1
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE; PUTTUR.
Present: Sri C. Muralidhar,
Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.
Wednesday, the 28th (Twenty Eigth ) day of of April, 2021
Appeal Suit No. 15 of 2020
Between :
1. T.Himachalapathy Reddy, 2.T.Ramesh Reddy.
.. Appellants
And: 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Chittoor 2.The Revenue Divisional officer, Chittoor 3.The Tahsildar, SR puram mandal, Chittoor 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment department,Chittoor
..Respondents
Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the of the Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Puttur dt.31.1.2020 made in
O.S.NO. 37 of 2018
Between :
1. T.Himachalapathy Reddy, 2.T.Ramesh Reddy.
.. Plaintiffs
And: 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Chittoor 2.The Revenue Divisional officer, Chittoor 3.The Tahsildar, SR puram mandal, Chittoor 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment department,Chittoor
..Defendants
This Appeal is coming on 23.4.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Mohan Raju, Advocate for Appellants and the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4, upon perusing the grounds of appeal and the material part of records connected there with, and upon hearing the arguments on either side, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 2
J U D G M E N T
This Appeal is preferred by the Appellants/Plaintiffs aggrieved by the
Judgment and Decree passed in OS.No. 37 of 2018 dt.31.1.2020 of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Puttur in dismissing the suit filed for declaration of right, title, and interests of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and consequently directing the defendants to delete the name of Avudevara Swamy Temple
Manyam for the plaint schedule property.
2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and consequently directing the defendants to delete the name of Avudevara Swamy temple Manyam for the plaint schedule mentioned property and for costs.
3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :- Plaint schedule property is situated in Estate Village then Karvetinagaram Samsthanam,
Pallipattu Taluq, No.207, Mangunta Village under the proprietorship of
Rangepalle Village Maharajarajasri Gudimallam Venkatsubbaraya Chetty and
Krishnama Chetty and their proprietorship Santhana Venugopal granted Patta on 17-06-1938 for the schedule property in favour of Thatireddy Yerrama Reddy who is the grand father of 1st plaintiff. Since then, Thatireddy Yerrama Reddy and after his demise, his son Venkata Reddy and after his demise his son ie.,1st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. 1st plaintiff also got son T. Ramesh Reddy ie., 2nd plaintiff. Since the date of patta 1937-1938 the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property. The Thathireddy Yerrama
Reddy executed Regd. Mortgage deed on 27-7-1942 for suit land in favour of 3
Bodireddy Chinnama Reddy of Mangunta village and post. During the life time of Thathireddy Yerrama Reddy his brother in law Siripireddy Bhaskar Reddy got sale deed. The said S.Bhaskar Reddy executed Gift settlement deed, dt.26-11- 1950 and registered sale deed on 28-11-1950, vide document No.4768/1950 in favour of T. Venkata Reddy, father of 1st plaintiff for the schedule property. The said property got by Venkata Reddy is correlated to present plaint schedule property. So,the 1st plaintiff father Venkata Reddy and after his demise in the year, 1999, 1st plaintiff succeeded the plaint schedule property from his father as his only son and 1st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by raising crop. 1st plaintiff’s father out of love and affection executed registered settlement deed dt.11-03-1974 vide document No.837 of 1974 in favour of 1st plaintiff to an extent of Ac.1.15 cents in plaint schedule property and so the settlement deed was accepted and acted upon. 2nd plaintiff obtained obtained mortgage loan from SR Puram PACS by executing registered mortgage deed dated 19-04-2006 bearing document No.412. During the life time of T.
Venkata Reddy he has also obtained loan from Marripalle PACS by executing registered mortgage deed dated 19-08-1988 vide Document No.2190/1988 of
SRO, Karvetinagar. The 2nd plaintiff also obtained loan from Marripalle PACS by executing registered mortgage deed dated 19-09-1988. The 2nd plaintiff, only son of 1st plaintiff also looking after the plaint schedule property on behalf of his father. Plaintiffs have raised sugar cane crop in the plaint schedule property in or about 2013 and electricity department has put up high tension electricity wire above the said sugarcane crop and during installation of electricity poles and wire they have damaged the sugarcane crop in midst of plaint schedule property and 4 they have also paid Rs.16,590/- towards damages to 1st plaintiff by showing 1st plaintiff as owner of the schedule property. The revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs obtained loan from Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Kothapalle Mitta by depositing title deed and name of 1st plaintiff also mutated in online adangal for fasali 1420 for
Sy.No.109/1. The plaintiffs also paid land revenue for paimash No.78 and also pattas in the year 21-10-88. Even now the plaintiffs have harvested groundnut crop now sowed maize seeds in the plaint schedule property. There are also ridges around the plaint schedule property and also four or six plots and there are ridges around each plot. There is also old well which is not giving good water due to scarcity of water in that areas. Due to wrong mentioning of land as
Avudevara Swamy Manyam by the Revenue authorities misinterpreting things, inspite of so many representations wrong inclusion of name is not deleted in revenue accounts, and the Assistant Commissioner in one way or the other denying the very title of the plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiffs have no option except to file the suit for declaration of title consequently deleting the name of Manyam from revenue accounts for the plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs obtained
Encumbrance Certificates from the office of the SRO, Puttur and later on from the SRO, Karvetinagar from 01-01-1950 till today. All the said Encumbrance
Certificates clearly shows that the plaintiffs and their predecessors names were shown in the concerned Registering records and they are owners of the property.
Plaintiffs are unable to issue notice Under Sec.80(2) CPC due to urgency. Hence prayed to dispense the notice to the defendants. Hence, the suit.
5
4. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and the same is adopted by
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 by denying the allegations of the plaint in point wise and para wise. As seen old adangal 10(1) the pattadar for the suit lands is “AVEDEVARA SWAMY” and enjoyer is Venkata Reddy and in adangals. During their survey and settlements the suit lands classified as “AVUDEVARA
SWAMYVARI GUDI” as per fair adangal. Therefore, the said land prohibited list
U/S 22A of Registration Act, the schedule lands are shown as “ENDOWMENT
LANDS” in 22-A(c). Therefore, the suit lands are not patta lands as per above documents. The plaintiffs have no right and title of the suit lands. Hence the suit is liable for dismissal. Finally prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
5.Defendant No.4 remained exparte.
6. Basing on the pleadings of both parties the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their right, title and interest over the plaint schedule mentioned property as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for deletion of the name of the Avudevara Swamy Temple Manyam for the plaint schedule mentioned property as prayed for?
3. Whether the Government is entitled to put the plaint schedule mentioned property in prohibiting list U/Sec.22(A) and 22© of Registration Act, 1908?
4. Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property as pleaded?
5. To what relief?
7. During course of trial, in support of the case of plaintiffs, Pw1 and Pw2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 documents. On behalf of defendants, Dw1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, and also Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 documents were marked.
6
8. After due trial, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that “plaintiffs failed to establish their right, title over the plaint schedule properties as pleaded and consequently they are not entitled for the relief of deletion of name of Avudevara swamy temple manyam in the revenue records and the Government is entitled to put the plaint schedule property in prohibitory list, and also holding that plaintiffs approached the court by suppressing true and material facts with unclean hands, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for any reliefs as claimed”, thus, dismissed the suit.
9. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants ( Plaintiffs)
10. The brief grounds of appeal are that : The trial court failed to see that the appellants/plaintiffs proved their title and possession of the plaint schedule property by filing Ex.A.1 to A.5, A.9 and A.11.
a) The trial court further failed to see that appellants/plaintiffs have also proved their possession by the date of suit, prior and afterwards by filing documents/Ex.A.3 to A.5, A.9 cist receipts from 1978 to 1988 and also Ex.A.11/ electricity board payment of compensation by electricity department for the damages caused to sugarcane crop of plaintiff in the suit property and also admission of defendants 1 to 3 in para 8 of written statement clearly admitted that Venkatareddy is enjoyer of suit property as per adangals.
b) The trial court further failed to see that as per Section 58 of Evidence
Act, admitted facts need not be proved by filing documents. So on that ground itself, reasoning of lower court regarding issue No.4 is erroneous.
7
c) The trial court ought to have decided issue No.4 that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of plaints schedule property as per admission of defendants in para 8 of the written statement that Venkatareddy/ father of 1st plaintiff is an enjoyer of plaint schedule property as per adangals. So on that ground itself it can be believed that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment for plaint schedule property on the date of suit.
d)The trial court ought to have granted permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs and plaintiffs proved their right,title, interest or whatsoever in the plaint schedule property on the date of suit, prior to suit and after suit.
e)The trial court further failed to see that for issues 1 to 3, plaintiffs proved their title and enjoyment or whatsoever in the plaint schedule property as per
Ex.A.1 to A.11.
f) The trial court further failed to see that suit lands are estate lands and they are in jamin estate of Karvetinagar. Authorities of Karvetinagar samasthan estate executed original patta dt.17-6-1938/Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiffs predecessors Yerramareddy for Mangunta village land i.e, plaint schedule property. The appellants also filed Ex.A.2/registered sale deed, doc. No.4768 of 1950, dt.26-11-1950/Ex.A.2 in favour of T.Venkatareddy who is father of 1st plaintiff executed by C.Bhaskar reddy . It shows possession of 1st plaintiff’s father Venkatareddy. The plaintiffs also filed original registered mortgage deed/Ex.A.3 executed by Y.Yerrama reddy/grand-father of 1st plaintiff in favour of B.Chinnama Reddy, dt.24-7-1942. So these documents go to show that these documents are prior to survey, settlement operation and Ex.A.1 to A.3 also prove that 1st plaintiff’s father and grand-father have got right, title, possession and 8 enjoyment or whatsoever in the plaint schedule property from 1938 to 1950 . So
before surrey and settlement operations in the year 1958, plaint schedule
properties are patta lands. So there is wrong correlation during survey and settlement operation and so that wrong correlation was effected in Ex.B.1 and
B.2 fair adangal for plaint schedule property. So inspite of wrong correlation as per Ex.B.1 and B.2, plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the date of filing suit and later.
The trial court misunderstood the said documents in appreciation of the same and gave wrong reasoning regarding Ex.A.1 to A.3 documents.
g)The trial court further failed to appreciate the facts of the case as per
Ex.A.1 to A.3 and wrong correlation of suit property under Ex.B.1 and B.2.
Appellants/plaintiffs have relied on decision of Supreme court in 2016 (0)
AIJEC-SC 59465 Section 3 and 11 of A.P. Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and
Section 3(2) (d ) of Madras Land Act and section 82 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu religious institution and endowments Act,1987 and consequence upon issuance of notification u/s 3 of A.P. Act of 1948 on 17.1.59 agricultural land in question in the revenue estate was duly declared as Inam estate and it is obviously dependent and determination of tenancy claim over appeal prior to 17.1.59 notified date and appellants and their ancestors were also held to be in continuous possession of land in question well before notified date 17.1.59 (as per Ex.A.1 to A.3).
Therefore the terms of section 11 of 1948 Act, appellants automatically become entitled to ryotwari patta. Agricultural land in question was under the tenancy of appellant and his ancestors well prior to notified date 17.1.59 appellant was automatically entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of land in question.
9
h) Further Section 82 of 1987 Act of A.P. Charitable and Hindu religious institution and endowments Act it is inapplicable to present controversy because appellant cannot be treated as lease holder of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowments subsisting on the date of commencement of Act, 1987 dt 21-4-87. So the lower court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of title. The appellants in this case have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as admitted by defendants in para 8 of written statement. So there was no justification of limitation as appellant was in possession of within limitation. So the observation regarding that aspect of the matter regarding in appreciation of
Ex.A.1 to A.3. So, Ex.A.2 is registered lease deed of 1950. Ex.A.3 is mortgage deed of 1942, Ex.A.1 is Estate patta of 1938. So estate land Act came into existence in 1948 and A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious institution and endowments Act Section 82 came into existence from 21.4.1987. So well before these Acts plaintiffs/appellants predecessors have been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The Assistant Commissioner,Endowment who is 4th defendant is not claiming properties. So defendants 1, 2 and 3 have no legs to claim that these properties are endowment properties without any reasoning or whatsoever. So on that ground itself it can be believed entry in
Ex.B.1 and B.2 is wrong correlation entry in fair adangal. So endowment was never in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. So the suit for declaration of title and injunction is maintainable as plaintiff has got right, title, possession or whatsoever in the plaint schedule property.
10
i) The trial court further failed to see that defendants 1, 2 and 3 never claimed right over the plaint schedule property as government land. There is no pleadings in written statement or in the chief affidavit of D.w.1 claiming plaint schedule property. On that ground itself it can be believed that as per judgment of High court reported in 1998 (1) ALT 222 no amount of evidence (arguments) can be looked into without pleadings. So the said principle laid down by the
Honourable High court of AP is also not appreciated by lower court.
j) The trial court further failed to see that as per issue No.2 it is just and necessary in this case to mutate name of plaintiffs as pattadar by deleting name of
Avudevaraswamy manyam for plaint schedule property as there was wrong correlation for suit property under Ex.B.1 and B.2. So issue No.2 ought to have been decided in favour of plaintiff.
k) The trial court further failed to see that the government has no right,title, possession and enjoyment or whatsoever in the plaint schedule property so also endowments department, government or endowments department have no right to put plaint schedule property u/s 22A or 22(c) of Registration Act by putting plaint schedule property in prohibitory list. So as per reported 2016(5) 767 DB where it is held apart form redressal mechanism it is also open to aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including civil court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his property/land from list of prohibitory properties or for any other appropriate reliefs. So on that ground also the said principle is not appreciated by the lower court. So the plaintiffs are entitled to file suit that government is not entitled to put plaint schedule property in prohibitory list. So for that plaintiffs/ appellants entitled to file suit for deletion of plaint schedule 11 property from prohibitory list. So these principles also not appreciated by the lower court.
l)The trial court simply in casual manner mentioned in judgment the these judgments relied by plaintiffs are not applicable to the facts of case. That reasoning is erroneous one.
m) The trial court ought to have decided all issues in favour of appellants appreciating and believing Ex.A.1 to A.13 and evidence of P.w.1 and 2 and disbelieving evidence of D.w.1. Ex.B.1 to B.3
n)The trial court further failed to see that appellants also filed I.A.No.59/19 to direct the Tahsildar/D.w.1 to produce 14 documents i.e Estate Adangal, SLR.
The Tahsildar has not produced document /Ex.B.1 to B.3. So reasoning of lower court appellants/plaintiffs have not taken further steps to send for documents from District Collector office. So D.w.1 is Tahsildar, SR puram mandal. The
Tahsildar has to produce documents from his office or office of Collectorate. The appellants have not filed petition to direct the Tahsildar to produce document from SR puram mandal only. But petition is filed directing Tahsildar to produce documents and give evidence So observation of lower court that documents mentioned are not available in the office that is not explanation supposed to do by the Honourable court. So the Honourable court has to see non submitting of documents by Tahsidlar is adverse to defendant 1 to 3 . So that the documents 1 to 3 have not produced intentionally by D.w.1 before the Honourable court. So if documents are produced truth will come to light and right of plaintiff will be proved and believed. So on that ground adverse inference has to be drawn u/s 144 (g) of Evidence Act against defendants. So instead of giving correct 12 observation and reasoning , trial court gave wrong observation and reasoning regarding that aspect of the matter. Finally, appellant prays to allow the appeal.
8. Both parties are arrayed as the same as referred in the trial court.
9. Heard the counsel for appellant and the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3. Both filed written arguments and perused the same.
Point for consideration is whether the appeal can be allowed and whether the appellants are entitled for decreeing the suit in OS.No. 37 of 2018 of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur as prayed for ?
Point:-
10. As seen from the records, and the evidence of the witnesses, it is the simple case of plaintiffs that the Plaint schedule property is situated in Estate
Village then Karvetinagaram Samsthanam, Pallipattu Taluq, No.207, Mangunta
Village under the proprietorship of Rangepalle Village Maharajarajasri
Gudimallam Venkatsubbaraya Chetty and Krishnama Chetty and their proprietorship Santhana Venugopal granted Patta on 17-06-1938 in favour of
Thatireddy Yerrama Reddy who is the great grandfather of 1st plaintiff. After his demise, his son Venkata Reddy and after his demise his son ie.,1st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. 1st plaintiff also got son T.
Ramesh Reddy ie., 2nd plaintiff. Since the date of patta the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property. The said Thathireddy Yerrama Reddy during his life time executed Regd. Mortgage deed on 27-7-1942 for suit land in favour of
Bodireddy Chinnama Reddy. In the life time of Thathireddy Yerrama Reddy his 13 brother in law Siripireddy Bhaskar Reddy got sale deed. The said S.Bhaskar
Reddy executed Gift settlement deed, dt.26-11-1950 and registered sale deed on 28-11-1950, in favour of T. Venkata Reddy, father of 1st plaintiff for the schedule property. The said property got by Venkata Reddy is correlated to present plaint schedule property, as such, the 1st plaintiff father Venkata Reddy and after his demise in the year 1999, 1st plaintiff succeeded the plaint schedule property from his father as his only son and 1st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by raising crop. Thereafter 1st plaintiff’s father out of love and affection executed registered settlement deed dt.11-03-1974 in favour of 1st plaintiff to an extent of Ac.1.15 cents in plaint schedule property and so the settlement deed was accepted and acted upon. Later, the 2nd plaintiff obtained mortgage loan from SR Puram PACS by executing registered mortgage deed
dated 19-04-2006. During the life time of T. Venkata Reddy he has also obtained
loan from Marripalle PACS by executing registered mortgage deed dated 19-08- 1988 of SRO, Karvetinagar apart from 2nd plaintiff also obtained loan from
Marripalle PACS by executing registered mortgage deed dated 19-09-1988. The 2nd plaintiff, only son of 1st plaintiff also looking after the plaint schedule property on behalf of his father. Plaintiffs have raised sugar cane crop in the plaint schedule property in or about 2013 and electricity department has put up high tension electricity wire above the said sugarcane crop and during installation of electricity poles and wire they have damaged the sugarcane crop in midst of plaint schedule property and they have also paid Rs.16,590/- towards damages to 1st plaintiff by showing 1st plaintiff as owner of the schedule property. The revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of 1st 14 plaintiff and plaintiffs obtained loan from Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Kothapalle
Mitta by depositing title deed and name of 1st plaintiff also mutated in online adangal for fasali 1420 for Sy.No.109/1. The plaintiffs also paid land revenue for paimash No.78 and also pattas in the year 21-10-88. Even now the plaintiffs have harvested groundnut crop now sowed maize seeds in the plaint schedule property.
Due to wrong mentioning of land as Avudevara Swamy Manyam by the Revenue authorities misinterpreting things, inspite of so many representations wrong inclusion of name is not deleted in revenue accounts, and the Assistant
Commissioner in one way or the other denying the very title of the plaintiffs.
Hence, plaintiffs have no option except to file the suit for declaration of title consequently deleting the name of Manyam from revenue accounts for the plaint schedule property.
11. It is the case of the contesting defendants 1 to 3, that as seen from old adangal 10(1) the pattadar for the suit lands is “AVEDEVARA SWAMY” and enjoyer is Venkata Reddy and in adangals and that during their survey and settlements the suit lands classified as “AVUDEVARA SWAMYVARI GUDI” as per fair adangal. Therefore, the said land prohibited list U/S 22A of Registration
Act, the schedule lands are shown as “ENDOWMENT LANDS” in 22-A(c), as such, the suit lands are not patta lands as per above documents and hence, the plaintiffs have no right and title of the suit lands.
12. Defendant No.4 who is cited as Endowment Department remained exparte in the suit and contesting the appeal.
13. As seen from the records, and contentions of both parties, it is the main dispute that plaintiffs are claiming that they are the owner of the suit schedule 15 property and they are in possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of issuance of Ex.A1. It is also plaintiffs contended from that date to till now plaintiffs 1 and 2 and predecessors-in-title ie., their family members, great grandfather, father are enjoying the suit property without any interruption of anybody, when the plaintiffs tried to register the suit property after receipt of revenue records they came to know that their lands kept under prohibited list by the Government and also Endowment Department as mentioned in Section 22-A and C of Registration Act stating that suit property is prohibited from registration.
Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 vehemently argued that as per the contents of Ex.B1, Ex.B2, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 that the suit schedule lands are under prohibition list which cannot be registered as per the provisions of Sec. 22-A and C of Registration Act.
14. As seen from the record and particularly the Judgment of the trial court, this court understood that the documents marked on behalf of plaintiff ie., Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are not thoroughly examined and ignored by giving over weight-age to the documents under Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2.
15. On careful perusal of Ex.A1 it is a patta issued by Karvetinagaram
Samasthan with some conditions on the back side of patta. In column No.12 of
Ex.A1 it is clearly mentioned that ‘this patta was valid until another patta was issued’. As per oral and documentary evidence of defendants it is not the case of the defendants ie., Dw1 that no patta was issued in favour of plaintiffs’ great grandfather and no such patta was in force. Issuance of patta is admitted by
Dw1 and he also further admitted during cross examination that the property which is cited in Ex.A1 is co-related to paimaish number 78 and to the property 16 as mentioned in Ex.A5 pattadar pass book issued in favour of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A6 to Ex.A8 further established that the paimaishe number ‘78’ through which issued
Ex.A1 and Ex.A5. The suit schedule property are co-related with the properties as mentioned in the Ex.A6 to Ex.A8, Ex.A9 also further established the plaintiffs and other owners of the property have paid cist to the concerned authorities.
16. As per the above said records, the title of the plaintiffs is well established for the reason that a presumption of title arises by long possession and enjoyment of the parties by supporting multiple registered sale, mortgage and gift deed. Nowhere the defendants denied that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and their great grandfather Yerrama Reddy not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. It is not noticed by this court sofar the said patta ie.,
Ex.A1 is not cancelled and no such new patta was issued in the place of Ex.A1, as such, it is the source for the defendants for issuance of the pattadar pass book in the name of 1st plaintiff under Ex.A5 that it shows that his name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and owner of the property and it is not a
Government land or any temple land, but the suit property is a patta land of the plaintiffs.
17. It is the contention of the plaintiffs when the suit was pending before the trial court they filed an application vide IA.No. 57 of 2019 with a request to the court to direct the defendants in the suit to produce the documents showing the title of the suit property and the same ordered by its order dt.23.4.2019. In which the trial court ordered and directed the defendants to produce the documents as mentioned in the petition at the time trial only on the request of the defendants, but as seen from the evidence of Dw1 he stated as follows 17 “ I tried to find out the said mee-seva correction, rectification mentioned in
No.13 in IA.No.57 of 2019 but not traced out” .
18. On perusal of the petition IA.No.57 of 2019 there are number of documents mentioned which required by the plaintiffs and in which serial No.13 document is the report of Tahsildhar to District Collector and mee-seva application dt.2.5.2018 for deletion from the prohibitory list of plaint schedule property. The same witness Dw1 stated in his cross examination that ‘he do not know that plaintiffs filed application in IA.No.57 of 2019 to produce the documents mentioned in the said petition but his advocate represented to the court that documents will be produced at the time of commencement of trial’.
His evidence goes to show that this witness is knowing about the filing of the petition and the documents which are required to be produced before the court at the time of trial, but the reasons known to him the defendants have not produced those documents as cited in the said petition in IA.No.57 of 2019.
19. As per the documents Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 compensation awarded to the 1st plaintiff for Rs.16,590/- towards damages of sugarcane crop during 400
KV Line construction by the Electricity Department. The said compensation was fixed by the Government after certification of land owner and assessed the value as confirmed by the revenue authorities including 3rd defendant ie., the then
Tahsildhar, S.R.Puram. The conduct of the Dw1 in admitting that documents as required in IA.No. 57 of 2019 to be produced at the time of trial and after closure of the said petition with said direction and further not produced those documents during the course of trial. Further simply depose that he do not know about the said documents and said that those are not traced out in the office. Further 18 denied about the compensation paid to the 1st plaintiff under Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 though he is having knowledge that on their office (revenue department) recommendations only compensation is awarded to the 1st plaintiff. In addition to that, without explaining the proper reasons for not tracing out the records in the office whether it has been in existence in the office or not or those records are available how long those records may not be traced, these are all the facts which constitute and the intention of the defendants that if at all they have produced the said documents that documents may cause adverse to the case of defendants, as such, this court for the above said reasons, drawn an adverse inference against the defendants which is admissible under section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act. An adverse inference is also an evidence when the main evidence which is appreciated and admissible U/s-3 of Indian Evidence Act that adverse inference can strengthen the evidence of the plaintiffs, as they have proved their case on production of Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 more particularly Ex.A1 and Ex.A5 which supported and admission of Dw1 in his cross examination regarding the suit property.
20. It is the simple case of the defendants that the suit property is under prohibitory list and it cannot be registered. In Written statement the defendants have taken their particular defence and based on that an issue also framed :- “ Whether the Government is entitled to put the plaint schedule mentioned property in prohibiting list U/Sec.22-A(c) of Registration Act, 1908?”.
21. In this regard, this court observed when the defendants taken a particular defence it is their burden to prove the said fact. Since the plaintiff has discharged their initial burden to prove their case and then automatically onus 19 shifts on the defendants to disprove the facts presented by the plaintiffs.
Moreover, the very particular fact is within the knowledge of defendants and for that reason the defendant No.3 was examined and he also admitted that records were not traced out in the office. Dw1 never said that those records as mentioned in IA.No.57 of 2019 are not in the office, as such, the onus is on the defendants to prove that the said particular land ie., suit property is a Government land or
Endowment land. If it is a Government land cited as assigned anadheem waste land or any other classified Government land it is for the Government to issue notification stating that the suit property is a Government land and kept the same in prohibitory list. Admittedly, the defendants have not filed any such notification before the trial court or even at the appellate court. In the absence of filing of the said notification simply marking Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 in favour of defendants it cannot be concluded the suit property is a Government property or endowment property. Before showing any such property in the prohibitory list by the endowment department there must be some notification regarding the said land is endowment land that it pertains to particular village and pertains to so and so temple or gudimanyam. Admittedly, no such notification or any proof of record filed by the revenue authorities. However, it is the duty of the endowment department is to file those documents claiming that the suit property is endowment land but the endowment who is cited as 4th defendant remained exparte and not contested the suit for the reasons known to 4th defendant. When 4th defendant who is a necessary party and that too is a
Government department why they have not come-forward with an objection that either saying that the suit lands belongs to them or lands belongs to plaintiffs.
20
Simply 4th defendant remained exparte. Therefore, it is further presumed that endowment department is not the owner of the suit property. At the same time, on behalf of the Government ie., the contesting defendants 1 to 3 have not produced any other record except Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 showing that endowment department and Government are the owners of the said property.
Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 are not the documents to decide the title. To issue the said documents ie., Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 there must be some information written order, notification or any other Government orders to fix the suit property in prohibitory list of properties in order to attract the Sec. 22-
A(c) of Registration Act. In the absence of those records, it can be said that plaintiffs has discharged their burden in proving that suit property belongs to them and it is a private land and not belongs to Government or temple.
22. As per the entries made in the Ex.A1, Ex.A5, to Ex.A11 nowhere it is mentioned that the suit property is a government land or endowment lands. To keep any category of land or building or any such property in the prohibitory list there must be some prescribed procedure is to be followed as per the procedure established in the respective laws like Estate Abolition Act, Inam Land Abolition
Act, Wakf Board Laws, Endowment Act, and AP Assigned lands ( Prohibition of
Transfers) Act 1977, and other Act by the appropriate concerned authority that to they have to conduct a detail enquiry and after coming to the conclusion that particular land is a prohibitory land to attract the provisions of Sec. 22 A to E of
Registration Act. Therefore, it is for the appropriate authority to issue prior notice to the concerned parties whose names are reflected on the revenue records and after giving opportunity to the concerned parties the said appropriate 21 authority has to pass an order and thereafter only notification/ gazette publication to be issued and after that only that list of lands in the prohibitory list to be sent to the concerned Registrar and Sub Registrars in order to avoid registration of those lands under the Registration Act so as to prevent alienation of property from the concerned departments to any individual. Here, in this particular suit, no such enquiry is conducted, no such notice is issued, and no such report is submitted, and no such notice is also issued to the plaintiffs or anybody by following the principles of natural justice . In the absence of this, it can be said that suit schedule property is not covered in the prohibitory list of properties to attract section 22 A to E of Registration Act.
23. The learned Assistant Government Pleader completely relied on Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 those are fair adangals and 10(1) account apart from Ex.X1 and Ex.X2.
These documents are attested copies. Dw1 or learned Assistant Government
Pleader not explained about the originals of Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2.
Unless the existence of original documents whether it is lost or not traced or in some other custodian which cannot be secured the Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, Ex.X1 to
Ex.X2f to be treated as secondary evidence when the status of primary evidence is not explained and proved, the secondary evidence cannot stands in its own legs and those documents can be ignored. The issuance of Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, Ex.X1 and Ex.A2 and genuineness of those documents are suspicious. Either the learned Assistant Government Pleader or Dw1 not taken any steps to brought the above said records and also the notification if any issued and connected records
before the trial court and mark the same, as such, the existence of Ex.B1 to
Ex.B3, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 and its genuineness are highly doubtful.
22 24.Government is not exempted to prove that so and so particular land is of
Government property by following the above said procedure in the concerned appropriate laws and get it certified and notified the particular land is a
Government land. But the Government/ defendants 1 to 3 are not taken any steps in that aspect.
25. When the dispute regarding title and ownership of the property is arises though there are grievances and enquiry committees were there as per the above said Laws to declare the particular part whether it belongs to Government or individual the ultimate final deciding authority is the court which will decide the title of the parties to a particular part of property. The plaintiffs rightly filed the suit for declaration of title of the suit property claiming relief to delete their property from the prohibitory list.
26. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs( Appellants) relied on the following decisions reported in 1992(2) ALT 222 Burra Ramesh Vs. Koppisetti
Venkateswara Rao and another and another decision reported in 1997(4) ALT 583 Bandi Narasaiah (died) and others Vs. Virabathini Mallesham and another wherein in both decisions it was observed as follows “ no amount of evidence (arguments) can be looked into without pleadings”
27. In this suit the case of the plaintiffs is that patta under Ex.A1 was granted in the year 1938 under patta No.2 by the then Karvetinagaram
Samsthanam in favour of great grand father of plaintiffs namely Thathireddy
Yerrama Reddy under paimahsi No.78 for the fasili 1347. Whereas the defendants 1 to 3 represented by the Assistant Government Pleader their 23 contention in para ‘7 and 8’ of the written statement they have mentioned how
Avudevaraswamy temple manyam got the property. So there is no pleading in their written statement regarding flow of title to prove that the suit property belongs to Avudevaraswamy temple manyam and that defendants have not produced any evidence for that purpose. The necessary party that is 4th defendant is the right person to produce and to explain whether Avudevaraswamy temple manyan, endowment property or Trust property or Government Property.
However, when there is no pleadings any amount of evidence adduced by the defendants in that regard their evidence cannot be taken into consideration as per the decisions mentioned supra, as such, the said decisions are applicable to the present case on hand.
28. With regard to jurisdiction aspect the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of right, title and possession inspite of the suit property wrongly classified as ‘anadeenam waste land” or such other nature of the property, and while arguing so, he relied on the decisions reported as follows :- a] 2016(0) AIJEC – SC 59465 Dokiseela Ramulu Vs. Sri Sangameswara
Swamy Varu wherein it was held that “AP Inams Abolition and conversion into ryotwari patta Act 1956) the Civil court has got jurisdiction to determine the nature of land and also for declaration” b]- 2016 (5) ALT 767 (D.B) M. Dayakar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department and others wherein it was held that 24 “ apart form redressal mechanism it is also open to aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including civil court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his property/land from list of prohibitory properties or for any other appropriate reliefs” c]Civil Appeal No.1330/2019 SC (SCP) Smt Bhimabai Mahadeo
Kambekar (D) Th. L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and others of
Honourable Supreme Court of India wherein it was observed that
“ This court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question”
29. Perused the said decisions, as per the decisions, the civil court has got jurisdiction to determine the declaration of title of a party and also questioning the declaratory rights or deletion of property from the prohibitory list, as such, the said decisions are applicable to the present case on hand.
30. Another contention of the plaintiffs (Appellants) regarding granting pattadar pass book in favour of the ancestors of plaintiffs and subsequently they availed loan from various banks and co-operative society by pleading their documents in respect of suit property, and while arguing so they relied on the following decisions.
a] 2018 (5) ALT 148 (D.B.) Smt P.Ghousia Begum and others Vs.
Basireddy Rukminamma and others wherein it was held that “ recording the rights under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 is not the conclusive proof of title and ownership but it merely records rights of persons” 25 b] 2021 (2) ALT 321 (TS) E.J.David Vs. Additional Collector, Sangareddy
Division, Sangareddy District, Telangana State and others wherein it was held that “ (1) Adjudication on title of property – Adjudication title must happen by recourse to the ordinary civil loans of competent jurisdiction (2)Private land to government land. Government cannot convert primafacie private land as government land by a stroke of pen without any discussion of civil court”
31.Perused the said decisions, that recording the rights under the Andhra
Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 is not the conclusive proof of title and ownership but it merely records rights of persons and that adjudication on title of property must happen by recourse to the ordinary civil loans of competent jurisdiction, and that private land to government land, for which the Government cannot convert primafacie private land as government land by a stroke of pen without any discussion of civil court. The said decisions are applicable to the present case on hand.
32.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs apart from the above said decisions, also relied on the following decisions :- a] 2016 (5) ALT 767 (D.B) M. Dayakar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department and others wherein it was held that “ apart form redressal mechanism it is also open to aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including civil court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his property/land from list of prohibitory properties or for any other appropriate reliefs” 26 b] AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441 Vidhyadar Vs. Mankikrao and another wherein it was held that “ suit for possession filed by the plaintiff on the basis of sale deed in his favour, possession of property sought from one of the defendants, the said defendant can raise all pleas available to him to defeat suit of plaintiff” c] 2014(3) ALT 473 between G.Sathyanarayana and others Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Revenue department and others wherein it was held that “the land cannot be treated as government land solely on the basis of entries made in the RSR register and while there is a presumption that all poramboke and lands reserved for” d] 2003(5) ALD 210 between Indupuru Raghava Reddy and others Vs.
Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, AP, Hyderabad and others wherein it was observed that “whether a land be treated as ‘waste land for reason of absence of cultivation on date of commence of Act – only lands which are unfit for cultivation considered as ‘waste lands’ – land in issue found fit for cultivation – held such land which is fit for cultivation cannot be treated as ‘waste land’ for mere reason of absence of cultivation” e] 2009(3) ALD 802 between P.Suresh and others Vs AP State and others wherein it was observed that “classification of AW land in RSR is not a government land and held that the land AW shall be treated as patta land” f]AIR 1958 ANDHRA PRADESH 100 between Dhulipalla Ramayya and another Vs – Kota Brahmayya and others where it was held that 27 “Anadheenam land means unoccupied land and it follows it would be a Ryoti land” 33.Perused the said decisions, all the said decisions applicable to the present case on hand in view of the above discussion that plaintiffs are able to establish their right, title and possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
34. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3/ defendants 1 to 3 relied on the following decisions a] 2019(5) ALD 309 (SC) Ramesh Das (dead) thr. L.Rs Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others wherein it was held that “ No document of title relied upon by plaintiff to establish his claim, even entry in revenue records not individually in name of plaintiff but in his father’s name and even that only as manager. Mere statement of plaintiff cannot prove disputed temple as private temple, when in revenue records, his ancestors are shown only as manager”.
b] 2018 (Suppl.) Civil Court cases 0735 Sri Y.P.Sudhanva Reddy and others Vs. Chairman & Managing Director Karnataka Milk Federation etc wherein it was held that “ neither the predecessor-in-title of the appellants and nor the appellants had any subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land on and after 1941 consequent upon issuance of the notifications by the State under the Act. The reason was that all the ownership rights of the appellants predecessor-in-title in the suit land stood vested in the State once the acquisition proceedings were completed under the Act” c] 2011(2) Civil Court Cases 0374 R.Hanumaiah and another Vs.
Secretary to Government of Karnataka Revenue Department and others wherein it was held that 28 “ Weakness of Government’s defence or absence of contest not sufficient to decree declaratory suits against the government and it is for the plaintiff to establish his title to the suit property”.
d] 2008 AIR (SCW) 190 Balasubramanian and others Vs Ramaiah
Thondaman wherein it was held that “the grant of patta cannot be equated to that of a document of title. At the most of the patta proceedings and the ultimate order by the competent authority granting patta may be used as a piece of evidence to show that the subject matter property is with the grantee” e] 2016 ALT (Rev) 41.(F.B) Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By Principal Secretary, Revenue department,
Hyuderabad and others wherein it was held that “ mere act of registration would not transfer or create a right in favour of a party than what the vendor and executant possessed”.
f] 2015(4) ALT 1 C.Radhakrishnama Naidu and others Vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration)
Department and others wherein it was held that “ mere registration does not create a right in a party than what his vendor possess”.
g] 1958 0 AIR (SC) 183 Asa Ram and another Vs. Mst Ram Kali and another wherein it was held that “ The law undoubtedly is that no person can transfer property so as to confer on the transferee a title better than what he possesses”.
h] 2020(1) ALD 385 (AP) Katari Seetha Rama Raju Vs. Ranganadha
Swamy Temple, Visakhapatnam District and another wherein it was held that 29 “Record of rights only proves factum of possession of property but cannot recognize or acknowledge title or confer title upon person in occupation of land”.
i] 2021(1) Civil Court Cases The commissioner Bruhath Bangalore
Mahanagara Palika and another Vs Farualla Khan and another wherein it was held that “ mutation entries do not by themselves confer title which has to be established independently in a declaratory suit”.
j] 2019(1) Civil Court Cases 0598 Chairman Board of Trustee Vs.
S.Rajayalaxmi (dead) and others wherein it was held that “ document might imply possession but cannot be relied to confer title upon the holder” k] 2004(6) ALT 95 S.Saraswathi Vs. Y.Laxminarayana wherein it was held that “ with regard to proof of title, property tax receipts, school certificates showing residence and electoral cards only show possession of property and not title. Entries in revenue or municipal or other records not a conclusive proof of title” l] 2009(1) ALD 218 Mandala Penchalaiah and others Vs Superintendent of police Nellore District and others wherein it was held that “ mere payment of cist to Government does not bring about any change in character of land. Nature of rights, which may accrue to petitioner, would depend upon those, possessed of held by descendant of founder of institution” m] 1997(4) Supreme 439 S. Vanathan Muthuraja Vs. Ramalingam alias
Krishnamurthy Gurukkal and others wherein it was held that “ title of the property vested in the institution and thereby, none of the parties has any right, title and interest in the property. Therefore, the suit without impleading the institution is not maintainable” 30 n] 1999(6) ALD 185 Thumati Varamma Vs. Thumati Rambhotlu and others wherein it was held that “ It is not within the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide about the validity of the patta granted under Inams Abolition Act” o] 2008 (5) ALD 187 Sri Rama Swamy and Sri Perasanna
Visweswaraswamy Temple Potegunta Rapur Taluk, Nellore District Vs.
Dodlavaram Rajaiah and others wherein it was held that “ Bar of jurisdiction of civil court in matter of deciding nature of inam, entitlement to inam and right to patta, barred” p] 1997(c) SCR 530 Venkamamidi Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Chatlapalli
Seetharamaratna Ranganayakamma wherein it was held that “ New rights and liabilities created under Land Reforms Act, and jurisdiction of civil court is barred in respect of such matter by necessary implication”
35. Perused the decisions relied on behalf of the defendants 1 to 3, the said decisions are not applicable to the case on hand.
36. It is the main contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that as per provisions of Ordinance passed in the year 2013 regarding pattas issued in respect of Inam lands from the date of enactment of Act of Andhra
Pradesh ( Andhra Area) Inams ( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956 ( it is referred as Inam Act) till to the year 2013, Inam Tahsildhars or the competent persons to examine the pattas issued by the concerned and after certifying the genuineness of the enjoyers then he will issue new pattas and also some other procedure established in the said Ordinance as such, the pattas which 31 were already issued in the name of ryoths and inamdars have to file an application before the Inam Tahsildhar and get fresh patta, otherwise the pattas which were already issued are deemed to be cancelled and automatically the lands concerned in the said pattas deemed to be acquired by the Government. In this regard, the learned Assistant Government Pleader mainly stressed on the point that the plaintiffs / Appellants herein not filed any such application before
Inam Tahsildhar and he has not verified his patta and thereafter he has not obtained any new patta, as such, Ex.A1 and Ex.A5 cannot be looked into. In this regard, this court observed that probably Assistant Government Pleader has not aware of the new ordinance passed in the year 2019 of the said Act. In this Act, it is mentioned that pattas which were issued from the enactment of the Inam Act to till 2013 are not cancelled automatically and those pattas are in force. The pattas which were issued after 2013 year the procedure which explained by the
Assistant Government Pleader as stated above has to be followed. In this particular case, there is no need for the plaintiffs or his successors to follow the said procedure in view of passing of new ordinances of 2013 of the Inam Act.
Hence, this court can safely relied on the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11.
37. It is also the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader no revenue records conferred any title of the parties. Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, are also not confer any title of the Government for the suit property why because the flow of title not filed by producing any corroborative piece of evidence either oral or documentary.
38. In the above said discussion this court found that plaintiffs have proved their right, title, and possession over the plaint schedule property both by way of 32 oral and documentary evidence that the suit property is of plaintiffs and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same for the long period.
39. The dictum of the following judgment reported in 2013(2) ALD 1
Raavi Satish Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others wherein in para-16 of the said decision observed as follows ( extracted from the said decision):- “ Despite pronouncement of the legal position in unequivocal terms, as noted above regrettably, the Sub – Registrars concerned have been refusing to receive and register the documents based on the RSR entries. Even though the directions given in each of these cases were with reference to the parties who approached the Court, still the judgments operate as precedents and consequently they bind the state and all its functionaries. There cannot be any excuse whatsoever for the Sub-Registrars who are not parties to the cases already decided, to ignore the law laid down by this Court and repeat the same illegality as committed by the other Registering Officers whose actions in refusing to register the documents on the said ground were declared as illegal by this Court. As the refusal of registration by the concerned Sub Registrar in these writ petitions is based only on the RSR entries, there action is in the teeth of the judgments of this court referred to above. Accordingly, the action of the Sub Registrars concerned in refusing to receive and register the documents in these writ petitions is declared as illegal”.
In the said decision at para 35 ( extracted from the said decision) reads as follows:- “ in order to see that the litigation of this nature is curbed once and for all, I feel it not only appropriate, but also imperative to issue the following directions, which shall be of general application throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh and govern all transactions of registration, to take place in future: (A) The Registering officers shall not insist on production of NOCs as a condition for receiving the documents for registration. (B) The Registering Officers shall not refuse to receive the documents for registration only on the ground that the properties were included in the prohibitory lists sent by the revenue authorities, for reasons such as that the ownership column of the RSR contains dots, or that the lands are shown as AWD lands in the Revenue records or that the lands are assigned lands. (C) In cases of entries in RSRs containing dots or describing the lands as AWD, unless a notification has 33 been issued under section 22-A (2) of the Act, the Registering Officers shall not refuse to receive and register the documents. The registration of such documents, however, shall be without prejudice to the right of the Government and its functionaries to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of possession of the properties covered by such documents, if in their opinion they belong to Government. (D) In cases of assigned lands, if there is clear proof to the effect that such assignments were made prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.6.1954 in the Andhra Area and G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.7.1958 in the Telangana Area, the Registering officers shall receive and register the documents, notwithstanding the fact that the properties were included in the prohibitory list sent by the revenue authorities. In respect of the documents involving properties assigned subsequent to the issuance of the above mentioned G.Os. in view of the embargo contained in Section 5(2) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 the Registering officers shall make an endorsement while refusing to receive the document specifying the reason. If the parties feel aggrieved by such orders, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedy as available in law. (E) Wherever there is no specific evidence that assignments of lands were made subsequent to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.6.1954 in the Andhra Area and G.O.Ms No.1406 dated 25.7.1958 in the Telengana Area, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the parties who intend to transfer the lands. In such cases, the Registering Officers shall write to the revenue authorities to produce proof of the fact that the assignments were made subsequent to 18.6.1954 or 25.7.1958, as the case m ay be , within a stipulated time. If within such time, the revenue authority concerned fails to send such proof, the Registering Officers shall register the documents. (F) In cases of documents pertaining to assignments made to Ex-service men and freedom fighters, the Registering officers must consider whether ten years period has expired from the date of assignment and shall register the documents if the said period has expired. In other cases, the Registering officers shall pass an order under section 71 of the Act and communicate the same to the parties concerned. (G) In cases pertaining to assignments made to political sufferers, the assignees or the persons claiming 34 through them are entitled to transfer the lands by sale or otherwise without any restrictions and the Registering Officers shall receive and register the documents whenever they are presented. (H) Where assignments are made on payment of market value, the Registering Officers shall not refuse to register unless the assignments deed stipulated any period during which the land shall not be sold and the stipulated time ahs not expired. (I) In cases of alienation of properties which are claimed to belong to Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the A.P.Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, Wakfs, failing under the Wakfs Act 1995, unless relevant material is available before the Registering officers to show that they are owned by such institutions, registration of the documents shall not be refused. Even if evidence is available to show that the properties sought to be alienated belong to the institutions referred to above, the Registering officers shall receive the documents, pass orders assigning reasons for rejection and communicate the same to the parties concerned who shall be free to assail such orders by availing the remedy of appeal under section 72 of the Act. (J) In cases where notifications are issued under sub –section (2) of the Section 22-a(a) of the Act prohibiting registration of the documents pertaining to the properties failing under clause (e) of sub section (1) of Section 22-A of the Act, the Registering Officers shall make an endorsement while refusing to receive the document specifying the reason for such refusal. Needless to observe that if the parties feel aggrieved by such rejection orders, they can avail appropriate remedies as available in law.
The above directions shall bind all the revenue authorities and the Registering Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh, irrespective of whether they are parties to this batch of writ petitions or not. Violation of the above directions by the officers concerned will be viewed as contempt of court. If such instances come to the notice of this court, it may exercise the option of initiating contempt proceedings suo moto against such officers even though they are not parties to these cases.” 35
40. In another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs /
Appellant reported in 2011(2) ALD 487 wherein it was observed in para-5 is as follows:
“On many occasions, this Court had considered the effect of entry in the R.S.R. In a recent Judgment, which was rendered on the basis of the previous Judgments, in W.P.No.6016/2010,
dated 2-7-2010, this Court has held as under: “In the present
case, except for stating that entries in the Village Account R.S.R. of Doddipalli Village indicate the lands in Survey No.1969/2, 1972, 1969/1B and 1971 as Government lands, there is no other basis for the revenue authorities to stake a claim over the lands. To the contrary, the evidence on record, being registered transactions dating back to 1942, 1938, 1959 and 1972, as the case may be, clearly negates the unilateral claim of the revenue authorities that this land is Government land. It is of course for the Government to assert and prove its title if it chooses to do so, in a properly constituted proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Without doing so, it is not open to the revenue authorities or the registration authorities to deny persons claiming rights over such land on the basis of mere revenue entries. The action of the Respondents in treating the subject land as Government land and the action of the registration authorities in refusing to receive and register documents in respect of this land is therefore unsustainable in law.” The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that since there is a dispute regarding title, the Petitioner will have to get his title declared by approaching the competent civil court. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. In view of the settled legal position that mere entry in R.S.R. will not constitute proof of title and in the absence of any other revenue record showing the land as Government land, it cannot be said that there is a dispute regarding title. At any rate, mere registration of a conveyance deed does not create title in the transferee. If the Government feels that the property belongs to it, it can always avail appropriate remedy to assert its title and claim the property. Mere registration of the sale deed would not come in the way of the Government in asserting its right and availing appropriate remedy.”
41. Therefore, in the above said decisions and with due respects of the
Honourable High Court it is learnt that all the Registrars’ concerned should know
about the procedure as cited in the said decisions in Registration of land 36 mentioned in prohibitory list, further Honorable High Court also observed that if any Registrar demanding the party for production of no objection certificate from the concerned authority for registration of the land without any basis such as notification, gazette publication, etc., insisting the parties they will be liable for
Contempt proceedings for violation of judgment though they are not parties to the suit. This court relied on the above said judgments as they are applicable to the present case on hand. As per the said decisions, it is found that plea of the plaintiffs regarding deletion of the name of Avudevaraswamy temple Manyam for the plaint schedule property from the list of prohibitory property and that he is entitled for registration of plaint schedule property as the provisions under Sec.22
(a) and (C) are not covered to the suit property for the reason that the suit property is private property of plaintiffs. The acts of concerned Registrar is not supposed to direct the parties to produce no objection certificate from the concerned head of department to register the document pertaining to suit property. They should follow the procedure as laid down in Registration Act if at all the document is not liable for registration he can pass an order under section 71 of Registration Act except that he should not refuse the document to be registered when presented by the plaintiffs before the concerned Sub Registrar.
Hence, the Sub Registrar concerned in whose jurisdiction the suit property is situated is directed to register the document pertaining suit property in favour of plaintiffs as per the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act.
42. The appellants (plaintiffs) during the pendency of the appeal filed petition in IA.No.108 of 2020 under order XLI Rule-27 and Sec. 151 C.P.C to grant leave to them to file documents ie., report of the Tahsildhar dt.21.5.2018, 37 endorsement granting certified copies by the Tahsildhar pertaining to appeal schedule property dt.9.11.2020 and grant of adangal copies for the faislies 1406 to 1412 pertaining to suit survey number with covering letter dt.9.11.2020 in
Roc./B/RTI/90 for marking the same as additional evidence on the ground that the same were obtained during the pedency of appeal, and so, they could not file the same earlier.
43. The respondents /Defendants (Government) strongly opposing to receive documents as mandatory provisions as required to receive the document
additional evidence at appeal stage not explained, and there are no bonafides to
receive the same, and those are not filed at the time of trial.
44. The defendant No.4 filed petition in IA.No.15 of 2021 under order 41
Rule 27 C.P.C on behalf of Endowment department to grant leave to receive the documents ie., pamphlets 3 in number of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy
Devasthanam, Mangunta, and book let of said Devasthanam and those documents are came to know about their availability recently on personal inspection in the suit village,and so, they could not file the same before the trial court, and now filed to mark the same as additional evidence in appeal stage.
45. The appellants (IA.No.15 of 2021) vehemently opposing the petition that there is no pleadings before the trial court and the endowment department remained exparte in the trial court and now they cannot come and file documents and those document cannot be taken in account to receive the same, and prays to dismiss the petition.
46. The defendants filed another petition in IA.No.25 of 2021 to frame
additional issue in respect of jurisdiction aspect to entertain the suit u/or 14
38
Rule-5 C.P.C . The appellants in IA.No.25/21 opposed the petition contending that the defendants not raised any plea regarding jurisdiction in their written statement and now raised the same at appeal stage to framing of additional issues which cannot be maintainable.
47. The averments of the petition in IA.No.108 of 2020 filed by appellants itself discloses that appellants obtained the documents during the pendency of appeal and when such is the case they cannot be received at the appeal stage. In the same manner, the 4th defendant on behalf of endowment department who was remained exparte in trial court and contesting in the appeal prayed to receive the pamphlets of Lakshmi Narayana swamy devasthanam and which were availability in the suit village on their recent personal inspection, and as such, the said documents can be received to mark the same.
48. In both the petitions filed by the appellants and defemdamts in
IA.No.108 of 2020 and in IA.No.15 of 2021 respectively there are no any
explanation about the said documents, which is mandatory u/or 41 Rule -27
C.P.C, as such, the said documents cannot be received and cannot taken into consideration in the appeal. Further framing of additional as required by the defendants in IA.No.25 of 2021 during appeal stage does not arise. As such, the above petitions in IA.No.108 of 2020 and IA.No.15 of 2021 to receive the documents as additional evidence are not maintainable, and also framing of
additional issue as per petition in IA.No.25 of 2021 filed by defendants is also
not maintainable, and accordingly, all the said petitions are dismissed.
39
49. In view of the above discussion, the present Appeal is allowed. The
Judgment and Decree of trial court is set-aside and the suit in OS.No.37 of 2018 is decreed as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered.
50. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, by setting aside the Judgment and
Decree dt.31.01.2020 passed in O.S.NO. 37 of 2018 on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, consequently, the said suit in OS.No.37 of 2018 is decreed without costs declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property by way of declaration, and also directing the defendants to delete the name of Avudevara Swamy Temple Manyam for the plaint schedule property, if it is in the revenue or other records of concerned department.
The plaintiffs are at liberty to take their own steps to register the document pertaining to the plaint schedule property before the concerned Registrar as per the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act.
In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me and Judgment uploaded in e-court website, this the 28th day of April, 2021.
Sd/-C. Muralidhar
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PUTTUR.
Appendix of evidence -NIL-
Sd/-C. Muralidhar
SCJ, PTR // True copy//