1
IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT MAHABUBABAD
Present :G. Anil Kiran Kumar, VI Addl. District Judge, Mahabubabad.
Friday 7 th Day of May, 2019
AS. No. 62 of 2007
(Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule.1 of Civil Procedure Code) Between:
1. Kamagoni Ramchandraih (Died)
2. Chaganti Uppalaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Hindu, Age: 40 years,
3. Bussarapu Bixapathi (Died)
4. Kamagonti Iylaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Hindu, Age:36 yrs,
5. Banothu Laxman, S/o.Narsaiah, Hindu, Age: 38 yrs,
6. Kore Mallaiah, S/o.Gottumallu, Hindu, Age: 38 yrs,
7. Are Iylaiah (Died)
8. Thumma Chandra Reddy (Died)
All are agriculturists and R/o.Gajulagattu village, Gudur Mandal, Warangal District .… Appellants AND
1. The State of A.P. Rep.by Collector, Warangal District
2. Forest Range Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal District
3. The Forester, Nagaram, Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District …. Respondents
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
2
Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated : 07.02.2007 in
O.S.No.57/1987 delivered by Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet.
O.S.No.57 of 1987
Between:-
1. Kamagoni Ramchandraih (Died)
2. Chaganti Uppalaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Hindu, Age: 40 years,
3. Bussarapu Bixapathi (Died)
4. Kamagonti Iylaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Hindu, Age:36 yrs,
5. Banothu Laxman, S/o.Narsaiah, Hindu, Age: 38 yrs,
6. Kore Mallaiah, S/o.Gottumallu, Hindu, Age: 38 yrs,
7. Are Iylaiah (Died)
8. Thumma Chandra Reddy (Died)
All are agriculturists and R/o.Gajulagattu village,
Gudur Mandal, Warangal District ......Plaintiffs
A N D
1. The State of A.P. Represented by Dist Collector, Warangal District
2. Forest Range Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal District
3. The Forester, Nagaram, Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District
...Defendants
This Appeal Suit is coming before me on 04/06/2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sathi Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri G.Yadagiri, Learned Government Pleader representing Respondents upon perusing the grounds of appeal and material records of lower Court and hearing the arguments of the said advocates, the matter is having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
3
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The appellants herein are the plaintiff whereas the Respondents herein are the defendant in the suit. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellants only. The present appeal suit is filed seeking this Court to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated : 07/02/2007 in O.S.No.57/1987 delivered by Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet and grant permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants and their agents restraining their illegal interference over the suit schedule property. For the convenience sake, the parties herein are referred with their respective names before the Trial Court.
The case of the Plaintiffs:
2. The plaintiffs and the persons mentioned in the list appended to the plaint are residents of Gajulagattu village. They are cultivating the suit land from their forefathers. Originally, the suit land and some other lands belong to one Sri. Nayini Kishan Rao. The said Kishan rao was the Ijaradar of the four villages of erstwhile Pakhal taluk. They are: Bollepalli, Rajanpalli, Gajulagattu and Teegalaveni. As per the Deserted villages Act of 1292 Fasli, the Ijaradar let out his lands to one Smt Naiyni Laxmi Bai on individual basis for thirty years. The terms of the lease are common in nature and were allowed on different dates during 1292 Fasli. Smt.Nayini Laxmi Bai died and on Sri N.Venkata Ranga Rao was her legal representative. After expiry of Ijaradar period, the terms of Ijaradar ascertained to have been complied and according to the terms of Ijaradar, the under mentioned lands in the villages were let out as patta in the name of Ijaradar. They are: 1. Bollepally village. Ac.1,965-31 gts; 2. Rajanpally village. Ac.1,783-06 gts;3. Gajulagattu village. Ac.2.131-04 gts.
3. It is further averred that the Forest Department disputed the patta of the Ijaradar. As such, the Ijaradar field a petition before the Hon’ble Minister for forest during the year 1951-52. Thereupon a compromise was arrived between forest department and Ijaradar on dt:19/07/1985. As a result, it was ordered that the lands of N.Venkata Rao to an extent of Acre:3,158:090 guntas was declared as reserved forest whereas land to an extent of Acre:1036:00 guntas was declared as non-reserved forest area. Thus, an extent of Acre:2,058:00 guntas land was deleted from the patta of N.Venkata Rao and included in the Reserve Forest of the Government. The
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
4 patta of the remaining extent of Ac.1100-00 guntas and and an extent of Acre: 1036-00 gts non-reserve forest allowed in the name of N.Venkata Ranga Rao. The same was given to his actual possession and enjoyment and there should be no interference on it from the side of the Forest department. In pursuance of these orders, the Conservator Forest, Government of Hyderabad by way of his letter dt.9.3.1952 instructed N.Venkata Rao to meet the Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal for implementation of the above Minister’s order.
4. That the villagers of Gajulagattu and other villages were grazing their cattle on behalf of Ijaradar over the above land (including suit lands) prior to the decision of the forest Minister. The same was never objected by the Forest department. Subsequent to the above stated compromise between the Ijaradar and the Government, the villagers of these four villages used to face great hardship for grazing their cattle and also to have the lands for cultivation purpose. Hence, they propose to purchase an extent of Acre:1100:00 guntas of land allotted to the Ijaradar. Accordingly, Sri N.Venkat Rao who is the Ijaradar of Ac.1100-00 gts sold the entire land to villagers in the year 1952 itself, were already enjoying possession over the lands. Prior to 1952 and after 1952 till this day, the Forest Department never objected the movement of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The possession of the plaintiff and enjoyment is to the knowledge of the Forest Department. The plaintiffs due to their financial difficulties did not bring the entire land under cultivation immediately but slowly they brought the land under cultivation according to their convenience.
5. It is further averred that the Conservator of Forests Warangal vide Lr.No.2534/60/M dt. 5.1.1967 requested the Revenue authorities to cancel the patta of Ijaradar. For the reason, the lands were never put in actual possession after the settlement of the Ijar terms as per S.3 of Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Ijara Kowli lands cancellation of Irregular pattas and Abolition of Concession of Assessment Act 1961. Accordingly, the Tahasildar issued notice to the Ijaradar under the S.3 of the said Act and cancelled the patta of the villages of Bollepalli, Rajanpally and Gajulagattu.
6. In response to the said action of the Tahasildhar, the Ijaradar filed an appeal before the R.D.O., Mahabubabad against the orders of the then Tahasildar, Pakhal. The RDO., Mahabubabad by orders dt.4.4.1985 allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Tahsildar, Pakhal and remanded
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
5 the matter for fresh inquiry according to the law. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur after the giving notice to both the parties passed orders again on 19.7.1985 in Rc.No.A/883/85 holding that the plaintiffs and others are in possession of Ac.1100-00 guntas of Ijaradar. Thus the plaintiffs are enjoying the possession over the suit lands from the year 1952 exclusively till this day and the plaintiffs have excavated wells over the suit land and have been raising commercial crops through the well water.
7. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 didn't prefer any appeal against the orders of the R.D.O, Mahabubabad or M.R.O.,Gudur. But, they started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land on the allegations that the suit land is a part and parcel of the reserve forest area. That on date: 6.9.1987, the defendants Nos.2 and 3 tried to spoil the crops raised by the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs apprehend that they cannot continue their possession without the aid and assistance of the Court. Hence, the suit.
The case of the Defendants:
8. That the D2 & D3 alone filed written statement. The same was adopted by the D1. The written statement is specific denial of entire plaint averments.
9. It was averred that it was false to state that the plaintiffs were cultivating the suit lands from their forefathers. In fact, the suit land is full of bushes and forest growth and it is uncultivable one.
10. It was averred that the description of the suit land given in the plaint schedule and map is absolutely incorrect and it is not in accordance with provisions of Civil Procedure Code.
11. It is also false to state that plaintiffs are been in possession of the suit lands from 1952 till the date of suit.
12. It was averred that as per the suit village map, the entire suit land and other lands are recorded and shown as “Masoora” (Forest Area). As a matter of fact, the entire suit lands as well as other lands were included in the proposed Reserve block of Naikpalli. Infact, a notification Under S.7 of Hyderabad Forest Act corresponding to S.4 of A.P. forest Act was issued. The same was published in G.O.No.563 and 564 dt.18.7.1345 F published in Gazette No.30 dt.6.8.1345F. Hence, it was pleaded that once the land is
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
6 included in the reserve forest area, the grievance if any of the plaintiffs shall be agitated before the Forest Settlement Officer. But not before the Civil Court in view of bar under S.5 of A.P. Forest Act.
13. It is clear from the relevant provisions of the Forest Act that no legal rights would accrue in respect of forest land in favour of any person whom- so-ever. It was averred that by the year 1952 itself, the suit lands were declared as reserved forest area.
14. The plaintiffs did not disclose how and in what manner they acquired the interest in the suit lands and from whom the possession was obtained by them.
15. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit lands on the date of filing of the suit. On the other hand, it is the Forest Department which is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the entire suit land as it was declared as reserve forest area and it is full of forest grown.
16. It is also averred that grazing of cattle by the villagers is freely allowed in all the forest land and the villagers might be using the proposed reserve forest area for grazing purpose for which the forest officials never do any objection nor would have any objection at any time. As such, it doesn’t ispso fact doesn’t create any rights in favour of any person whatsoever.
17. The averments of the plaintiffs that they have raised crops and excavated the wells in the suit land is false.
18. It is further averred that the forest is National wealth and none of the citizens have any right to meddle with.
19. That the 2nd defendant filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad against the orders of Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur. The same is under consideration.
20. The plaintiff’s including those in the appended list shall show their separate and distinctive portion of the land over which they are claiming right. Accordingly, they shall value the suit and pay the separate Court fee. Hence, the suit is bad improper and under valuation of suit claim and non- payment of proper court fee.
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
7
21. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the trial Court. Thus the issues settled are also common.
1) Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession over the entire suit lands, if so, whether they are entitled to get the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants ?
2) Whether the suit relief is under valued?
3) Whether either of the parties are entitled for any other reliefs? If so, to what extent?
22. The following additional issues were framed during the course of trial:
1) Whether the suit is maintainable without mentioning the extent of land in possession of each of the plaintiffs and persons interested?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as per S.5 of A.P. Forest Act?
EVIDENCE ON RECORD:
23. That the plaintiffs in proof of their case examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. PW1 is K.Ramchandraiah (Plaintiff No.1); PW2 is K.Keshava Raju (Clerk of Naiyini Gopala Krishna Reddy); PW3 is Rama Laxma Reddy (Patwari of suit village); PW4 is G.Anjaneyulu (Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet) PW5 is T.Ramaswamy, (Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur). Ex.A1 is Certified Copy of order dt.19.7.1985 passed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur; Ex.A2 is the true copy of the appeal filed by D2 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad.
24. The defendants in proof its case examined DW1 and DW2 and marked Ex.B1 to B14. DW1 is G.Satyanarayana, Asst. Conservator of Forest; DW2 is K.V. Narsimha Rao, advocate (Commissioner). Ex.B1 is the C.C. of the Gazette dt. 1345F; Ex.B2 is the English translation of the said gazette, Ex.B3 is the map of Warangal District, Ex.B4 is the copy of proceedings dt.29.7.1967 of Tahsildar, Narsampet; Ex.B5 to B10 are the C.C’s of the pahanies for the year 1960-61, 1665-66, 1970-71, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1987-88; Exs. B11 and B12 are the village maps of Gajulagattu village. Ex.B13 is the proceedings of the Spl.Collector, S.R.S.P Canal, dt.7.5.1994; Ex.B14 is the letter in Rc.No.8439/52/1989 of Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal.
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
8
25. Ex.C1 to C3 marked through Advocate Commissioner. Exs. C1 and C2 are the reports of the Commissioner and Ex.C3 is the rough sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner.
26. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Nos.1,3,7 and 8 died and the suit in respect of the said plaintiffs was abated. The suit continued in respect of plaintiff Nos. 2,4,5 and 6.
27. That the trial court upon duly conducting full-fledged trial dismissed the suit on merits. The basis for the trial Court Judgment and Decree was due to following reasons. They are like this: 1.That the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate subject matter under controversy in view of bar under S.5 of the A.P Forest Act.
2. The suit is not maintainable without mentioning the extent of land in possession of each of the plaintiffs and persons interested. 3.The Plaintiffs failed to establish their lawful possession over the suit property.
4. The suit is undervalued and court fee paid is improper.
28.The appellants by way of this appeal seriously assailed the above reasons on multiple grounds. They are like this:
1. The Court failed to examine the material on record in a right perspective.
2. The judgment and decree under appeal is against law and facts.
29. No additional evidence is adduced on either side.
30. Heard arguments on either side.
31. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are –
1. Whether the suit is maintainable without mentioning the extent of land in possession of each of the plaintiffs and persons interested.
2. Whether the suit is undervalued and court fee paid is improper?
3. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate subject matter under controversy?
4. Whether the Plaintiffs establish their lawful possession over the suit property as on the date of filing the suit. If yes, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of perpetual injunction, as prayed for?
5. Whether the judgment and decree, under appeal, required to be interfered with? 6. To what relief?
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
9
POINT NO.1:
32. The Plaintiffs claim of possession over the suit lands is by virtue of written sales caused by erstwhile owner. For the entire suit land, four sale deeds were executed in favour of the villagers in the year 1954 A.D. The same got testified through the mouth of PW1 & PW2. However, the plaint pleadings and testimonies on record didn’t say either the boundaries or extent of land held by the each plaintiff and person interested. Thus, there is no ascertainable and identifiable portion of land held by each of the plaintiff and person in interested over which they are said to be in possession. As such, it was argued by learned government pleader that the plaint is not maintainable in its present form. On the other hand, it was argued by plaintiff counsel that it is not necessary in a representative suit.
33. It must be noted that in the present representative suit, the grievance and interest is common. The common grievance and interest is alleged illegal interference by the respondents herein. But, such common interest arouse out of their individual right over a distinctive piece of land held by each of the plaintiff and persons interested. As such, plaintiff seeking relief of injunction against their alleged common encroacher, shall necessarily mention the extent of land and specific location and identify it with necessary boundaries. But, it was not done. Hence, the suit in its present form is not maintainable and accordingly the finding caused by the trial court holds goods. Hence, this point is answered against the plaintiffs.
POINT NO.2:
34. It can be seen from the plaint that the plaintiffs valued the relief sought as of Rs.2000/- and paid Court fee of Rs.186/- U/s 26 (c) A.P.C.F & S.V. Act. It must be noted that when each of the plaintiff sought the relief of interference against the respondent though they have common interest, the relief should be valued individually and pay the separate court fee accordingly. But, same was not done. Hence, the opinion rendered by the trial court on the issue that the valuation of suit and payment of Court fee is not proper and correct is tenable. Hence, Point no.2 is answered against the plaintiffs.
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
10
POINT NO.3 & 4:
35. Admittedly, the suit filed is injunction simplicitor so as to restrain a third party from interference into a suit schedule immovable property. Hence, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited in nature. In other words, the duty of the Court is to ascertain the plaintiff’s right of possession with reasonable certainty if not with an unimpeacheable title. But not to undertake an all encompassing and comprehensive inquiry and thereby decide the title. Of course, though title can be looked into, it’s only as incidental measure. Thus, it is only a matter of verification so as to confirm the right of possession.
36. To put it clearly, when the defendant to the suit sets up his own title and it is premised on a legally recognized instrument of conveyance or any other equally recognized manner of right viz., inheritance, a cloud is said to have been caused on the title of the plaintiff. In such scenario, the court shall not determine the title of the plaintiff and thereby adjudicate the claim caused in a suit for injunction simplicitor. Instead, the plaintiff shall go for a comprehensive suit for declaration title and the consequential relief of injunction. In case, he is out of possession, the plaintiff shall necessarily file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. This was the authoritative proposition and guidance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors : AIR2008SC2033 at para 11 to 14. For ready reference, it is ideal to extract relevant paras:
“11. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
11 not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
13. In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as for example an agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.
14. But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.”
37. In the light of the settled proposition of law, let us examine the case of the parties on either side. Admittedly, the claim of the plaintiffs and the persons interested is by virtue of four written sale deeds. The same was also testified through the mouth of PW1 & PW2. On the other hand, the suit survey numbers are named as forest land as per village revenue map and revenue records vide Ex.B1 to Ex.10.
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
12
38. The burden to prove the case lies on the plaintiff. It is a fact admitted that the said sale deeds are not filed before the court. The plaint also failed to give any account about the very elements of sale so as to constitute that there was a transfer of ownership in favour of the plaintiffs and person interested. In other words, plaint didn’t say the date of sale, quantum of sale consideration, transfer of ownership, delivery of possession. Furthermore, there is no single piece of revenue record indicating the entry of name of the plaintiffs and persons in interested or their alleged predecessors-in-title at any point of time as possessors of the suit lands.
39. In contrast to the same, defendants marked Ex.B1 to E.B10. Ex.B1 is the C.C of the Gazette notification and the Ex.B2 is the translation of the same. Thus, the suit survey numbers were declared as forest land. The village revenue maps which were marked as Ex.B11 & Ex.B12 also testify that suit survey numbers as forest land. Similarly, the Phani of the year 1960-61; 1965-66; 1970-71; 1980-81; 1985-86; 1987-88 also testify that suit survey numbers as forest land. As per Ex.B1, the suit lands were declared as reserve forest by Government of Nizam as per S.7 of Forest Act vide Gazette Notification No.563 and 564 in the year 1345 Fasli (1945 A.D).
40. It was also argued that there was no attempt from the side of the plaintiffs and person interested so as to challenge the correctness of these entries. In such a scenario, this court is under an obligation to presume their correctness as they are public records. Moreover, when a fact is reduced in writing by way of sale, this court is prevented to act upon oral evidence of PW’s in view of bar under S.91 & 92 of Evidence Act.
41. It well settled legal principle that in a suit for possession, such possession shall be shown including on the date of filing of the suit. But, in the present case, plaintiffs failed to produce any document showing their possession with the aid of any authenticate document especially as on the date of filing the suit right from 1964 to till date. The only document plaintiffs are harping upon is Ex.A1. It’s a document wherein the name of certain persons were recorded as cultivators. But the said Ex.A1 didn’t say that plaintiffs and persons interested are in possession of the suit lands as on the date of filing the suit. It was argued by learned Government pleader that the land covered under Ex.A1 is pertaining to Bollepally village but not Gajulagatta village. PW4 also admitted that Ex.A1 orders are pertaining to Bollepally village but not Gajulagattu. This Court perused the Ex.A1
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
13 document and thereby it found that apart from Bollepally village it is also relating to Gajulagattu village. But, the said Ex.A1 did not say the specific Survey numbers in the Gajulagattu, the villagers are cultivating.
42. It was admitted by PW4 (Revenue Divisional Officer) that the revenue authorities have no authority either to include or delete any forest land (either proposed or reserved). As such, it was argued that Ex.A1 order passed by MRO is contrary to law. It was argued that the said order doesn’t make any reference to the revenue proceedings existing till date. In other words, when the revenue record say suit lands are forest without giving a specific finding by stating that such entry in revenue record is an outcome of either fraud or mistake, passing Ex.A1 is illegal and bad. On the top of it, when the revenue record clearly state that it’s a forest land, passing order by way of Ex.A1 without notice to the forest authorities is against law. Even other wise, the said order is under challenge before the R.D.O., Mahabubabad by way of Ex.A2.
43. Thus, Ex.A1 no aid to the case of Plaintiffs and persons interested so as to opine anything about the possession of the plaintiffs and person interested over the suit property as on the date of filing the suit.
44. All in all, the above discussion amply boils down to a scenario, the title of the plaintiff and person interested over the suit property suffers from certain apparent defects. The title set up by the defendants against the plaintiffs and person interested is not a mere denial of title. They are not mere interloper or stranger to the suit property. The defense gives details about their right over the property and it is supported by relevant documents. To put it otherwise, a primafacie right was shown against the suit property by the defendants (forest). Though, the plaintiff claim their title they didn’t make any effort to challenge the Ex.B1 to Ex.12 documents. Thus, a clear cloud is casted against the title of the plaintiff. As such, addressing or venturing into answer the contentions raised by parties on about the plaintiffs and person interested ownership and possession over the suit property is nothing but out-stepping the jurisdiction not vested in a court called upon to a adjudicate lis of injunction simplicitor. It’s an act of transgressing the limits set out by Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra while deciding a suit for injunction simplicitor. Hence, this Court opines that a serious cloud is cast upon the title of plaintiffs and person interested. As
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
14 such, it is not within the realm of this Court to adjudicate the claim caused by plaintiffs and person interested in a suit for injunction.
45. It was contended by the learned Government Pleader that suit lands are declared as forest area. As such, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. According to him, though under the Forest Act, there is no express bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but the provisions under Chapter II by its implication bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. For the reason that if we read the provisions of Section 3, 4 & 5 of the Forest Act, it clearly empowers the State Government for declaring an area to be reserved forest by way of issuance of notification in this regard and after a notification is issued, all rights over the said property vests with the State Government unless a permission is granted in this regard by the State Government.
46. It was further contended that if at all the plaintiffs had any dispute, they ought to have approached the Forest Settlement Officer as per the provisions of the Forest Act and then should have got the dispute redressed and if thereafter any further grievance still remains on the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer could be subjected under challenge. But not by way of present suit.
47. In sum, the bottom line of the Government pleader argument is that once a particular land is proposed to be declare as forest land or declared as a forest land, the civil court has no jurisdiction. As there is no quarrel from the side of the Plaintiffs abut the due existence Ex.B1 to B12 public documents and as such this Court is under legal obligation to presume them as true and correct and thereby opine that the suit lands come under the category either as land declared as forest or proposed to be declared as forest. As such, on careful perusal of provisions of Forest Act, this court opines that a suit for injunction simplictor is absolutely not maintainable and the right to redress grievance if any by the plaintiffs and person interested is
before some other forum. Hence, this Court opines that it is not within the
realm of this Court to adjudicate the claim caused by the plaintiffs and person interested in a suit for injunction and thereby answer the point No.3 & 4 sought for determination. Accordingly, this court opines that finding caused by the trial court on these points holds good and doesn’t require any interference by this court.
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.
15
POINT NO.5:
48. In view of above findings at the Point No.1 to 4, the appeal is dismissed without costs by confirming the Judgment and Decree dt: 07/02/2007 in O.S.No.57/1987 delivered by Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet. Hence, Judgement and decree under appeal doesn’t require any sort interference by this Court. Point answered accordingly in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs and persons interested.
POINT NO.6:
49. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed without costs by confirming the Judgment and Decree dt: 07/02/2007 in O.S.No.57/1987 delivered by Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet. (Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07/06 /2019) (Sd/-G. Anil Kiran Kumar)
VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD.
::Appendix of Evidence:: Witnesses Examined --NIL-- (Sd/- G.Anil Kiran Kumar)
VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD
AS.No.62 of 2007 VI Addl Dist Judge, Mahabubabad.