APCH060006832018 1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
TIRUPATI.
Present: Smt. G.ARCHANA,
IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPATI.
Wednesday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of March, 2026
O.S.No.172 of 2018
Between:
01. Thangam Subramanyam Reddy.
02. Thangam Somasekhar Reddy.
03. Thangam Harinatha Reddy.
04. Thangam Govindamma.
05. Somalapalli Suguna. ... Plaintiffs.
And:
01. P.Satyanarayana Reddy.
02. P.Sasidhar Reddy.
03. R.Lakshmi.
04. The Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal. … Defendants.
This suit came before me on 05.12.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri Vellore G.Ganesh, Advocate for the defendants 2 and 3; the suit against the 1st defendant is abated as he died; the 4th defendant remained ex-parte; and upon hearing on both sides and on perusal of entire material on record and having stood over for considering till this day, this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed for declaration of plaintiff’s right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property; for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property from interfering the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and the costs of the suit.
APCH060006832018 2
02. The brief averments of the plaint, are as follows:
The plaintiffs are the residents of Renigunta Agraharam
Village, Renigunta Mandal. They are the absolute owners and in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.471/1 in an extent
Ac.2.79 cents of Renigunta Agraharam Village Accounts of Renigunta
Mandal. It is their ancestral property. The total land in Sy.No.471 was
Ac.4.48 cents, originally belongs to Thangam Narayana Reddy and
Dasireddy Balarami Reddy as joint pattadars. Their names found place in Fair Adangal, which is a basic revenue record to show the title and ownership.
T.Narayana Reddy and Dasireddy Balarami Reddy subsequently got the joint patta split as per Revenue Laws. An extent of Ac.1.74 cents fell to the share of Dasireddy Balarami Reddy and Ac.2.74 cents fell to the share of T.Narayana Reddy. Thereafter, P.Balarami Reddy sold out his property in an extent of Ac.1.74 cents to others. The property of T.Narayana Reddy in an extent of Ac.2.74 cents was succeeded by his son T.Chenchurami Reddy, who has been in possession and enjoyment with absolute rights. Subsequently,
T.Chenchurami Reddy died and his estate was succeeded by the plaintiffs as his legal heirs.
After the demise of T.Chenchurami Reddy, the properties of their family got partitioned orally and an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in
Sy.No.471/1 was allotted to his son T.Somasekhar Reddy/2nd plaintiff and Ac.0.62 cents was allotted to the 1st plaintiff/T.Subramanyam
Reddy and remaining extent of Ac.1.05 cents has been kept in joint custody of plaintiffs for joint family usage.
Though T.Narayana Reddy and thereafter his son T.Chenchurami
Reddy passed away and property succeeded by the plaintiffs, in spite of repeated requests and representations, the Revenue Authorities failed
APCH060006832018 3 to mutate the plaintiffs’ names in revenue record and failed to discharge their legitimate duty. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 24.04.2018 to the 4th defendant to mutate their names. The 4th defendant has received the said notice, but neither gave any reply, nor they complied with the demand made by the plaintiffs.
The defendants 1 to 3 with an active collusion of 4th defendant, are lying hands over the plaint schedule property for illegal benefit and trying to mutate their names in Adangal illegally without having any right or possession over the plaint schedule property. On 10.07.2018 at 10.00 a.m., the defendants 1 to 3 finally made a futile attempt to trespass into the plaint schedule property with the help of supporters and tried to occupy the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs thwarted the illegal attempts with the help of neighbours. The defendants left the place by proclaiming that they will dispossess them with the help of some more supporters. Thus, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 07.05.2018 to defendants. The said notice was received by the defendants, but they did not give any reply to it.
The plaintiffs further submitted that to prove their ownership and title, they filed copy of Fair Adangal for Sy.No.471/1 for an extent of
Ac.4.48 cents with Khatha No.1049 in the name of T.Narayana Reddy and Dasireddy Balarami Reddy. A copy of Adangal obtained under
Right to Information Act and ‘mee-seva’ showing the name of
T.Narayana Reddy as pattadar, a copy of 1-B Namuna issued by ‘mee- seva’ showing T.Narayana Reddy as pattadar, FMB sketch for
Sy.No.471/1 for an extent of Ac.4.48 cents, discloses sub-division of land and sub-division as Sy.No.471/1E for an extent of Ac.1.05 cents.
All the documents clinchingly show that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in enjoyment it. In the above said circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot safe-guard the plaint schedule properties, except by
APCH060006832018 4 approaching the Hon'ble Court and obtain suitable relief. Hence, the plaintiffs are obliged to file this suit against the defendants. Hence, the suit.
03.After receipt of summons, the defendants 2 and 3 appeared
before this Court through their counsel and the 2nd defendant filed his
written statement, which was adopted by the 3rd defendant. During pending suit, the 1st defendant died. The 4th defendant remained ex-parte.
04. The brief averments of the written statement of the 2 nd defendant, adopted by the 3 rd defendant, are as follow:
They denied all the material allegation made in the plaint and submitted that there is no cause of action to the suit. The Court fee paid in the plaint is not correct. It is further submitted that originally, the property of an extent of Ac.0.61 cents out of Ac.4.48 cents in
Sy.No.471/1A along with other property were the ancestral property of
Desireddigari Krishna Reddy, S/o Varada Reddy and he along with his son D.Muni Reddy having succeeded and in possession and enjoyment of it with absolute rights. They jointly sold out the above said property with specific boundaries in favour of one P.Munuswamy, S/o Sirugumi
Ponnuswamy Panditara under a registered sale deed dated 15.11.1966, vide doc. No.3611 of 1966 for valid consideration duly delivered the possession of the same to him. Likewise, the said P.Munuswamy, S/o
Sirugumi Ponnuswamy Panditara also purchased the property of an extent of Ac.0.84 cents out of Ac.4.48 cents in Sy.No.471/1A with specific boundaries from his lawful vendors Ranga Reddy, S/o
Desireddigari Balarami Reddy, and his minor sons Thukaram Reddy and Desireddigari Kodandarami Reddy, rep., by their father Balaram
Reddy, being their ancestral property, under a registered sale deed
APCH060006832018 5
dated 04.12.1967 vide doc. No.3764 of 1967 for valid consideration duly
taking possession of the same on the same day.
Subsequently, P.Munuswamy, S/o Sirugumi Ponnuswamy
Panditara along with his son M.Jyothi Kumar jointly sold out Ac.1.22 cents with specific boundaries in Sy.No.471/1A under a registered sale deed dated 21.11.1983, vide doc. No.6631 of 1983 in favour of M/s. Tini
Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad, represented by its Director
P.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o P.V.Subba Reddy for valid consideration and delivered possession to them. M/s Tini Laboratories Private Limited
Hyderabad has purchased the property of an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in
Sy.No.471/1C with specific boundaries under a registered sale deed
dated 21.11.1983, vide doc. No.6630 of 1983 for valid consideration
from its lawful vendors Desireddigari Krishna Reddy, S/o Varada Reddy and his son D.Muni Reddy and obtained possession of the same. They purchased an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in Sy.No.471/1E with specific boundaries under a registered sale deed dated 21.11.1983, vide doc
No.6647 of 1983 from K.Bathi Reddy, S/o Kichilimani Kanna Reddy being his ancestral property and obtained possession from him on the same day. They purchased in an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in
Sy.No.471/1B with specific boundaries under a registered sale deed
dated 21.11.1983, vide doc. No.6656 of 1983 from Desireddigari
Balarami Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy and his two sons Thukaram Reddy and Kodandarami Reddy being their ancestral property and obtained possession from him on the same day.
They also purchased an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.471/3 and an extent of Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.471/4 with specific boundaries under a registered sale deed dated 21.11.1983, vide doc. No.6652 of 1983 from Ummireddi Munirathnamma, W/o Bodi Reddy and others as being their ancestral property and obtained possession from them on
APCH060006832018 6 the same day. They also purchased an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in
Sy.No.471/5 with specific boundaries under a registered sale deed
dated 21.11.1983, vide doc. No.6628 of 1983 from Kuppireddigari
Kanna Reddy, S/o Ramaswamy Reddy and others being their ancestral property and obtained possession from them on the same day. They also purchased an extent of Ac.0.44 cents out of Ac.1.92 cents in
Sy.No.469/3 with specific boundaries under a registered sale deed
dated 21.11.1983, vide doc. No.6649 of 1983 from Kalahasti
Venkatasubba Reddy, S/o Kandapa Reddy being his ancestral property and obtained possession from him on the same day.
Thus, the 2nd defendant acquired the properties stated supra including the plaint schedule property and extent thereon and since then, they have has been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties without any interruption or whatsoever and in recognition of their peaceful possession and enjoyment, mutations also effected in Revenue records, such as I-B extract and adangal/pahanis and the Revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbook and title deed under ROR Act. The fair adangal also standing in the name of the vendors' vendors' of the defendant.
Subsequently, M/s Tini Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad, represented by its Director P.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o P.V.Subba
Reddy sold out the property in an extent of Ac.4.98 cents including the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 28.08.1991, vide doc. No.3604 of 1991 to P.Sathyanaraya Reddy, P.Sasidhar Reddy and P.Lakshmi, W/o P.Suryanarayana Reddy i.e., defendants 1 to 3 for valid consideration and delivered possession of the same to them in joint and since the date of purchase, the defendants 1 to 3 (Suit abated against the 1 st defendant as per orders in I.A.No.141 of 2024, dated 08.05.2024) have been in continuous peaceful possession and
APCH060006832018 7 enjoyment of the properties acquired by them including the plaint schedule property and in recognition of their possession and enjoyment, mutations also effected in revenue records by the Revenue Authorities.
Thus, except the defendants 2 and 3 (Suit abated against the 1 st defendant as per orders in I.A.No.141 of 2024, dated 08.05.2024) as per I.A. No. 141 of 2024, dated 08-05-2024, none have any kind of right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and much less the plaintiffs.
It is further submitted that the Revenue Authorities also converted the plaint schedule property along with other properties from agricultural to non-agricultural land under its proceedings in D.Dis.D/614/2007,
dated 28.05.2007 after discrete enquiry, in the name of the defendants
1 to 3 being rightful owners. Hence, the defendants are in absolute peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption or whatsoever.
It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are utter strangers to the plaint schedule property and they have never been in possession and enjoyment over the same and they approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands by suppressing the real and material facts basing on fabricated and bogus documents and on this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by my Predecessor-in-Office for trial:
01. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the owners of
plaint schedule property or it was purchased by
the defendants 1 to 3 from their lawful vendors ?
02. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration
of title over plaint schedule property ?
03. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and
enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the
APCH060006832018 8
date of suit and whether defendants tried to
interfere with their possession ?
04. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for ?
05. To what relief?
06.During trial, the plaintiff got examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked the documentary evidence of Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11. The defendants got examined DW-1 to DW-3 and got marked the documentary evidence of Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-17. Ex.X-1 to Ex.X-3 got marked through DW-3 Tahsildar.
07.Heard both sides and perused entire material on record and written arguments filed by both the parties to the suit.
08. ISSUE No.1 and 2:
Since the present suit is filed for declaration of plaintiff’s right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property; for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property from interfering the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, the initial burden of proof is lies on the plaintiffs to prove their right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property by placing sufficient evidence.
09.On this aspect, the defence counsel has relied upon a judgment cited in Union of India Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing
Society Limited1, wherein, it is specifically held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that_ “It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.
12014 (2) SCC 269
APCH060006832018 9
The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited”. (Para No.12 and 15).
10.Thus, in proof of case of plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff is examined himself as PW-1 and he filed his evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint. He got marked documentary evidence of Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11.
Ex.A-1 is an endorsement of the Tahsildar, Renigunta issued under Right to Information Act vide RTI 72/2018, dated 16.05.2018 for the land in Sy.No.471/1 by issuing a copy of Adangal, Fair Adangal and
FMB and it is further stated that RoR and 1-B are not available in their office for the above said survey number, and 10 (1) account is not in force, so, it cannot be issued.
Ex.A-2 is the copy of the Fair Adangal issued under Right to
Information Act, dated 16.05.2018, wherein, the entry for land in
Sy.No.471/1 is not legible, but the name of Thangam Narayana Reddy,
S/o Kanna Reddy and Chinna Ramana Reddy, S/o Desireddigari Ranga
Reddy are appearing on it.
Ex.A-3 is the FMB sketch issued for Sy.No.471/1, dated 16.05.2018, though it shows a sub-division of Sy.No.471/1E, but the extent of it, is not shown,
Ex.A-4 is the copy of Adangal issued under Right to Information
Act, dated 16.05.2018 issued along with Ex.A-1 endorsement showing the land in Sy.No.471/1 stands in the name of Narayana Reddy as ‘pattadar’ and person in possession with a nature of property as ‘self- acquired’ with a total extent of Ac.4.48 cents, nature of land is mentioned as ‘Beedu’.
APCH060006832018 10
Ex.A-5 is the endorsement of the Tahsildar, Renigunta issued under Right to Information Act vide RTI 111/2018, dated 26.06.2018 for the land in Sy.No.471/1 by issuing copies of Adangals for fasli 1416 and 1417.
Ex.A-6 is the copy of Fair Adangal issued under Right to
Information Act along with Ex.A-5 for fasli 1416 and1417, dated 26.06.2018 showing the land in Sy.No.471/1 in an extent of Ac.4.48 cents is in the name of Narayana Reddy and the person in possession is Sidda Reddy.
Ex.A-7 is the copy of 1-B Namuna, dated 23.04.2018 stands in the name of Narayana Reddy for the land in Sy.No.471/1 in two items, one in an extent of Ac.1.74 cents and another is Ac.1.05 cents.
Ex.A-8 is the copy of Adangal for fasli 1427, dated 23.04.2018 issued by ‘mee-seva’ for the land in Sy.No.471/1 with a total extent
Ac.2.79 cents showing the name of Narayana Reddy as ‘pattadar’ and person in possession is P.Sathyanarayana Reddy, P.Sasidhar Reddy and Lakshmi in an extent of Ac.1.05 cents and Ac.1.74 cents.
Ex.A-9 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 07.05.2018 got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3 and Tahsildar,
Renigunta along with postal receipts, asking them to rectify the irregularity in deleting the name of plaintiffs and refrain to entertain any false and frivolous things from anybody for the land Sy.No.471/1 in an extent Ac.2.79 cents.
Ex.A-10 is the office copy of the legal notice, dated 24.04.2018 got issued by the plaintiffs to 4th defendant/Tahsildar, Renigunta for the very same purpose as in Ex.A-9. Ex.A-11 is the acknowledgment of the 4th defendant/ Tahsildar, Renigunta in proof of service of Ex.A-9 legal notice to defendants 1 to 3 and Tahsildar, Renigunta.
APCH060006832018 11
11.Besides the above documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence of PW-1, the plaintiffs have also got examined two independent witnesses by name Namala Venkatesh, as PW-2 and
S.Yashwanth Reddy, as PW-3. They too filed their evidence affidavits by reiterating the contents of the plaint.
12.Whereas, the defendants have denied the entire case of the plaintiffs and they claimed their independent right and title over the plaint schedule property by virtue of sale deed, dated 28.08.1991 vide doc No.3604/1991 stating that since the date of purchase, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the property purchased by them in the above said sale deed including the plaint schedule property were converted into agricultural to non- agricultural land under its proceedings in D.Dis.D/614/2007, dated 28.05.2007 after discrete enquiry, in the name of the defendants 1 to 3 being rightful owners. Hence, the defendants are in absolute peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption or whatsoever.
13.Thus, in support of their contention, the 2nd defendant is examined as DW-1. He filed his evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of their written statement and got marked documentary evidence of Ex.B-1 to B-17.
Ex.B-1 is the registered sale deed, dated 21.11.1983 vide Doc.
No.6647/1983 stands in the name of M/s. Tini Laboratories Private
Limited, Hyderabad rep., by its Managing Director P.Rama Krishna
Reddy, S/o P.V.Subba Reddy duly executed by Bathi Reddy, S/o Kanna
Reddy. Ex.B-2 is the registered sale deed, dated 28.08.1991 vide Doc.
No.3604/1991 stands in the name of Narayana Reddy, Sasidhar Reddy and R.Lakshmi duly executed by P.Rama Krishna Reddy, Managing
Director of M/s. Tini Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad. Ex.B-3 is
APCH060006832018 12 the encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/1E, dated 07.11.1983. Ex.B-4 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining the
Sy.No.471/5, dated 07.11.1983. Ex.B-5 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/3 and 4, dated 07.11.1983. Ex.B-6 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/1C, dated 07.11.1983. Ex.B-7 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining the
Sy.No.471/1A, dated 07.11.1983. Ex.B-8 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/18, dated 07.11.1983. Ex.B-9 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/5, 471/1C, 471/1A, 469/4A, 469/3A, 469/4B1, 471/1E, 471/3A, 471/4 and 471/1B for a period of three years i.e., 2011-2017 vide application No.422156, dated 26.05.2014. Ex.B-10 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining the
Sy.No.471/5, 471/1C, 471/1A, 469/4A, 469/3A, 469/4B1, 471/1E, 471/3A, 471/4 and 471/1B for a period of twenty-two years commencing from 24.03.1994 to 10.05.2016 vide application No.556990, dated 11.05.2016. Ex.B-11 is the Adangal Pahani pertaining to Sy.No.471/E,
dated 29.05.2018. Ex.B-12 is the 1-B Form issued by the Tahsildar,
Renigunta, dated 29.05.2018. Ex.B-13 is the 10 (1) Account pertaining to Sy.No.471/1B, 471/1E and 471/5 issued by the Village Administrative
Officer, dated 11.01.2002. Ex.B-14 is the Adangal Pahani pertaining to
Sy.No.471/1A, 469/3 issued by the Village Administrative Officer, dated 11.01.2002. Ex.B-15 is the Adangal Pahani pertaining to Sy.No.469/4B, 471/3, 471/4, 471/1C, 469/4A issued by the Village Administrative
Officer, dated 11.01.2002. Ex.B-16 is the Adangal Pahani pertaining to
Sy.No.471/1B, 471/1E, 471/5 issued by the Village Administrative
Officer, dated 11.01.2002. Ex.B-17 is the Land Use certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati with regard to conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture, dated 28.05.2007.
APCH060006832018 13
14.They got examined one of the independent witnesses by name K.Munirathnam, as DW-2. He filed his affidavit by stating that to his knowledge, the father of defendants P.Ramakrishna Reddy, during his life time, had purchased the properties from lawful vendors and later, transferred the same in favour of defendants. The father of defendants died, leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. At present, the disputed property is in the name of defendant and they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. All revenue records are mutated in their names. The land was kept vacant, because it was converted into non-agricultural land vide proceedings issued in the name of 3rd defendant with the consent of other defendants.
15.The defendants have got summoned the Tahsildar,
Renigunta for cause production of Fair Adangal, 1-B Namuna, Adangal
Pahani pertaining to Sy.No.471/1A, 471/1B, 471/1C, 471/3, 471/4, 471/1E and 471/5 situated at R.Agraharam Village, No.7 Karakambadi
Group of Renigunta Sub District and to give evidence. Tahsildar,
Renigunta is examined as DW-3. DW-3 has produced photocopy of
Fair Adangal, Volume-III for Sy.No.341 to 520 for Karakambadi Group of Renigunta Agraharam village accounts, Renigunta mandal. He stated that he does not know what happened to the original Fair Adandal, the photo copy is only available in their office. He brought printed copy of
No.3 adangal bearing print dated 12.03.2023 for fasli 1432 bearing
SL.No.885 for Sy.No.471/1E stands in the name of P.Sasidhar Reddy,
S/o P.Ramakrishna Reddy for an extent of Ac.1.05 cents with Khata
No.395 and nature of property was shown as ‘purchased’. He has no idea whether it is agriculture land or non-agriculture land. The attested copy of No.3 adangal with SL.No.885 is marked as Ex.X-1(Subject to objection that it is not enclosed with certificate required under Section
APCH060006832018 14 65-B of Indian Evidence Act). He further stated that as per
G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 22.02.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.209, dated 14.06.2017, their office can maintain the downloaded copy of Fair Adangal and No.3
Adangal and they need not to maintain manual record. He does not know when the land in Sy.No.471/1E was sub-divided. As per manual
No.3 Adangal for fasli 1420, 1416 and 1417, the land in Sy.No.471/1 in an extent of Ac.4.48 cents stand in the name of Narayana Reddy and person-in-possession is M.Sidda Reddy. The nature of land is stated as "Beedu". The attested copy of No.3 Adangal for fasli 1420 is marked as
Ex.X-2. The attested copy of No.3 adangal for fasali No.1416 and 1417 is marked as Ex.X-3.
16.Since the suit is filed for declaration of plaintiffs’ title over the plaint schedule property with specific survey number mentioned as
Sy.No.471/1E in an extent of Ac.1.05 cents, and in view of the specific claim of the defendants over the plaint schedule property by filing the above said documents, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiffs to prove their title. It is the case of the plaintiffs that originally, the land in
Sy.No.471/1 is given to their grandfather P.Narayana Reddy and
P.Balarami Reddy under joint patta for the land in an extent of Ac.4.48 cents, which was subsequently sub divided and in an extent of Ac.1.74 cents fell to the share of P.Balarami Reddy and Ac.2.74 cents fell to the share of P.Narayana Reddy. An extent of Ac.1.74 cents was subsequently sold out by P.Balarami Reddy and the land of P.Narayana
Reddy was succeeded by his son Chenchurami Reddy, on his death.
Thereafter, on the death of Chenchurami Reddy, it was succeeded by the plaintiffs. The case of plaintiffs silent as to when Narayana Reddy and Chenchurami Reddy died. No piece of evidence is filed to show that they are the successors of Narayana Reddy and thereafter,
Chenchurami Reddy. Admittedly, no family member certificate or legal
APCH060006832018 15 heirs’ certificate, are filed by the plaintiffs into the Court. Even there is no whisper about the above said certificates obtained by the plaintiff, anywhere in the plaint or in the oral evidence of PW-1, but quiet surprisingly, PW-3 stated that he had seen family member certificate or legal heirs’ certificate issued to Sasidhar Reddy, which is not the case of the plaintiffs or the defendants.
17.It is further stated that after the demise of Chenchurami
Reddy, the properties of their family partitioned orally, and an extent of
Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.No.471/1 was allotted to the 2nd plaintiff and Ac.0.62 cents were allowed to the 1st plaintiff and the remaining extent of
Ac.1.05 cents were kept in joint custody of the plaintiffs for their joint family usage. In this case, as already stated that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 have filed their chief examination affidavits by reiterating the contents of the plaint. PW-1 to PW-3 were cross examined by the defence counsel at length in the line of their defence taken in the written statement and also in connecting to the stand taken by the plaintiffs. More particularly, in respect of partition, in plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that after the demise of Chenchurami Reddy, oral partition held in their family, as stated above. But during cross examination, PW-1 simply denied the same by saying that the property was not partitioned between him and his siblings. PW-2 stated that he does not know the date of oral partition, which is mentioned in his evidence affidavit, but according to him, the oral partition was held two or three years prior to filing of the suit. PW-3 stated that he does not know the partition of Ac.4.48 cents, but according to him, the entire extent of Ac.4.48 cents stand in the name of Narayana Reddy.
18.According to the case of the plaintiffs, initially, joint patta issued in the name of Narayana Reddy and Balarami Reddy, was subsequently split out. When it was split out is silent, what happened to
APCH060006832018 16 that split pattas, is also silent. But quiet surprisingly, PW-3 stated in his cross examination stated that he had seen the split patta in the year 2016 or 2017 stands in the name of Narayana Reddy. When he was asked when Narayana Reddy died and what was his age, on the date of his death, he simply placed ignorance, by saying that he does not know.
He further stated that even on this day, the total extent of Ac.4.48 cents are stands in the name of Narayana Reddy in Fair Adangal. But he does not know about 1-B Namuna. According to him, the names of
Kanna Reddy and Narayana Reddy are mentioned in Fair Adangal. In further cross examination, he stated that as on date, the plaint schedule property is an agricultural land. When such type of evidence of PW-3 is read with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, it shows that PW-1 and
PW-2 categorically admitted in their evidence that the total extent of
Sy.No.471/1E stands in the name of Sasidhar Reddy. The entire revenue record for the plaint schedule property, is stands in the name of the defendants. Though the plaintiffs are claiming the land in
Sy.No.471/1E, but PW-1 himself admitted that the land in Sy.No.471/1 is sub-divided as Sy.No.471/1E, but he has no idea that the land was sub-divided prior to 2007, which is quiet contrary to his own evidence stating that Sy.No.471/1E was sub-divided in the year 2018. PW-2 also categorically admitted that at present 1-B Namuna and Adangal in respect of plaint schedule property, is stands in the name of defendant.
The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 clearly discloses that they have no knowledge about the plaint schedule property or its survey number and relating revenue records. When they were cross examined by saying that the plaint schedule property is converted into non-agricultural land, they simply placed ignorance, by saying that they do not know that it was converted into non-agricultural land.
APCH060006832018 17
19.It is a specific objection raised by the defendants that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and the cause of action mentioned in the plaint, is not correct. No incident of interference by the defendants 1 to 3 caused on 10.07.2018. On this aspect, the defence counsel has relied upon a judgment cited in Bajranglal Agarwal Vs.
Smt.Susheela Agarwal and others2, wherein, the term and the requirement of ‘cause of action’ to the suit is explained by the Hon’ble
High Court of Telangana in Para No.25, that_ “The expression “Cause of Action” has been described to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support the plaintiff’s right to judgment. In other words, cause of action consists of a bundle of material facts which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed. For ascertaining cause of action, the averments made in the plaint must be read in its entirety - and not in isolation - and must be held to be correct. Simply put, the plaintiff must prove its case on the averments made in the plaint and further the relief claimed must have a real nexus with the cause of action pleaded”.
20.To prove their contention, the defendants’ counsel cross examined PW-1 and elicited that on the date of filing of suit i.e., on 18.07.2018, the 1st defendant was already died. PW-1 further stated that the 2nd defendant only interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In spite of that the present suit is filed against all the defendants 1 to 3 with an allegation that all of them have come to the plaint schedule property on 10.07.2018 and interfered with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and while leaving the plaint schedule property, they also proclaimed that they will dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. Thus, the above said admissions made by PW-1 itself falsifies the case of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the suit was filed and the legal notice was issued to the defendants, after 2CCCA No.62 of 2024 of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana
APCH060006832018 18 the demise of the 1st defendant. So, in that case, it clearly shows that the ‘cause of action’ mentioned in the plaint, is not correct.
21.Whereas, the defendants have placed sufficient evidence in support of their contention by filing Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-17 besides the admissions made by the plaintiffs that the revenue record in respect of the plaint schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiffs. They had also filed the oral evidence of DW-1 to DW-3, all the three witnesses were cross examined by the plaintiffs at length in connection with the land in Sy.No.471/1A, Sy.No.471/1B, Sy.No.471/3, Sy.No.471/4 and Sy.No.471/5, whereas, the plaint schedule property is situated in
Sy.No.471/1E. At the same time, DW-1 was also cross examined on
Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-17, but nothing material is elicited out to disprove the case of defendants, or to substantiate their claim. It was suggested to
DW-1 that those documents are created one. DW-3, who is Tahsildar got summoned by the defendants, has also clearly stated that the land in Sy.No.471/1E is stands in the name of Sasidhar Reddy for an extent of Ac.1.05 cents vide Khatha No.395. Even during cross examination of
DW-3, the plaintiffs failed to elicit that the plaint schedule property is stands in their name. Thus, the entire case of the plaintiffs is based on revenue record without connecting themselves with the persons, whose names are recorded in the revenue record. It is well settled principle of law that the revenue records are not meant for declaration of title or in proof of the title of the person, but it is meant for limited purpose for collecting the land revenue from the persons in possession of the property.
22.Similar view is held in the judgment cited in Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Financial Commissioner and others3, wherein, the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that_ 32007 (6) SCC 186
APCH060006832018 19 “It is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose' i.e., payment of land- revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries”.
Thus, the dictum laid down in the above cited judgment read with the present set of facts in hand, wherein, the entire case of the plaintiffs is based on the revenue record only, clearly shows that the claim of the plaintiffs to declare their title over the plaint schedule property, is not maintainable. Accordingly, the issue No.1 and 2 are answered.
23. ISSUE No.3 and 4:
In this case, besides the title, the plaintiffs are claiming their possession over the plaint schedule property and sought for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Even to prove the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, except the revenue record and the oral evidence of
PW-1 to PW-3, nothing is placed by them to prove their physical possession over the plaint schedule property. Even the revenue records filed by them are stands in the name of Narayana Reddy or in the name of 2nd defendant. So, it clearly shows that the plaintiffs have also failed to prove their possession over the plaint schedule property.
24.Here the specific arguments submitted by the plaintiffs are that the revenue records are mutated in the names of defendants 1 to 3 in respect of plaint schedule property unauthorizedly and entire stress is given on Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-4 stating that still, the name of Narayana
Reddy is mentioned in Fair Adangal, which is basic record for all the subsequent revenue records and they relied upon judgments cited in
APCH060006832018 20
Singam Venkateswara Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh4, decided on 24th January, 2024, Adiyaram Venkateswarulu Vs. The
State of Andhra Pradesh5, decided on 29th January, 2024 and Nune
Rajeswari Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh6, decided on 20th March, 2024. In all the above writ petitions are filed on the grievance that the
Tahsildar concerned has without issuing any notice to the petitioners or any other interested person as required under Rule-9 (1) (c) (ii) of the
A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbook Rules, has kept the land in question in the dispute register. But the fact dealt with in the above cited writ petitions and the fact in hand in this suit, are totally different.
Even otherwise, no piece of evidence is filed by the plaintiffs to bring themselves in the definition of interested person to the plaint schedule property to expect any notice to them under Rule-9 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P.
Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbook Rules. As such, the above cited judgments are not applicable to the present set of facts in hand.
25.Thus, in view of the above discussed circumstances, it shows that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction, as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue No.3 and 4 are answered.
26. ISSUE No.5:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 11th day of March, 2026.
Sd/- G.Archana
IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
TIRUPATI.
4W.P.No.198 of 2024 5W.P.Nos.902, 908, 910, 912 and 914 of 2024 6W.P.No.27409 of 2023
APCH060006832018 21
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for Plaintiffs: Defendants:
PW-1 : Thangam Subramanyam.DW-1 : P.Sasidhar Reddy. PW-2 : Namala Venkatesh.DW-2 : K.Munirathnam. PW-3 : S.Yaswanth Reddy.DW-3 : V.Suresh Babu, Tahsildar.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiffs:
Ex.A-1:Endorsement of the Tahsildar, Renigunta issued under Right to Information Act vide RTI 72/2018, dated 16.05.2018 for the land in Sy.No.471/1.
Ex.A-2:Copy of the Fair Adangal issued under Right to Information Act, dated 16.05.2018.
Ex.A-3:FMB sketch issued for Sy.No.471/1, dated 16.05.2018.
Ex.A-4:Copy of Adangal issued under Right to Information Act,
dated 16.05.2018 issued along with Ex.A-1 endorsement
showing the land in Sy.No.471/1 stands in the name of Narayana Reddy.
Ex.A-5:Endorsement of the Tahsildar, Renigunta issued under Right to Information Act vide RTI 111/2018, dated 26.06.2018 for the land in Sy.No.471/1 by issuing copies of Adangals for fasli 1416 and 1417.
Ex.A-6:Copy of Fair Adangal issued under Right to Information Act along with Ex.A-5 for fasli 1416 and1417, dated 26.06.2018 showing the land in Sy.No.471/1 in an extent of Ac.4.48 cents.
Ex.A-7:Copy of 1-B Namuna, dated 23.04.2018 stands in the name of Narayana Reddy for the land in Sy.No.471/1 in two items, one in an extent of Ac.1.74 cents and another is Ac.1.05 cents.
Ex.A-8:Copy of Adangal for fasli 1427, dated 23.04.2018 issued by ‘mee-seva’ for the land in Sy.No.471/1 with a total extent Ac.2.79 cents showing the name of Narayana Reddy as ‘pattadar’.
APCH060006832018 22
Ex.A-9:Office copy of legal notice, dated 07.05.2018 got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3 and Tahsildar, Renigunta along with postal receipts.
Ex.A-10:Office copy of the legal notice, dated 24.04.2018 got issued by the plaintiffs to 4th defendant/Tahsildar, Renigunta.
Ex.A-11:Acknowledgment of the 4th defendant/ Tahsildar, Renigunta in proof of service of Ex.A-9 legal notice to defendants 1 to 3 and Tahsildar, Renigunta.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants:
Ex.B-1:Registered sale deed, dated 21.11.1983 vide Doc. No.6647/1983 stands in the name of M/s. Tini Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad rep., by its Managing Director P.Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o P.V.Subba Reddy duly executed by Bathi Reddy, S/o Kanna Reddy.
Ex.B-2:Registered sale deed, dated 28.08.1991 vide Doc. No.3604/1991 stands in the name of Narayana Reddy, Sasidhar Reddy and R.Lakshmi duly executed by P.Rama Krishna Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. Tini Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad
Ex.B-3:Encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/1E, dated 07.11.1983.
Ex.B-4:Encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/5, dated 07.11.1983
Ex.B-5:Encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/3 and 4,
dated 07.11.1983.
Ex.B-6:Encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/1C, dated 07.11.1983.
Ex.B-7:Encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/1A, dated 07.11.1983.
Ex.B-8:Encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/18, dated 07.11.1983.
APCH060006832018 23
Ex.B-9:Encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/5, 471/1C, 471/1A, 469/4A, 469/3A, 469/4B1, 471/1E, 471/3A, 471/4 and 471/1B for a period of three years i.e., 2011-2017 vide application No.422156, dated 26.05.2014.
Ex.B-10:Encumbrance certificate pertaining the Sy.No.471/5, 471/1C, 471/1A, 469/4A, 469/3A, 469/4B1, 471/1E, 471/3A, 471/4 and 471/1B for a period of twenty-two years commencing from 24.03.1994 to 10.05.2016 vide application No.556990,
dated 11.05.2016.
Ex.B-11:Adangal Pahani pertaining to Sy.No.471/E, dated 29.05.2018.
Ex.B-12:1-B Form issued by the Tahsildar, Renigunta, dated 29.05.2018.
Ex.B-13:10 (1) Account pertaining to Sy.No.471/1B, 471/1E and 471/5 issued by the Village Administrative Officer, dated 11.01.2002.
Ex.B-14:Adangal Pahani pertaining to Sy.No.471/1A, 469/3 issued by the Village Administrative Officer, dated 11.01.2002.
Ex.B-15:Adangal Pahani pertaining to Sy.No.469/4B, 471/3, 471/4, 471/1C, 469/4A issued by the Village Administrative Officer,
dated 11.01.2002
Ex.B-16:Adangal Pahani pertaining to Sy.No.471/1B, 471/1E, 471/5 issued by the Village Administrative Officer, dated 11.01.2002.
Ex.B-17:Land Use certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati with regard to conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture, dated 28.05.2007.
Id/- GA
IV ADJ,
TPT.