65 of 2013,
Dt.25.07.2023 and in O.S.No.90 of 2017, Dt.25.07.2023.
Dictated to Stenographer GrIII, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of September, 2024.
Sd/
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GODAVARIKHANI
FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANTHANI.
Appendix of Evidence
For Appellant For Defendants
NIL NIL
Sd/
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GODAVARIKHANI
FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANTHANI.
// True Copy //