1 AS No.61 of 2018
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT AT NIZAMABAD
PRESENT: Smt. Chiranji Ashalatha,
Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ,
Nizamabad.
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2025
AS No. 61 of 2018
Between:
1. Smt. Khatija Begum W/o Mohd. Abdul Rahman, aged 52 years, Occupation: Household and Agriculture, R/o H.No. 9-3-34, Barkatpura, Nizamabad (died), Per Legal representatives, (the Appellants No.2 to 10).
2. Mohammed Abdul Rahman S/o Shaik Hussain, aged 80 years, Occupation: Business, R/o H.No.9-3-34 (9-5-121 and 9-3-220 and new No.9-5-121, Barkatpura, Nizamabad (died), Per Legal representatives (the Appellants No.3 to 10).
3. Mrs. Tahera Naseem W/o Basheer Ahmed, aged 60 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.10-2-318/A/C/17, Indira Nagar, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.
4. Mrs. Rehana Begum W/o Razzak Choudary, aged 56 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.12-2-790/124, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
5. Mohammed Abdul Malik S/o late Mohd. Abdul Rahman, aged 53 years, Occupation:Business, R/o H.No.9-5-121, Barkatpura, Nizamabad.
6. Mrs. Samina Fahim W/o Abdul Rashid, aged 48 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.68, Shaniwar Peth, Solapur. Maharashtra State.
7. Mrs. Shahina W/o Ashwaque Shaik, aged 45 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.33, Krishi Nagar Civil Line, Solapur, Maharashtra State.
8. Abdul Quddus S/o late Mohd. Abdul Rahman, aged 42 years, Occupation:Business, R/o H.No.12-2-790/147, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
2 AS 61 of 2018
9. Mrs.Asma Firdouse W/o Mohammed Ilyas, aged 39 years, Occupation:Household, R/o Bodhan Road, Nizamabad.
10. Mohammed Abdul Samad S/o late Abdul Rahman, Aged 35 years, Occupation:Business, R/o H.No.12-2-790/147, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
The Appellants 3 to 7 and 9 and 10 are represented through their G.P.A Appellant No. 8 Mohammed Abdul Quddoos S/o late Mohd. Abdul Rahman, aged 42 years, Occupation Business, R/o H.No.12- 2-790/147, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad and at H.No.9-3-34 old corresponding to 9-5-121 new, Barkatpura, Nizamabad, District Nizamabad. Appellants/Plaintiffs
AND
1. Smt. Kunchepu Narsamma W/o late Kunchepu Mahankali, aged 77 years, Occu: Household, R/o Nagaram (v), Mandal, Nizamabad. (DIED, per Legal representatives (Respondents No. 3 and 4).
2. Kunchepu Narsaiah S/o Late Mahankali, Aged 55 years, Occu: Business, R/o Nagaram (v), Mandal, Nizamabad (DIED, per Legal representatives (Respondents No. 3 and 4),
3. Smt. Kunchepu Yellamma W/o late Kunchepu Narsaiah, aged about 45 years, Occu: Household, R/o Nagaram, Nizamabad.
4. Kunchepu Anand S/o Kunchepu Narsaiah, aged 26 years, Occu: Business, R/o Nagaram (v) Mandal Nizamabad.
5. The Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Nizamabad
6. The District Collector, Nizamabad.
7. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad.
8. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad.
….Respondents/Defendants
On Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated
26.09.2018 in OS.No.131 of 2005 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, Nizamabad.
3 AS 61 of 2018
Between:
1. Smt. Khatija Begum W/o Mohd. Abdul Rahman, aged 52 years, Occupation: Household and Agriculture, R/o H.No. 9-3-34, Barkatpura, Nizamabad (died), Per Legal representatives, (the Appellants No.2 to 10),
2. Mohammed Abdul Rahman S/o Shaik Hussain, aged 80 years, Occupation: Business, R/o H.No.9-3-220 now new No.9-5-121, Barkatpura, Nizamabad (died), Per Legal representatives (the Appellants No.3 to 10)
3. Mrs. Tahera Naseem W/o Basheer Ahmed, aged 60 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.10-2-318/A/C/17, Indira Nagar, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.
4. Mrs. Rehana Begum W/o Razzak Choudary, aged 56 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.12-2-790/124, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
5. Mohammed Abdul Malik S/o late Mohd. Abdul Rahman, aged 53 years, Occupation:Business, R/o H.No.9-5-121, Barkatpura, Nizamabad.
6. Mrs. Samina Fahim W/o Abdul Rashid, aged 48 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.68, Shaniwar Peth, Solapur. Maharashtra State.
7. Mrs. Shahina W/o Ashwaque Shaik, aged 45 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.33, Krishi Nagar Civil Line, Solapur, Maharashtra State.
8. Abdul Quddus S/o Mohd. Abdul Rahman, aged 42 years, Occupation:Business, R/o H.No.12-2-790/147, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
9. Mrs.Asma Firdouse W/o Mohammed Ilyas, aged 39 years, Occupation:Household, R/o Bodhan Road, Nizamabad.
10. Mohammed Abdul Samad S/o Abdul Rahman, Aged 35 years, Occupation:Business, R/o H.No.12-2-790/147, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
…..Plaintiffs
4 AS 61 of 2018
AND
1. Smt. Kunchepu Narsamma W/o late Kunchepu Mahankali, aged 77 years, Occu: Household, R/o Nagaram (v), Mandal, Nizamabad. (Died, per Legal representatives defendants No. 3 and 4).
2. Kunchepu Narsaiah S/o Late Mahankali, Aged 55 years, Occu: Business, R/o Nagaram (v), Mandal, Nizamabad (Died on 10.11.2009, per Legal representatives 3 and 4).
3. Smt. Kunchepu Yellamma W/o late Kunchepu Narsaiah, aged about 45 years, Occu: Household, R/o Nagaram, Nizamabad.
4. Kunchepu Anand S/o Kunchepu Narsaiah, aged 26 years, Occu: Business, R/o Nagaram (v) Mandal Nizamabad.
5. The Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Nizamabad
6. The District Collector, Nizamabad.
7. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad.
8. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad.
…..Defendants
This appeal coming on 09.06.2025 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Saleem, Advocate for the Appellants/Plaintiffs and Respondent No.1 and 2 are died and Sri K. Kishore Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Sri M. Goverdhan, Advocate for Respondent No.5 to 8, after having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge,
Nizamabad in O.S.No.131 of 2005 on 26.09.2018.
5 AS 61 of 2018
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to hereafter, as they arrayed in suit before the Trial Court.
3(a).The plaintiffs’ case in brief is as follows:
The deceased plaintiff purchased land to an extent of Ac.4.33 gts in Sy.No.1993 and Ac.0.04 gts in Sy.No.1992 situated at
Nagaram under a registered sale deed bearing doc.No.2935/1980
dated 07-08-1980 from Sayyeda Wajidunnisa Begum W/o
Zaheeruddin. The deceased plaintiff also purchased Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.1993 under a registered sale deed bearing doc.No.3063/1980 dated 25-08-1980 from the same vendor. Those lands are suit schedule lands herein. The old corresponding survey numbers are 1625/2 and 1625/1 respectively. The relevant entries were made in Wasool Baqui register for the year 1954 and as well in pahanies for the years 1961-62, 1966-67 and 1973-74. In kasra pahani for the year 1954-55 the defendant No.8 herein specified the said extents of land in old survey number 1625/1 in the name of
Syed Zaheeruddin and in the year 1961 after his death in the name of his wife Wajidunnisa Begum. The office of 5th defendant made a gross mistake in correlation statement and new Sy.No.1993 corresponding to old 1625/1 mentioned in Wasool Baqui was missing. The orders passed by the defendant No.7 dated13-05-2005 vide proceedings D2/5009/2004 in favour the defendant No.1 to 4 6 AS 61 of 2018 are for illegal aims. The defendant no.1 to 4 are not the tenants of
Ramanna who has patta in his favour in respect of land in
Sy.No.1622/2. The land in Sy.No.1992 and 1993 are patta lands.
The deceased plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule lands in
Sy.No.1992 and 1993 by virtue of two registered sale deeds. The defendant No.1 to 4 who are no way concerned with the suit schedule properties tried to dispossess the plaintiffs by alienating the suit schedule properties to third party. On 29-07-2005 the deceased plaintiff got issue a legal notice to the defendant No.5 and 6, but they did not give any reply. On 22-09-2005 the deceased plaintiff got issue another legal notice u/s 80 CPC to defendant No.5 to 8. On 23-09-2005 the defendant No.1 to 4 with an intention to dispossess the deceased plaintiff, criminally trespassed in to the suit lands. Hence, this suit.
3(b). The defendant No.1 to 3 denied the title and possession of the plaintiff and as well her vendor over the suit schedule properties.
They filed their written statement as follows:
(i)Wasool Baqui register and sketch map are not the basic survey records and did not establish the title or right of the plaintiff and her vendor. The 1st defendant’s husband is father of the 2nd defendant and grandfather of 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant’s husband K. Mahankali was the protected tenant of lands to an 7 AS 61 of 2018 extent of Ac.6.34 gts., Ac.9.33 gts., Ac.11.36 gts, Ac.0.08 gts.,
Ac.4.18 gts in old Sy.Nos.1615, 1627/1, 1622/2, 1623/1 1623/2, 1624/1 and 1624/3 (corresponding to new Sy.Nos.1984, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1990) respectively. According to Wasool Baqui patta over the land in above survey numbers is in the name of
Ramanna Bandelu. In khasra pahani Mahankalai was shown as tenant from 1944-45 for ten years. After the death of Mahankali, the defendants are cultivating the said lands and they, being the legal heirs of Mahankali, became protected tenants. As per Sec.40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act 1950 they are entitled to get ownership certificate u/s 38-
E of the said Act. They made an application before the concerned
RDO for issuance of ownership certificate and the same is pending.
Therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter of tenancy.
(ii)Neither the plaintiff’s vendor Wajidunnisa Begum nor the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The entries made in the name of the plaintiff and her vendors do not create any right or title over the suit lands. After due enquiry, the defendant No.5 directed to incorporate the names of the defendant No.1 to3 in occupation column and accordingly, the defendant No.7 made entries. The defendant No.6 issued proceedings dated 28.04.2000, 24.04.2002, 13.04.2005. There was no mistake on the part of the defendant 8 AS 61 of 2018
No.5. As per Kasra pahani Sy.No.1622/2 to an extent of Ac.2.32 gts stands in the name of Bandelu Ramanna and entry in Wasool Baqui also disclose the same. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land
Records, Nizamabad verified, demarcated the lands and reported that the land to an extent of Ac.2.32 gts in old Sy.No.1622/2 was corresponding to new Sy.No.1993 to an extent of Ac.9.33 gts. The new Sy.No.1993 shown as khata No.427 and old Sy.No.1622/1. The defendant No.1 to 3 are in possession of the suit schedule property and they are cultivating the lands. 16 years after resurvey announcement, the plaintiff filed this suit for correction of entries made 41 years before, therefore this suit is barred by limitation.
There is no cause of action. Court fee is not properly paid. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3(c).The defendant No.5 & 8 (defendant No.4 and 7 prior to impleading the defendant No.3)filed their written statement as follows: As per the settlement register i.e. Wasool Baqui old
Sy.No.1622/1 corresponding to new Sy.No.1993 to an extent of
Ac.9.33 gts and the same was recorded in Khata No.427 which belongs to Ramanna Bandelu. No new survey number was assigned to old Sy.No.1625/1 belongs to Jainuddin in Khata No.159. The land in Sy.No.1993 to an extent of Ac.9.33 gts belongs to Ramanna
Bandelu. The correlation statement and sketch are not a basic 9 AS 61 of 2018 survey record and did not establish any ownership or patta rights to the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.1993. As per khasra pahani relating to Sy.No.1625/1 Syed Jahiruddin Vakeel is shown as pattedar and subsequently name of Wajiddunnisa Begum appeared in pahanies for the years 1961 and 1973-74. As per the orders passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad in File No.A3/910/95 dated 31-08-1995 the names of defendant No.1 to 3 were incorporated in occupant column No.16 of pahanies for the year 1973-74. The mutation effected by the defendant No.8 basing on registered sale deeds was set aside by the RDO, Nizamabad and the defendant
No.6. The same was implemented by incorporating the names of defendant No.1 to 3 vide proceedings dated 28-04-2000, 24-05-2002 and 13-05-2005. There was no mistake on the part of defendant No.5 in respect of old Sy.No.1625/1. Resurvey of
Nizamabad village was conducted prior to 1963 and the settlement entries were announced, thereafter implemented during 1963-64.
New Sy.No.1994 was not allotted to the old Sy.No.1625/1 as alleged by the plaintiff. As per wasool baqui Sy.No.1625/1 was not assigned any new survey number and Sy.No.1625/2 was corresponding to new Sy.No.1992. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim absolute ownership over Sy.No.1993. As per Section 87 of Andhra Pradesh (TALR) Act of 1317 a person should file objections with regard to resurvey entries and allotment of new survey numbers within two 10 AS 61 of 2018 years from the date of announcement during 1963-64 but, the original pattedar of Sy.No.1625/1 did not file any objection with regard to correction of entries. The plaintiff filed this suit after lapse of 40 years in respect of correction of entries and it is barred by limitation.
3(d). The defendant No.6 and 7 adopted written statement filed by the defendant No.5 and 8.
4.Basing on pleadings and material on record, the following issues were framed for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties ?
2. Whether the defendant No.5 to be directed to incorporate the correspondent New No.1993 measuring Ac.9.33 guntas for old
Sy.No.1625 by making correction thereof in Wasool Baqui for the year 1954 ?
3. Whether the order dated 13.05.2005 in proceeding
No.D2/5009/2004 passed by the defendant No.6 be declared as null and void?
4. Whether defendant No.8 be directed to rectify the entries in pahanies in respect of suit lands showing the plaintiff as owner and possessor?
11 AS 61 of 2018
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek perpetual injunction against defendant No.1 to 3 ?
6. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?
5.During trial, in support of the plaintiffs, Pws1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to 52 were marked. In support of the defendants Dw1 to 5 were examined and Ex.B1 to 38 were marked.
Further, Cw1 is examined and Ex.C1 to 5 were marked.
6.After considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit.The plaintiffs, being aggrieved, preferred the present appeal challenging the said decree and judgment on various contentions as follows: (i)The trial court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly. It has failed to take into consideration of the fact that the land bearing
Sy.No.1992 was 1625/2 and its total area was Ac.0-02 gts and during revision, the said new Sy.No.1992 was formed with an extent of Acres 0-04 gts, similarly, the corresponding old survey number to the land bearing Sy.No.1993 was Sy.No.1625/1 and its extent was
Ac.12-15 gts but on the spot, it was only Ac.11-20gts, further the said land of old Sy.No.1625/1 was given new Sy.No.1993 with an area of Acres 9-33 gts. It is evident from certified copy of Wasool
Baqui(correlation statement)/ExA1 issued by the office of defendant no.5. In ExA1 the area for old Sy.No.1625/2 measuring Ac.0-02gts 12 AS 61 of 2018 was given corresponding new Sy.No.1992 with an area measuring
Ac0-04 gts in Khata No.159 but inadvertently, no corresponding new Survey number was incorporated in it for Ac.11-20gts in old
Sy.No.1625/1. The above facts are apparently available in relevant revenue records maintained by the concerned Mandal Revenue
Officer/the defendant no.8 and as well in other records like shetwar maintained by Survey and Settlement department/defendant no.5.
(ii)In Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55/Ex.A25 maintained by the defendant no.8 the extents of old Sy.No.1625/1 were mentioned in the name of Syed Zaheeruddin and later in the year 1961 it is mutated in the name of his wife Smt.Wajidunnisa. The corresponding new Sy.No.1993 measuring Acres 9-33 gts for the old Sy.No.1625/1 is mutated in the name of Smt.Wajidunnisa
Begum in the year 1973-74. The trial court failed to appreciate the records filed by the plaintiffs in support of their pleadings.
Ac.0-04guntas in Sy.No.1992 is mentioned in Pahani for the year 1981-82. The same continued by the defendant no.8. Ex.A9 is produced that she has been paying land revenue. The mistake done by the office of defendant No.5 in missing the entry of new
Sy.No.1993 measuring Ac9-33 gts corresponding to the old
Sy.No.1625/1 in Col.Nos.19 to 35 of Wasool Baqui (correlation 13 AS 61 of 2018 statement) record for the year 1954 pertaining to Khata No.159 is apparent.
(iii) The orders passed by the defendant no.7 in Ex.A11 is illegal.
The trial court has miserably failed to take into consideration that the claim of defendant no.1 to 4 is restricted only to the extent of
Sy.No.1993 and it has erroneously dismissed the suit for the land in
Sy.No.1992 also. The plaintiffs proved their claim that Syed
Zainuddin Vakeel was the pattedar, absolute owner and possessor of suit land bearing Sy.No.1625/1 originally measuring Ac11-20gts and Sy.No.1625/2 originally measuring Ac.0-02guntas and it is evident from Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 Ex.A25 and
Ex.A37 and further Wasool Baqui Ex.A1.
(iv) In Ex.A2 old Sy.No.1625/1 is shown measuring
Ac.12-15guntas as per the old Shetwar of 1349 Fasli with the corresponding new Sy.No.1993 with an area measuring
Ac.9-33guntas and the said specification is given by the said official as per the records of new Shetwar of 1961 A.D, but the Court below has erroneously overlooked the said material aspects of the case of the appellants. In maps under Ex.A31 and 32 Sy.No.1993 is corresponding to Sy.No.1625/1 and those maps are the plans approved by the concerned commissioner. But the trial court absolutely ignored the same.
14 AS 61 of 2018
(v) The plaintiff’s name was mutated in respect of suit schedule lands in entries maintained by the concerned office of defendant No 8 till the deletion of names of her and her vendor in pursuance of erroneous orders passed by the concerned Joint Collector/Defendant
No.7 under Ex.A11 dated 13-05-2005 with retrospective effect. The same is evident from certified copies of the pahanis Ex.A29, 30, 34 to 36.
(vi) Wasool Baqui Record for the year 1963/Ex.B10 contains the entries relating to Sy.Nos.1622, 1623 and 1624 only. Disputed
Sy.No.1625 is not covered therein. Similarly the pahanis for the years 1958-61 contains the entries relating to Sy.Nos.1622/1, 1622/2, 1623/1, 1623/2, 1624/1 and 1624/2 only. It is a fact that those entries in possession column No.13 are made in pursuance of the orders dated 18-12-1993 in File No.A5/18504/93. Ex.B12 does not contain signature and seal of Tahsildar or any other official, therefore, it is neither admissible nor proved by the defendants. The trial court committed a gross error in ignoring the findings of the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in AIR 2003 (AP) 329
(Secretary to Govt. of India V/S Indira Devi) relating to the evidentiary value of the records of rights.
(vii) Defendant no.8 illegally issued pass books and title deed books Ex.B2 to Ex.B7 during pendency of present suit. The findings 15 AS 61 of 2018 of the trial court relating to O.S.No.181/1995 is absolutely erroneous and against the entire record. The trial court has failed to take into consideration of the fact that the plaintiff No.1 was an illiterate and household pardanashin lady and all the transactions relating to the suit land have been done by her husband Pw2. The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession over the suit lands for more than 35 years and more particularly, the defendant No.1 to 4 were not at all concerned with the suit lands and their alleged claim was relating to the different survey numbers but on account of the erroneous orders passed by the defendant No.7, they were conferred ownership to the suit land.
(viii) The trial court has utterly failed to take into consideration of the fact that the defendant no.1 to 4 have been allotted corresponding Sy.No.1994 to their old Sy.No.1622 and they are issued patta pass books and title books for the said land bearing
Sy.No.1994 for more extent than they had previously. The trial court materially erred in making vague and imaginary discussions by improperly discussing the plaintiffs evidence.
7. Now the points that arise for determination in the present appeal are:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek the reliefs as sought for?
16 AS 61 of 2018
2) Whether the judgment of the court below suffers from any illegality and warrants any interference or not?
8. Point No.1: (i) As per the plaintiffs a part of suit schedule property i.e. Ac.00-04gts in Sy.No.1992 corresponding to
Sy.No.1625/2 was purchased under a registered sale deed ExA5.
The defendant no.5to8 also admitted that the new Sy.no.1992 is corresponding to old Sy.No.1625/2. The defendant no.1 to 3 did not claim the land in Sy.No.1992. However, it is pertinent to say here that initially the deceased plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.181 of 2005 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1 to 4 herein.
Ex.B32 is certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.181 of 1995 on the file of Prl. Dist. Munsiff, Nizamabad. A perusal of plaint shows that the deceased plaintiff herein specifically pleaded about sale of land in
Sy.No.1992 by her to a specific person. It is clear that the plaintiffs suppressed the same and approached court seeking equitable relief.
(ii)(a) As per the plaintiffs a part of suit schedule property i.e.
Ac.09.33 gts in Sy.No.1993 corresponding to Sy.No.1625/1 was purchased under registered sale deeds Ex.A5 and 6. The defendant no.1 to 3 specifically denied the title and possession of deceased plaintiff and as well her vendor. Ex.A25 is Certified copy of Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs strenuously contends that in Khasra pahani for the year 17 AS 61 of 2018 1954-55/Ex.A25 maintained by the defendant no.8 the specific extent of land in old Sy.No.1625/1 was entered in the name of
Syed Zaheeruddin and later in the year 1961 it is mutated in the name of his wife Smt. Wajidunnisa, further in specific measuring
Acres 9-33 gts in Sy.No.1993 corresponding to old Sy.No.1625/1 is mutated in the name of Smt. Wajidunnisa Begum the plaintiff’s vendor herein.
(ii)(b) Ex.A1 is certified copy of Wasool baqui statement for the year 1954. In Ex.A1 the area for old Sy.No.1625/2 measuring Ac.0- 02gts was given corresponding new Sy.No.1992 with an area measuring Ac0-04 gts but, no corresponding new survey number was given for Ac.11-20gts in old Sy.No.1625/1. Pw4 is Assistant
Director of Survey and Lands Records. He stated that Ac.12.15gts in
Sy.No.1625/1 is corresponding to Ac.9.33gts in Sy.No.1993.
However, he deposed that he verified correlation statement and as per the record Sy.No.1625/1 has no corresponding number but the earlier Assistant Director mentioned as Sy.No.1993 for old
Sy.No.1625/1. He admitted that there should be corresponding new number in the revision to the old number, but he cannot say where the extent of Ac.11.20gts has shown in records. However, he stated that entry in Ex.A1 not mentioning corresponding survey number to 18 AS 61 of 2018
Sy.No.1625/1 as Sy.No.1993 is not a mistake committed by their office.
(ii)(c) Pw4 stated that the area can be identified by only tippon on the spot, but not through maps. But strangely, Pw4 also stated that he did not find tippon for old survey number, hence he could not verify with the new survey number. Cw1 is the thenAssistant
Director of Survey and Land Records. He brought the original
Wasool Baqui register for the year 1954 which contains the entries with regard to Sy.No.1993(New), 1622/1 and 2 (old) and another register for the same year which contains the entry with regard to
Sy.No.1992 (new) 1625/1 and 2 (old). Ex.C4 is attested copy of the relevant entry with regard to Sy.No.1992. Ex.C5 is attested copy of the relevant entry with regard to Sy.No.1993 (New).
(ii)(d) Cw1 stated that during resurvey extent will be changed in case pattedar is not available and also in case pattedar is not in possession of the entire extent, further the remaining extent of a particular survey number which is not in enjoyment of a pattedar will be recorded in the name of a person who claims possession of the said land and if nobody claims possession of the said land, it will be recorded as government land. He further stated that resurvey numbers are given in sequence. During cross examination it is 19 AS 61 of 2018 elicited from Cw1 that as per Ex.C4 and 5 no part of Sy.Nos.1625/1 and 1625/2 is declared as phot kharab.
(ii)(e) Ex.A51 is certified copy of tippon issued by Asst. Director of
Survey, Central Survey Office, Hyderabad for 1992 and 1993 which bears chalta number 275 and survey number 1995. The reverse of
Ex.A51 is marked as Ex.A52. Cw1 stated that as per Ex.A51 chalta number 277 which corresponds to new Sy.no.1993, further corresponds to old survey number 1625/1. Ex.A52 shows chalta number 291 which corresponds to new survey number 1992 further corresponds to old survey number 1625/2. Cw1 stated that Ex.A51 and 52 pertains to new survey numbers 1992 and 1993.
(ii)(f) As per Ex.A1 and 2 there is no corresponding new number for Sy.No.1625/1. Ex.A2 is addressed by Survey and Land Records
Office to Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad. As per Pw4and
Ex.A2 new survey number of 1993 is a survey number allotted to the property of the vendor of the defendant no.1 to 4 and new survey number of 1992 is a survey number allotted to the husband of the vendor of the deceased plaintiff. Ex.A3 i.e., correlation statement sketch map annexed to Ex.A2. As per Ex.A3
Sy.No.1625/1 is bounded by Sy.No.1622/2, 1624/1 and 1623/2 and further Sy.No.1993 shown for Sy.No.1625/1 and Sy.No.1994 shown for 1622/2. As per old map 1625/1 is bounded by 1624/1, 20 AS 61 of 2018 1623/2, 1622/2 and 1629. Pw4 stated that Ex.A3 is not approved by commissioner and that it is only proposal. He admitted that revision of records shall be final only on the approval of commissioner. It is clear that Ex.A3 is not issued by the final authority person.
(ii)(g) Further, Ex.A31 is old village map. Ex.A32 is new village map. Pw4 stated that the pink colour marked portion in Ex.A31 is
Sy.No.1625/1 and the pink colour marked portion in Ex.A32 is
Sy.No.1993 and it is partly connected to old Sy.No.1625/1 of
Ex.A32 shown in pink colour. Pw4 cannot say the extent exactly covered in Sy.No.1625/1 and also in corresponding Sy.No.1993. As per Ex.A31 Sy.No.1622/2 is situated towards the northern side of
Sy.No.1625/1. Sy.No.1625/1 from north to south is straight in
Ex.A31. The side of old Sy.No.1625/1 on the northeastern side is partly sliding towards the road in Ex.A31. In Ex.A32 new
Sy.No.1993 is sliding towards northernwest. As per maps under
ExA31 and 32 Sy.No.1625/1 corresponding to 1993.
(ii)(h) Pw4 deposed that whenever revision is effected in their office, the copy shall be marked to the revenue authority and accordingly, the revenue record entry will be implemented. It is pertinent to say here that no such copy is produced before this court. Ex.A4, 7, 8 and 10 are certified copy of pahanis for the year 21 AS 61 of 2018 1966-67, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 2000-01. Ex.A26 to 30 are pahanies for the years 1961-62, 1971-72, 1980-81, 1991-92 and 2001-2002. Ex.A39 to 43 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1961-62, 1966-67, 1970-71, 1980-81, 1990-91. A perusal of pahanis shows that the names of defendant no.1 to 3 were incorporated in possession column in pursuance of orders by concerned Revenue Divisional Officer in file No.A3/910/95 dated.31-08-1995. In Ex.A28 to 30 the names found earlier were rounded off and names of defendant No.1 to 3 are incorporated in pursuance of the orders dated 24-08-2005 of Joint Collector.
(ii)(i) Pw5 is the concernedTahsildar. He deposed that in Ex.A4 old survey numbers with corresponding new survey numbers are shown. As per pahani under Ex.A4 old Sy.No.1625/1 is given corresponding new survey number as 1993 to an extent of Ac.9.33 gts. As per Ex.A4 survey number old 1622/2 is given new corresponding survey number 1994 to an extent of Ac.5.27gts. In
Ex.A7 i.e., Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91
Ac.05-00gts of land inSy.No.1993/A and Ac.4.33 gts in
Sy.No.1993/AA are shown in the name of Khatija Begum the plaintiff herein. Pw5 stated that the entries in revenue records are made by their office basing on land survey and settlement record sent to their office. Admittedly, the concerned RDO and Joint 22 AS 61 of 2018 collector passed orders in favour of Kunchepu Narsaiah in respect of the suit schedule property. Unfortunately, the revenue authorities failed to produce any such scrap to show on what basis they made entries in respect of land in old Sy.No.1625/1 from time to time and later changed. Pw5 further stated that according to available records the office did not receive record of Sy.Nos.1625/1, 1625/2 and 1622/2 after resurvey. He further admitted that new survey numbers issued by the survey department shall notify in the gazette and intimated to them. No such record is produced. Evidently,
Ex.B2 to 7 are the pass books and title deeds issued by the concerned Tahsildar during pendency of this suit. Therefore, those can not be relied upon. Pw5 stated that according to Form-10 unregistered sale deed of the year 1967 is legalized as per Ex.B1 by the concerned Tahsildar. It is well settled that the plaintiff has to prove his own case and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the adversary.
(iii)(a)The defendant no.1 to 4 are claiming schedule land as their ancestor Mahankali was protected tenant. Ex.B10 i.e., Certified copy of Wasool baqui for the year 1963 with certified Telugu translation is produced in their support. As per them Mahankali purchased land originally from B.Ramanna. Dw1 stated that as per the proceedings
dated 13-07-2005 and 24-08-2005 the defendants are not claiming
23 AS 61 of 2018 the land in Sy.No. 1625/1 and 1625/2. During cross examination it is elicited from Dw1 that he is a stone cutter and he does not know how the property was acquired by Narsaiah or his father. He cannot say the survey number of the suit land and land owned by defendants. Dws2 to 5 consistently stated that the defendant no.1 to 4 are the owners of 10 acres of land and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Dw5 isadjacent land owner of the suit schedule property, who is running Omkar rice mill, supported the evidence of Dw1.
(iii)(b) The deceased plaintiff filed suit in OS.No.181/1995 on the file of District Munsiff, Nizamabad against the deceased father of
Dw1 and others seeking mandatory injunction and the same was dismissed. She also filed OS.244/1993 seeking permanent injunction against the defendant no.2 herein. Ex.A47 to 50 are related to the said case. It is clear that the plaintiffs title over the property is being denied even prior to 1993. Entries in ROR are considered prima facie evidence of possession and title. But in case of dispute time status of ownership can be determined by assessing other evidence on record in contrary. The plaintiffs failed to produce any link documents relating to the ownership of their vendor
Wajidunnisa Begum. Admittedly, Pw1 is a pardanashin and illiterate lady and her husband Pw2 looked after the transactions.
24 AS 61 of 2018
(iii)(c) Pw2does not know from whom husband of their vendor
Wajidunnisa Begum purchased lands. He stated that in the year 1954 or 1955 husband of Wajidunnisa Begum was the pattedar and he did not verify the record prior to 1954 and 1955. He stated that he purchased Ac.5.00 gts of land in Sy.No.1933/A and that the total extent of land Ac.9.33 gts. As per the authorities resurvey was done during 1963-64. Pw2 does not know after resurvey his vendor
Wajidunnisa Begum did not made any objection with regard to resurvey.
(iii)(d) As per the plaintiffs Ac.4.33gts in Sy.No.1993 and Ac.0.04 gts in Sy.No.1992 was purchased within the specific boundaries under a registered sale deed dated 07-08-1980 i.e. Ex.A5 and thereafter Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.1993 was purchased within the specific boundaries under a registered sale deed dated 25-08-1980 i.e. Ex.A6. As per Ex.A5 boundaries to the land in Sy.No.1992 and a part of land in Sy.No.1993 are North: Other land, South:Remaining land of vendor, East: Government Road, West: Mountain and government land. In view of the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A5, the remaining part of land in Sy.No.1993 must be on southern side of land in Sy.No.1992 and part of land in Sy.No.1993 purchased under Ex.A5. Whereas as per Ex.A31 and 32 a road leads to
Banswada separates land in Sy.Nos.1992 and 1993 and Sy.No.1993 25 AS 61 of 2018 is towards northern side of road leads to Banswada and Sy.No.1992.
Further, as per ExA6 boundaries to the part of land in Sy.No.1993 are North:Land in Sy.No.1993, South:Border Mallaram, East:
Government Road and West: Mountain and government land.
Boundaries mentioned in Ex.A5 and 6 are contrary to maps under
Ex.A31 and 32. It is clear that the sketch map under Ex.A3 is incorrect.
(iv) The correlation statement and sketch are not a basic survey record and did not establish any ownership or patta rights to the plaintiffs over the land in Sy.No.1993. The plaintiffs failed to produce any cogent evidence in proof of their title over the schedule property. In view of the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A5 and 6 and
Ex.A31 and 32, it is clear that the plaintiffs are claiming the property other than they got under sale deeds. Further, it is evident that they did not come to the court with clean hands. In view of all the above, it is held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the reliefs as sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered against the plaintiffs.
9. Point No.2: The specific contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the trial court misconstrued in discarding evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. Considering oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs 26 AS 61 of 2018 failed to establish their title over the properties. In view of the facts and circumstances and answer given to point no.1, it is opined that the trial court is not erred in holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their case. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs by confirming the judgment passed by trial court hereby.
Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on 9th day of August, 2025.
Judge,
Family Court-cum-III ADJ, Nizamabad. Corrections carried out:
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
-NIL--None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS:
-NIL- -NIL-
Judge,
Family Court-cum-III ADJ, Nizamabad. Corrections carried out: