1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANANTAPURAMU
PRESENT : Smt D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu
Friday, this the 29th day of May, 2020.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 605 of 2012
1.Kilari Adenna S/o K. Pedda Subbanna, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Cultivation.
2.Kilari Ramaiah S/o K. Pedda Subbanna, Hindu, aged about 51 years, Cultivation.
(Died represented by legal representatives plaintiffs No.3 to 6)
3.Kilari Chinnakka W/o K. Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years.
4.Kilari Sivasankar S/o K. Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 34 years.
5.Kilari Vinod Kumar S/o K. Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 27 years.
6.Kilari Bharathi D/o K. Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 30 years.
All are R/o Koppalakonda Village, Garladinne Mandal, Anantapuramu District.
… Plaintiffs.
Vs.
Gundala Venkata Swamy S/o G. Narayanappa, aged about 65 years, Hindu, R/o Kamalapuram Village, Garladinne Mandal, Anantapuramu District.
… Defendant
* * * * *
(Originally, the suit was registered on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. Subsequently, at the stage of arguments, as per the proceedings of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu in Dis.No.5546/11.12.2019, dt.10.12.2019 in respect of rational distribution of work-old matters, the suit is transferred to this Court for final disposal)
The suit came before me on 28.05.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Boyapati Rajasekhar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs No.1, 3 to 6 (second plaintiff died) and of Sri P.L. Eswar Reddy, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, 2 this Court delivers the following:-
// J U D G M E N T //
1. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of their right and title over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property with costs and other reliefs.
2.The brief averments of the plaint and amended plaint are as follows :
The suit schedule property is the agricultural land in an extent of
Ac.1.00cents out of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186 of Koppalakonda Village,
Garladinne Mandal, bounded by East : Cart Track; West : Remaining land in
Sy.No.186 of the plaintiffs, North : Remaining land in Sy.No.186 of the plaintiffs and South : Land of Venkata Swamy.
Originally, the land in an extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186 of
Koppalakonda Village (including the suit schedule property) and the land in
Sy.No.103 admeasuring Ac.35.74 cents belonged to one Talari Musaligadu S/o
T. Chennagadu of Koppalakonda Village. The said Musaligadu sold the same to Chinna Subbanna S/o Pakkirappa under registered sale deed, dt.26.11.1903 for a valuable consideration and delivered the possession of the same. The said Chinna Subbanna had got two brothers namely Pedda
Subbanna and Yerra Guntappa. The said Chinna Subbanna was unmarried and he died. So, the entire property of Chinna Subbanna devloved upon his brothers. Subsequently, the brothers of Chinna Subbanna had partitioned the said property, in which, Yerra Guntappa got the land in an extent of
Ac.35.74 cents in Sy.No.103 towards his share and the land to an extent of
Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186 fell to the share of Pedda Subbanna, who is the 3 father of plaintiffs No.1 and No.2. Later, Pedda Subbanna and Yerra
Guntappa died and so, their legal heirs have been enjoying their respective properties. As such, the plaintiffs have been enjoying the suit schedule property and got mutated their names in the Revenue records. The plaintiffs also took loan from the State Bank of India, Garladinne by mortgaging the above said property and deposited the original registered sale deed into the
Bank.
The defendant has nothing to do with the suit schedule property.
Being influential person, the defendant has created sale deed and revenue records with the connivance of the Revenue officials, as if he purchased
Ac.1.00 cents of land in Sy.No.186. By fabricating those documents, the defendant is trying to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit schedule property in a high handed manner, without any manner of title over the same. About ten days back, the defendant tried to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property but, the plaintiffs averted the same, with the intervention of the elders. The defendant has been proclaiming that he will oust the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property in one way or the other. The plaintiffs are unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendant, who is rich and powerful, having support of politicians and rowdy elements. There is no dispute with regard to the remaining extent of land i.e., Ac.32.92 cents in Sy.No.186 and so, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their right and title in respect of the suit schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant.
3.During pendency of the suit, the second plaintiff died. So, as per the orders of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu in
IA.No.569/2019, dt.03.05.2019, the plaintiffs No.3 to 6 were added by
recognizing them as legal representatives of the deceased second plaintiff.
4
4.The defendant filed written statement by denying averments of the plaint and took the following contentions :
Prior to 1926, the land in an extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186 was subdivided into plots. As per the dig-lot, the land in Sy.No.186-1 to an extent of Ac.32.92 cents, stands in the name of one Kuruba Subbigadugari
Subbigadu and land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.186-2 stands in the name of Karanam Prathapagiri Venkatappa. So, the said Subbigadu and
Venkatappa are the owners of land in Sy.No.186. The defendant purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.186-2 from its rightful owner under registered sale deed.10.01.1990. Later, he sold an extent of Ac.0.50 cents to one Boya Ramanjaneyulu on 24.04.2008. Since then, the defendant and the said Ramanjaneyulu are in possession and enjoyment of land in an extent of
Ac.0.50 cents each in Sy.No.186-2, within the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiffs. By suppressing these facts, the plaintiffs filed the suit for unlawful gain. Since, the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the question of disturbing of their possession, does not arise. So, there is no cause of action for the suit.
Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5.After hearing both sides and on considering the pleadings and documents, the following issues were settled on 03.06.2014:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their right
and title over the plaint schedule property against the defendant, as
prayed for ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, as on the date of instituting the suit ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to restrain the defendant by way of permanent injunction, as prayed for ?
5
4. To what relief ?
6. During trial, the plaintiffs got examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked
Ex.A1 and A2. The plaintiffs also got examined the advocate commissioner as CW1 and got marked Ex.C1 to C3.
7.On the other hand, the defendant got examined DW1 and DW2 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B6.
8.Perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant and reply arguments through Video Conference (as per the notification dated 17.05.2020 of Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh).
9.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted in the written arguments that the evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence and supported by the evidence of PW2 clinchingly establishes that the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of Chinna Subbanna, have right and title over the suit schedule property and they have been in possession of the same.
He further submitted that the evidence of DW1 and DW2 is silent about the mode of acquisition of the defendant’s vendor and even the documents filed by them show the name of one Karanam Prathapagari Venkatappa as the owner of the suit schedule property, but not the vendor of the defendant and thus, the defendant failed to establish that his vendor has better title than the plaintiffs and he could got any title over the suit schedule property and so, the evidence of DW1 and DW2 would not disprove the contentions of the plaintiffs. He further submitted that the resurvey and resettlement register would not constitute the evidence of title and thus, the entries in Ex.B2 are not sufficient to prove that the said Prathagari Venkatappa had right over the suit schedule property and further, DW1 admitted that there is no 6 relationship between the said Venkatappa and his vendor Lingala Subbireddy and that there is no link document to his title and as such, all these circumstances and admissions of the defendant clearly support the contentions of the plaintiffs regarding their title and possession over the suit schedule property and therefore, the suit may be decreed.
10.On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant argued that the evidence of DW1 supported by DW2 and documentary evidence more particularly, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 clearly establish that the plaintiffs are no way connected to the suit schedule property and that the defendant purchased the same after resurvey and also sold half of the suit schedule property to one B. Ramanjineyulu. He further submitted that the evidence of the CW1 - advocate commissioner and his reports (Exs.C1 to C3) also support the contentions of the defendant with regard to his possession over the suit schedule property. He further argued that the plaintiffs failed to file any document to establish their possession over the suit schedule property and that the contents of Ex.B3 to Ex.B6 clearly show that the defendant and one
B. Ramanjineyulu are in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
11.In view of these rival contentions, the entire record is perused.
12.ISSUE No.1:
It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, but, the defendant is disputing their title by creating fabricated documents, and is trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Whereas, the defendant contended that he purchased the suit schedule property and also sold half of the land to one B. Ramanjaneyulu and that himself and the said 7
Ramanjaneyulu have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the plaintiffs have no right over the same.
13.Since, the plaintiffs approached the Court for the relief of declaration of right and title over the suit schedule property, it is their burden to establish that they have right and title over the suit schedule property and that the defendant is disputing their title. To prove these aspects, the plaintiffs got examined the first plaintiff and neighbouring land owner as PW1 and PW2 respectively and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.26.11.1903 executed Musaligadu in favour of Chinna
Subbanna along with typed copy (original sale deed is also filed). It discloses that one Chinna Subbanna S/o Pakkirappa purchased the land in an extent of
Ac.35.74 cents in Sy.No.103 and an extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186 of
Koppalakonda Village from Musaligadu S/o T. Chennugadu on 26.11.1903 and got inducted into the possession and enjoyment of the same.
14.Ex.A2 is the genealogy certificate issued by the Village Revenue
Officer, Keswavapuram Village, Garladinne Mandal, Anantapuramu District. It discloses that Pedda Subbanna, Chinna Subbanna and Yerra Guntappa are the sons of one Late Pakkirappa and that the plaintiffs are sons of deceased
Pedda Subbanna. The details of the plaintiffs as well as the other members mentioned in the said certificate corroborates the pleadings of the plaintiffs with regard to their relationship with Chinna Subbanna (purchaser under
Ex.A1). The defendant did not make any averments in the written statement by disputing the said relationship. Further, the defendant, who was examined as DW1, admitted that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Chinna
Subbanna. As such, the Court finds no amount of doubt in the relationship between the plaintiffs and Chinna Subbanna, as disclosed in Ex.A2.
8
15.In addition to the said documentary evidence, the plaintiffs got examined the first plaintiff as PW1. His evidence goes in accordance with the contents of the plaint. In brief, his evidence goes to show that on 26.11.1903, his paternal uncle Chinna Subbanna purchased the entire extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186 of Koppalakonda Village (including the suit schedule property) and some other land in Sy.No.103 from one Musaligadu under registered sale deed (original of Ex.A1) and that after death of the said
Chinna Subbanna, who was unmarried, the said property devolved upon his brothers namely Pedda Subbanna and Yerra Guntappa and during their family partition (oral), the entire extent in Sy.No.186 fell to the share of
Pedda Subbanna, who is the father of plaintiffs No.1 and No.2 and the land in
Sy.No.103 fell to the share of Yerra Guntappa and after demise of the said
Pedda Subbanna, the plaintiffs being legal heirs, became rightful owners and have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the remaining extent of Ac.32.92cents in suit survey number. His evidence further shows that the defendant is trying to cause interference into the possession of himself and other plaintiffs over the suit schedule property by creating documents and disputed their title and thus, he filed the suit along with the second plaintiff. During cross-examination, PW1 was able to give the details of the mode of acquisition of property by him and the other plaintiffs. Except putting the defence in the form of suggestion, which was denied by PW1, nothing was elicited from his evidence that he has knowledge about the subsequent subdivision and sale transactions made by the defendant's vendor and defendant. He stood over the cross-examination.
Not even a suggestion was given to him by disputing the recitals of Ex.A1- certified copy of sale deed dated 26.11.1903 and the right of Chinna
Subbanna and his vendor Musiligadu in respect of the land covered under the said sale deed. So, the evidence of PW1, which is found to be cogent and convincing with that of his pleadings and documents, is found to be credible and trustworthy.
9
16.To support their contentions, the plaintiffs also got examined an independent witness ie., PW2. His evidence goes to show that he got land in an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.495 and 496 of Koppalakonda Village and he has to pass through the rastha/passage situated by the side of the suit schedule property in order to reach his land. His evidence further shows that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the defendant and B. Ramanjaneyulu are not in possession and enjoyment of the same, but, the defendant has created a registered sale deed and revenue records, as if he purchased the suit schedule property from one Lingala Subbireddy, who is not at all the owner of the suit schedule property. So, according to him, the plaintiffs acquired the suit schedule property from their ancestors and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. During his cross examination, PW2 expressed his unawareness about the sub division of land in Sy.No. 186 in the year 1923 into 186-1 and 186-2. He denied the suggestion that the defendant and B.
Ramanjaneyulu are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He categorically deposed in his cross examination that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the total extent of Ac.33.92 cents in the suit survey number(which includes the suit schedule property) and they never sold their lands to anyone. Except, putting defence in the form of suggestion, which was denied by PW2, nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence.
17.The plaintiffs further got examined the advocate commissioner as CW1 and also got marked Exs.C1 to C3. Ex.C1 is the advocate commissioner report, dt.12.09.2018 along with plan supplied by the Mandal Surveyor.
Ex.C2 is the report of Mandal Surveyor. Ex.C3 is the Field map. The conjoint reading of the evidence of CW1 and the contents of Exs.C1 to C3, shows that the land in Sy.No.186 was subdivided in the year 1923 as 10
Sy.No.186-1 to an extent of Ac.32.92 cents and 186-2 to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents and that the suit schedule property is identified as the land in an extent of Ac.1.00cents in Sy.No.186-2. As per the observations made by the
CW1 in report (Ex.C1), there was harvested crop in the said land. Both parties did not file any objections over the Ex.C1 report submitted by CW1.
18.On the other hand, the defendant got examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6. Ex.B1 is the Original registered sale deed executed by Lingala Subbireddy in favour of the defendant. It discloses that on 10.01.1990 one Lingala Subbireddy sold land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.186-2 of Koppalakonda Village (suit schedule property) to the defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,500/- and delivered the possession of the same. Apparently, it is a duly registered and attested sale deed.
19. Ex.B2 is the True copy of resettlement register, dt.09.04.2015 issued by Tahsildar, Garladinne. It discloses that the land to an extent of Ac.32.92 cents in Sy.No.186-1 stood in the name of one Kuruba Subbigadigaru
Subbigadu and the land in an extent of Ac.1.00cents in Sy.no. 186/2 stood in the name of one Karanam Prathapagari Venkatappa. The said entries support the contention of the defendant. But, the plaintiffs dispute the same as it was made without their knowledge and without issuing notices.
20. Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 are the public copies of 1B extract and Adangal for fasli 1428 obtained through Mee-Seva respectively. Ex.B3 discloses that the defendant is the owner of land in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.186-2 and some other extent in Sy.No.173 of Koppalakonda Village. Ex.B4 discloses that the defendant and B. Ramanjineyulu are in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents each in Sy.No.186-2 during the fasli 1428 which corresponds to the year 2018-2019.
11
21.Ex.B5 is the Tax receipt (carbon copy), dt.17.05.1994 issued by the
Village Administrative Officer, Koppalakonda Village. It discloses that the defendant paid tax of Rs.100/- in respect of the land in Sy.No.186-2 and two other lands for fasli 1402 and 1403. Ex.B6 is the Pattadar passbook issued in the name of Ramanjimeyulu (third party). It discloses that one B.
Ramanjineyulu is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.186- 2 of Koppalakonda Village apart from other properties. It was issued in the year 2008.
22.On coming to the oral evidence of the defendant(DW1), it is just replica of written statement, as referred above. The defendant also examined the son of his vendor as DW2. His evidence supports the evidence of DW1 with regard to the execution of registered sale deed(Ex.B1) in favour of the defendant in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.no. 186/2 which corresponds to the suit schedule property. As adverted above, the plaintiffs did not admit the title of the defendant, who is said to have acquired the same in the year 1990 as well as his vendor Lingala Subbi
Reddy, since their family member Chinna Subbanna purchased it in the year 1903 itself.
23.It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the documentary evidence, more particularly, Ex.A1, which was executed in the year 1903 clinchingly establishes that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Chinna Subbanna have right and title over the suit schedule property and that the defendant failed to establish that himself or his vendor has better title than the plaintiffs and so, he cannot claim any lawful title over the suit schedule property and further, the resurvey and resettlement register would not constitute the evidence of title and thus, the contents of Ex.B2 is not sufficient to prove 12 that the said Prathagari Venkatappa had right over the suit schedule property.
24.In support of their contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon the following decisions:
1. Vundavalli Veera Raghavamma and others and Government of
Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
department and others reported in 2014(2) ALT 35.
This is decision in a writ petition filed for mandamus to set aside certain endorsements of revenue officials. In such context, the Hon'ble High
Court of state of Andhra Pradesh reiterated the well settled proposition of law in para 4 as follows:
“The law is fairly well settled that mere dots in the RSR would
not constitute the evidence of title. ….”
2) Maqbul Shaik (died) and others Vs. Cheerala Thripura and others reported in 2015(5) ALT 627.
This is a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh in a second appeal against the judgment and decree of declaration of right and mandatory injunction. The lower court and Hon'ble first appellate Court decreed the suit by disbelieving the contentions of the defendants that they have right over the suit schedule property. In such context, the Hon'ble High Court held in para 16 as follows :
“….. When the defendants 1 and 2 have not proved the sale of suit property by 3rd defendant through General Power of Attorney Holder, 4th defendant, the question of 7th defendant having better title does not arise at all. Since 7th 13
defendant is claiming right over the suit property
through 1st defendant, when the case of 1st defendant
itself is negatived by the both the Courts below, the 7th
defendant cannot stand on better footing. The question
of taking possession of 7th defendant through 1st
defendant also does not arise. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the 7th defendant cannot have better title than that of 1st and 2nd defendants, whose case was negatived by the Courts below. ...”
By holding so, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the second appeal.
25.The learned counsel for the defendant mainly stressed upon two contentions i.e., that Exs.B1 to B6 clearly show that the land in the suit syrvey number was already subdivided and plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiffs could not stand on the weakness of the defence and thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim declaration of title over the suit schedule property.
26.Herein the case, the plaintiffs have been claiming that they have acquired the right and title over the suit schedule property through their father Pedda Subbanna, who got the same in family partition and through his deceased brother Chinna Subbanna, the original purchaser of the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 26.11.1903(Ex.A1).
Whereas, th defendant has been claiming title under Ex.B1-registered sale deed executed in the year 1990. When both parties rely upon registered sale deeds to prove their title, the court has to see the mode of acquisition or flow of their title from their predecessors or vendors. As referred above, it is always the initial burden of the plaintiffs to prove their contentions. So, the plaintiffs mainly relied upon the contents of Ex.A1 – certified copy of 14 registered sale deed, dt.26.11.1903. Apparently, it is a public copy of an ancient registered document, which is a constructive notice to one and all.
The said document clearly discloses that Chinna Subbanna purchased the entire extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186 on 26.11.1903 (including the suit schedule property) with specific boundaries and got inducted into the possession of the same. The oral evidence of PW1 supported by an independent witness i.e., PW2 also shows the same and their evidence remained unshaken in all aspects.
27.On keen and careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is noted that not even a suggestion was given to PW1 and PW2 by disputing the authenticity of the said sale deed or the title of the said vendor. Except expressing unawareness about the sale transaction, there is no specific denial of the said sale transaction either in the evidence of DW1 or DW2. Further, the said sale deed was registered in the year 1903 i.e., more than 109 years prior to the suit. As such, the execution of the said ancient document cannot be suspected. Therefore, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the contents of
Ex.A1-certified copy of registered sale deed dated 26.11.1903 and also to discard the evidence of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the mode of acquisition of the suit schedule property and remaining extent of land in the suit survey number 186 and Survey number 103, by the said Chinna Subbanna.
28.Even as per the reports of advocate commissioner and Mandal
Surveyor and Field map(ExC1 to C3), the said entire extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.no. 186 was subdivided in to 186/1(Ac.32.92 cents) and 186/2(Ac.1.00cents). As adverted above, the advocate commissioner (CW1) identified that the suit schedule property is located in survey number 186/2, which is part and parcel of the land in the suit survey number, which was subdivided as 186/1 and 186/2. Such identity/ location is not disputed by both parties. Indisputably, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of 15 the remaining extent of Ac.32.92 cents in survey number 186/1, which is part and parcel of the land covered under sale deed dated 26.11.1903 (Ex.A1), under which the plaintiffs have been claiming title and possession over the suit schedule property. Further, the defendant(DW1) categorically admitted during cross-examination that the revenue records in respect of the entire extent (Ac.33.92 cents) in the suit survey number stands in the name of
Chinna Subbanna. It is needless to say that the admitted facts need not be proved. Apparently, the land in survey number 186/2 in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents is also part and parcel of the land purchased by Chinna Subbanna, under Ex.A1. Further more, the defendant (DW1) categorically admitted that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Chinna Subbanna( as disclosed in Ex.A2).
These categorical admissions of the defendant clearly support the contentions of the plaintiffs with regard to the mode of acquisition of suit schedule property by them through Chinna Subbanna under Ex.A1. As such, the Court holds that the plaintiffs are able to establish the flow of title to them, over the suit schedule property, with convincing and legally acceptable evidence.
29.When the plaintiffs are able establish the flow of their title through
Chinna Subbanna, the original owner of the suit schedule property, the burden shifts on to the defendant to establish that himself and his vendor have better and valid right over the same, than that of the plaintiffs. Now it has to be seen whether the defendant who is claiming right and title over the suit schedule property under Ex.B1 – original sale deed dated 10.01.1990, is able to establish that his vendor L. Subbireddy has valid and better title in respect of the suit schedule property. As referred above, the defendant mainly relied upon Ex.B2 to prove his flow of title. Even as per the Ex.B2 – resettlement register issued by the Tahsildar, Garladinne, one Prathagari
Venkatappa was shown as the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.186/2. No other valid registered deed is filed to support the entry in 16
Ex.B2, in order to discard the right of Chinna Subbanna, who acquired in the year 1903 itself under a registered sale deed (Ex.A1) or that Prathragari
Venkatappa or his family members or his vendors purchased the suit schedule property from Chinna Subbanna (paternal uncle of plaintiffs 1 and
2) or his brothers or other family members of the plaintiffs. Thus, in view of the above referred settled proposition of law, as reiterated by the Hon'ble
High Court in Vundavali Veera Raghavamma’s case (cited supra), in absence of any such supportive document, the entries in the resettlement register would not constitute the evidence of title of Prathapagari
Venkatappa over the suit schedule property. Moreover, nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the Survey authorities or Revenue officials gave notices to the plaintiffs or their family members or predecessors, at the time of the said sub-division or the plaintiffs are aware about the said re-survey.
30. Further, it was elicited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendant's vendor L. Subbi Reddy did not purchase the suit schedule property from Pratapagari Venkatappa or his legal heirs. It is evident from the evidence of DW1 and DW2 that they have no knowledge at all as to how
L. Subbireddy (vendor of the defendant) acquired the suit schedule property.
Admittedly, there is no link document to Ex.B2 or Ex.B1. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, there is no reference in
Ex.B1-registered sale deed dated 10.01.1990 stands in the name of defendant, about the mode of acquisition of the said property by the defendant’s vendor i.e., L. Subbireddy (which is in dispute) and also the specific boundaries of the said property.
31.Apart from this, the defendant, who pleaded that one Subbigadigari
Subbigadu is the owner of land in an extent of Ac.32.92 cents as per the entry in Ex.B2, categorically admitted that all the revenue records stand in 17 the name of Chinna Subbanna (original owner / paternal uncle of the plaintiffs) in respect of the entire extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186. DW1 also admitted that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the land in Ac.32.92 cents in Sy.No.186/1. These admissions are quite contra to his own pleadings and entries in Ex.B2 and supports the contentions of the plaintiffs.Thus, the said entries in Ex.B2, which are not even corroborated and supported by the defendant, cannot be made a ground to discard the title of Chinna Subbanna and the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
32.On coming to Ex.B3- 1-B extract and ExB4-adangal for Falsi 1428, it is admitted by DW1 that he obtained those copies of revenue records which correspond to 2018-2019 in the year 2019 i.e., seven years subsequent to the suit. It is needless to say that the documents which correspond to the period subsequent to the suit, cannot be considered. Though Ex.B5-tax receipt(Carbon copy), discloses that the defendant paid tax for the suit schedule property and other properties in the year 1994, as elicited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, DW1 admitted that the system of collecting tax on agricultural lands was abolished in the year 1993 but, the said tax was collected in the year 1994. Moreover, the said tax receipt does not bear the counter signature or seal of the authority, who is competent to issue any entry or record with regard to the possession of the property. As such, the genuineness of the said tax receipt is found to be suspicious and remained unproved by the defendant.
33.Similarly, it is apparent from Ex.B6 Pass book that it is related to One
B. Ramnjaneyulu, the third party but not to the defendant. Even though, it discloses that the said Ramanjaneyulu is in possession of Ac.0.50cents in
Survey Number 186/2 from 2008, without examining the said Ramanjineyulu in whose name the passbook stands for or the competent authority, who issued the said passbook, the contents of the said passbook cannot be said 18 to be proved in accordance with the Law. So, viewed from any angle, the court finds no convincing and satisfactory documentary evidence regarding the flow of title to the defendant's vendor in respect the suit schedule propertyorto hold that the defendant acquired better title, through his vendor than that of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
34.As far the oral evidence adduced by the defendant is concerned, during cross-examination, both DW1 and DW2 failed to explain the mode of acquisition of title by Lingala Subbi Reddy (Vendor of defendant) over the suit schedule property. Dw1 also deposed that his vendor did not give link documents to him. There is no reference about the said mode of acquisition by the vendor, in Ex.B1-registered sale deed. Not even a suggestion was given to PW1 or PW2 that Chinna Subbanna or his brothers had sold away the said property to third parties or that the land was resumed by the
Government after death of Chinna Subbanna and reallotted to the predecessors of the defendant's vendor or vendor's vendor. Dw1 also admitted that there is no relationship between his vendor and Pratapagari
Venkatappa(owner as per Ex.B2). Generally, a bonafide purchaser would ascertain the vendor's title before purchasing the property. But the defendant failed to do so. All these aspects create serious doubt regarding his bonafideness in purchasing such property. Similarly, the failure of DW2, who is none other than the son of vendor, to give the details of mode of acquisition of the suit schedule property by his father and non-reference of mode of acquisition of property by the vendor in Ex.B1, also create a doubt as to whether the said vendor Lingala Subbi Reddy really had salable right over the suit schedule property or property covered under Ex.B1-sale deed.
Thus, the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 is also not convincing with regard to the right of the defendant and his vendor over the suit schedule property.
19
35.When the plaintiffs have adduced an undisputed ancient document (Ex.A1) to prove their contentions and the same remained unrebutted and the defendant also impliedly admitted the flow of title over major portion of the property covered under Ex.A1, to the plaintiffs, the defendant has to prove that his vendor has better title than the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. But, the defendant failed to do so. Thus, in the light of the facts and principle of law in Maqbool Shaik’s case (cited supra) which are squarely applicable to this case, since the defendant failed to prove his vendor’s title, he would not get better title over the suit schedule property.
As such, in the light of the said decision, the court holds that the defendant cannot claim better title under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 or with the aid of Exs.B3 to
B6, than that of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
36.As far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiffs cannot stand on the weakness of the defence is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the said principle of law.
However, in the present case, the plaintiffs are able to establish the right and title of Chinna Subbanna over the suit schedule property and after demise of
Chinna Subbanna, their father Pedda Subbanna and Yerra Guntappa acquired the same, and subsequently, the suit schedule property and some other extent in the suit survey number fell to the share of Pedda Subbanna and after his demise, the plaintiffs acquired the same, as pleaded by them.
During cross-examination, the defendant also admitted those contentions in respect of land in an extent of Ac.32.92 cents in the suit survey number covered under Ex.A1, except in respect of the suit schedule property. But, the defendant failed to disprove the contention of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, which is also part and parcel of the land under the same sale deed(Ex.A1) and as to why he is contradicting the recitals of the said deed, only in respect of the said small extent(Ac.1.00cents) i.e., suit schedule property. So, it can not be said that the plaintiffs have just relied 20 upon the weakness of the defendant to prove his vendor’s title. Thus, the
Court finds no force in the said contention.
37. The learned counsel for the defendant further argued that suit
Sy.No.186 was already subdivided into two parts in the year 1923, as reflected in the Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and Ex.B2, but by suppressing the same, the plaintiffs filed the suit for wrongful gain. No doubt, the plaintiffs have shown suit survey number as 186, without sub division. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant, it is evident from Ex.B2 – true copy of resurvey and resettlement register, Ex.C2 Mandal Surveyor and Ex.C3 –
Surveyor plan as well as the evidence of CW1, that the entire extent of
Ac.33.92 cents in the suit survey number was sub divided into two parts viz.,
Sy.No.186-1 to an extent of Ac.32.92 cents and Sy.No.186-2 to an extent of
Ac.1.00 cents. But, the plaintiffs are able to establish the right and title of
Chinna Subbanna over the entire extent of suit survey number under Ex.A1, through whom they have been claiming the right and title. Though, the suit survey number is not specifically shown as Sy.No.186-2, the evidence of CW1 and his report (Ex.C1) clearly shows that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the land in suit survey number and CW1 also identified the land in an extent of Ac.1.00cents in Sy.no.186/2 as the suit schedule property, which is not disputed by either parties. So, the court is of the view that mere reference of Survey number as 186 in the schedule instead of Sy.No.186-2, itself could not be made as a ground to discard the entire case of the plaintiffs.
38.In view of the above discussion, the Court holds that the plaintiffs are able to establish that they have right and title over the suit schedule property and that the defendant is denying their title over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled for 21 declaration of their right and title over the suit schedule property.
Accordingly, the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
39. ISSUE No.2 and 3 :
The Issue No.2 and No.3 are answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are inter linked and inter related with each other :
In order to claim the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have to establish that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and that the defendant is trying to cause disturbance or interference in their possession, without any manner of right or interest.
40.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 as well as the admissions of the defendant clearly establishes that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiffs could not produce the revenue records, as the defendant created the fabricated documents and managed the revenue officials. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendant pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to produce revenue records by the plaintiffs and so, they are not entitled for permanent injunction.
41.To prove their possession, the plaintiffs relied upon the oral evidence
PW1 and PW2 which clinchingly reveals that the plaintiffs have been cultivating the suit schedule property, but no documentary evidence is adduced in that regard. On the other hand, the defendant relied upon his own evidence and adduced Exs.B3 to B6 to prove that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. But as discussed in Issue No1,
Ex.B3 – 1B extract and Ex.B4 – Adangal for fasli are related to the year 2019.
The defendant also admitted in his cross examination that he obtained those documents on 01.02.2019 i.e., seven years after filing of the suit. Thus, 22 those documents would not help the defendant to prove that he was in possession of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit.
42.On coming to the Ex.B5 – Tax receipt, dt.17.05.1994, it was elicited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the system of collection of tax on agricultural lands was abolished in the year 1993. So, the authenticity and genuineness of the said tax receipt issued by Village Administrative Officer, which is not counter signed by the higher competent authority, is doubtful.
More over, tax receipt would not help the defendant to prove his possession over the agricultural land. Similarly, the contents of Ex.B6 – pattadar passbook of B. Ramanjineyulu is also not proved by examining the said passbook holder or the issuing authority. So, the contents of Ex.B3 to B6 would help the defendant to prove his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, more particularly, as on the date of filing of the suit.
43.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the evidence of
CW1-advocate commissioner clearly shows that the defendant has been cultivating the paddy in the suit schedule property. As pointed out by him,
CW1 deposed during his cross examination that there was harvesting of paddy crop on the eastern side of the suit schedule property and there is orange garden on the western side of the suit schedule property and when he asked Talari Vetti, as to who harvested the paddy crop, Vetti told that one
Venkataswamy harvested it. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Ex.C1 – report reflects that the suit schedule property (Ac.1.00 cents) is under cultivation and paddy crop is already harvested in the said land. But there is no reference about the orange garden or about the persons, who harvested the said paddy. CW1 also clarified that he did not mention about the possessor / cultivator, as it was beyond the warrant. It is to be noted that the learned advocate commissioner was appointed to fix boundaries and to identify the suit schedule property, but not to gather 23 evidence about the details of the possessor / cultivator. As such, the facts elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant in the cross examination about the cultivator, cannot be relied upon. Moreover, CW1 inspected the suit schedule property on 25.08.2018 i.e., six years after filing of the suit.
Therefore, such observations or answers elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant with regard to the person, who had cultivated the suit schedule property, would not help the defendant to prove his possession over the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit.
44. On culmination of the entire evidence,there is no convincing documentary evidence with regard to possession of either the plaintiffs or the defendant over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit.
However, the plaintiffs got examined the nearby land owner i.e., PW2 to prove their possession. As discussed above, his evidence is totally corroborative to the version of plaintiffs with regard to their possession over the suit schedule property. As per the the evidence of PW2, he has to pass through the Rastha located by the side of the suit schedule property in order to reach his lands, which are situated near the suit schedule property. Even as per the suggestion given to PW2 by the learned counsel for the defendant,
PW2 has Ac.4.00 cents of land on the southern side of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.495 and 496 as reflected in his chief examination. PW2 was able to give all the details of the suit schedule property. Except putting suggestion that he, being the close friend of the plaintiffs, is deposing falsehood, which was denied by PW2, nothing was elicited to shake the credence of his testimony. As such, the evidence of PW1 is supported by unhindered evidence of independent witness regarding their possession over the suit schedule property. But, the defendant did not examine any neighbouring land owner or any independent witness or officials to prove that he was in possession in the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit.
24
45. In addition to these aspects, it is pertinent to note that indisputably,
Ex.A1 – certified copy of registered sale deed discloses that Chinna
Subbanna purchased the entire extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186 with specific boundaries and some other property in Sy.No.103. As adverted above, DW1(Defendant)categorically admitted that all the revenue records stand in the name of Chinna Subbanna (original owner / paternal uncle of the plaintiffs) in respect of the entire extent of Ac.33.92 cents in Sy.No.186. He did not dispute the observation of CW1 that the suit schedule property is located in survey number 186/2 which is part and parcel of the land in the suit survey number, which was subdivided as 186/1 and 186/2. Healso admitted that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the land in Ac.32.92 cents in Sy.No.186.Indisputably, the said remaining extent of Ac.32.92 cents in survey number 186/1, which is admittedly in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs is part and parcel of the land covered under sale deed dated 26.11.1903 (Ex.A1), under which the plaintiffs have been claiming title even over the suit schedule property.
Apparently, the land in survey number 186/2 in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents(suit schedule property) is also part and parcel of the land purchased by
Chinna Subbanna, under Ex.A1.In other words, the defendant is not disputing the right and possession of the plaintiffs over Ac.32.92 cents, which is part and parcel of land in suit survey number covered under Ex.A1, which was devolved upon them through Chinna Subbanna and Pedda Subbanna, but disputing their right and possession over small portion (the remaining extent) of Ac.1.00 cents i.e., suit schedule property, which is also part and parcel of land covered under Ex.A1. As referred above, the defendant failed to give convincing reason as to why he has been contradicting or disputing the recitals of Ex.A1 only in respect of the small portion of land covered under the said sale deed dated 26.11.1903 in the suit survey number i.e., suit schedule property. All these circumstances create serious suspicion over 25 the contention of the defendant with regard to his lawful possession over the suit schedule property.
46.As adverted above, the plaintiffs are able to establish the flow of their title and right over the suit schedule property. Under these circumstances and in the absence of convincing documentary evidence on both sides, the
Court holds that the evidence of PW1 supported by an independent witness i.e., PW2 and the above referred crucial admissions of the defendant are sufficient to presume that the plaintiffs, who are having valid title, are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The efforts of the defendant to establish his possession, by creating sale deed and revenue records, clearly show that he has been trying to cause interference and interruption to the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
47.In view of the above discussion, the Court holds that the plaintiffs are able to establish that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit and the defendant is trying to cause disturbance and interference into their possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering into their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Issue No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
48.ISSUE No.4 :
In view of the above discussion and findings in Issues No.1 to 3, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiffs in the following manner:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by declaring the
right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and
26
by granting permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his men
and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit schedule
property.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in Court through Video Conference, this the 29 th day of
May, 2020.
I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff : For Defendants :
PW1 : K. Adenna.DW1 : G. Venkataswami. PW2 :K. Uppara Adenna.DW2 : L. Obi Reddy.
Court Witness :
CW1 : M. Murali Mohan, advocate commissioner.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff :
Ex.A1:Certified copy of sale deed executed by Musaligadu in favour of Chinna Subbanna along with typed copy, dt.26.11.1903.
Ex.A2:Genealogy certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Kesavapuram Village, Garladinne Mandal, Anantapuramu District.
For Defendants : -
Ex.B1:Original registered sale deed executed by Lingala Subbireddy in favour of the defendant dated 10.01.1990.
Ex.B2:True copy of resettlement register issued by Tahsildar, Garladinne dt.09.04.2015.
Ex.B3:1B extract obtained from Mee-Seva (date is not visible).
Ex.B4:Adangal for fasli 1428 obtained from Mee-Seva dated 01.02.2019.
Ex.B5:Tax receipt dated 17.05.1994 (carbon copy).
Ex.B6:Pattadar passbook issued in the name of Ramanjimeyulu.
27
Court Documents
Ex.C1:Advocate Commissioner's Report dt.12.09.2018 along with plan supplied by the Mandal Surveyor.
Ex.C2:Report of Mandal Surveyor.
Ex.C3:Field map.
I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu