Page 1 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR
PRESENT: J. SYAM KUMAR
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR.
O.S.NO. 388 OF 2014
(Old O.S No. 36 of 1996 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge, at Suryapet) (Old O.S No. 170 of 2005 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge, at Miryalaguda) (Old O.S No. 93 of 2009 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge, at Miryalaguda)
(Monday, this the 21 st day of April, 2025)
BETWEEN:
1.Nellutla Durga Bhavani W/o. Laxman Rao, Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Hyderabad.
2.Revuri Ranga Rao Died per his L.Rs Plaintiff Nos. 16 to 18
3.Revuri Narsinga Rao S/o. Kishan Rao, Age: 30 Yrs, R/o. Ramapuram.
4.Nellutla Vijaya Laxmi, W/o. Ramachander Rao, Age: 42 Yrs, R/o. Koonoor.
5.Munnanuri Usha Rani, W/o. Rama Rao, Age: 36 Yrs, R/o. H.No. 4-5-174, Karimnagar.
6.Revuri Hymavathi W/o.Kishan Rao, Age: 55 Yrs, R/o. Ramapuram, H/o. Ravuru, Mellachervu mandal.
7.Revuri Ranga Rao, S/o. Sunder Rao, Age: 37 Yrs,
8.Revuri Uma Maheshwer Rao, S/o. Sunder Rao, Age: 36 Yrs,
9.Revuri Sitarama Rao, S/o. Sunder Rao (died per LRS 19 to 21)
10.Revuri Jagan Mohan Rao S/o. Sunder Rao, Age: 32 Yrs.
11. Revuri Sreenivasa Rao S/o. Sunder Rao, Age: 21 Yrs, All are R/o. Ramapuram village, H/o. Revuru Village, Mellachervu mandal.
12. Kondapally Rajya Laxmi, W/o. Satyanarayana Rao – (died per LRS Plaintiff Nos. 22 and 23)
13. Pulipaka Shailaja, W/o. P.V.N. Sharma, Age: 24 Yrs, R/o. Seetharamapuram village.
14. Narapuraju Ranganayakamma, W/o. Narsinga Rao, Age: 72 Yrs.
15. Revuri Annapurnamma, W/o. Sunder Rama Rao, Age: 60 Yrs, Both R/o. Ramapuram, H/o. Revuru village of Mellachervu mandal.
16. Revuri Ram Kishan S/o. Late Ranga Rao, aged 36 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o. Ramapuram village of Melachervu revenue mandal of Suryapet district.
17. Revuri Lalitha W/o. Late Ranga Rao, Age: 59 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Ramapuram village of Melacheru revenue mandal of Suryapet district.
S C J
Page 2 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
18. Rajya Lakshmi W/o. Shashanth (D/o. Late Ranga Rao), Age: 37 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Ramapuram village of Mellacheru revenue mandal of Suryapet district. (Plaintiff nos. 16 to P18 are added as LR of deceased Plaintiff No. 2 vide Orders in I.A.No.62/2021 Dt: 23-11-2021)
19. Revuri Srilaxmi, W/o. Late Revuri Sita Rama Rao, Age: 54 Yrs., Occ: Household, R/o. Jaggayyapeta, NTR District.
20. Vemula Jyothirmai, W/o. Sandeep, Age 35 Yrs., Occ: Household, R/o. Jaggayyapeta, NTR District.
21. Padakaluri Aparna, W/o. Mallesh, Age 33 Yrs., Occ: Household, R/o. Jaggayyapeta, NTR District. (Plaintiff Nos. 19 to P21 are added as LR of deceased Plaintiff No. 19 vide Orders in I.A.No.131/2024 Dt: 01-05-2024)
22. Kondapally Ram Chandar Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana Rao, Age 53 Yrs., Occ: Employee, R/o. Both residing Jaggayyapeta and Hyderabad.
23. Kondapally Durga Prasad, S/o. Satyanarayana Rao, Age 49 Yrs., Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. Jaggayyapeta, NTR District. (Plaintiff Nos. 22 and 23 are added as L.R of deceased Plaintiff No.12 vide orders in I.A.No.202/2024 Dt: 10-09-2024)
…..Plaintiffs
A N D
1.Zuari Cements Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman
2. Nalajala Seethamma, W/o. Lakshmaiah (Died per LRS.)
3.Samineni Nageshwara Rao, S/o. Venkaiah
4. Samineni Sheshaiah, S/o. Venkaiah
5. Samineni Vishwanatham, S/o. Venkaiah
6. Samineni Seetharamaiah, S/o. Venkaiah
7. Samineni Jagannadham, S/o. Venkaiah
8. Parityala Swarajyam, W/o. Ramaiah, (Died per LRs 219 to 223) All are Agriculturists, R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal.
9. Mallela Venkayamma, W/o. Narsaiah, Occ: Household, R/o. Redlakunta, Kodad mandal.
10. Thummala Venkaiah, S/o. Perumandlaiah, Age: 70 Yrs.
11. Polu Ramaiah, S/o. Appaiah, Age: 70 Yrs.
12. Pasupeleti Narsaiah, S/o. Hanumanthaiah, Age: 50 Yrs, All are Agriculturists R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
13. Sheik Bade Sheb (Died per LR D-16 who is already on record)
14. Ravilla Lingaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
15.Oruganti Venkat Rao, S/o. Chinna Veeraiah, Age: 40 Yrs, Both are agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
S C J
Page 3 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
16. Shaik Lal Miya, S/o. Chand Saheb (Died per L.R D-13)
17. Kopuri Ramaiah, S/o. Thirupathaiah, Age: 40 Yrs.
18. Pasupuleti Narayana, S/o. Buchaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
19. Pasupuleti Nageshwara Rao (Died per L.Rs D-130 to D-133)
20. Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Butchaiah, Age: 35 Yrs, All are Agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
21. Thota Ramulamma, W/o. Pitchaiah, Age: 45 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kolleru, Bellamkonda mandal, Guntur Dist.
22. Polisetti Kishtaiah S/o. Govindaiah, Age: 70 Yrs,
23.Muthineni Bikshmaiah, S/o. Kistaiah, Age: 65 Yrs.
24. Haremasa Saidaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 58 Yrs.
25. Amaraboina Achaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
26. Narla Laxmaiah, S/o. Mattaiah (Died)
27. Jagine Gopaiah, S/o. Pochaiah (Died)
28. Jagine Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Sheshaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
29.Sathuluri Narsaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
30.Kode Seethamma, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: 60 Yrs.
31.Sadam Aitham Raju, S/o. Thirupathaiah, Age: 60 Yrs.
32.Ravilla Rama Rao, S/o. Lingaiah, Age: 65 Yrs.
33. Sadam Veeraswamy, S/o. Latchaiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
34. Yaragorla Jattaiah, S/o. Latchaiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
35.Sadam Nageshwara Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, Age: 40 Yrs, All are agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal
36.Gayam Narsi Reddy, S/o. Seetharama Reddy, Age: 50 Yrs, Occ: Advocate, R/o. Huzurnagar.
37.Rama Seetha, W/o. Rukma Reddy, Age: 55 Yrs, Occ: Household.
38. Ramatulasamma, W/o. Sai Reddy, Age: 35 Yrs, Occ: Household.
39. Chinta Vijaya, W/o. Appi Reddy, Age: 30 Yrs.
40. Pankanti Ranganayakamma, W/o. Appi Reddy, Age: 45 Yrs, All C/o. Gayam Narsi Reddy, Advocate, Huzurnagar.
41. Ravilla Narsimha, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
42. Haramasa Bikshmaiah (Died per L.Rs D-134 & 135)
43. Nerella Ramaiah, S/o. Appaiah, Age: 40 Yrs.
44. Yeragorla Shambaiah, S/o. Lingaiah, Age: 62 Yrs.
45. Ganta Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
46.Yeragorla Babaiah, S/o. Latchaiah. Age: 65 Yrs.
47. Nettem Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Pedakotaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
48.Ravilla Sitharamaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Age: 54 Yrs.
49. Jangala Pullaiah (Died per L.Rs D-136 to 138).
S C J
Page 4 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
50. Sadam Saidamma, W/o. Veeraiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
51.Todeti Mallaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
52. Juneboina Ramaiah, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age: 75 Yrs.
53. Bhutham Yalamandaiah, S/o. Subbaiah, Age: 55 Yrs
54.Bhutham Mallaiah, S/o. Subbaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
55. Bhutham Satyamaiah, S/o. Subbaiah, Age: 50 Yrs
56.Bhutham Purnachander Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 35 Yrs.
57.Pasupuleti Bixamaiah, S/o. Hanumaiah, Age: 23 Yrs.
58. Pasupuleti Lachamma, W/o. Hanumaiah. Age: 65 Yrs.
59.Gude Seetharavamma, W/o. Mouleswer Rao, Age: 45 Yrs.
60. Mutyam Appamma, W/o. Bixamaiah, Age: 48 Yrs.
61. Inturi Appa Rao, S/o. Pullaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
62.Narla Keshavaiah, S/o. Narsaiah (Died)
63.Narla Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chandraiah (Died)
64. Nettem Kashaiah, S/o. Yelarmandaiah. Age: 55 Yrs.
65. Nettem Seetharamaiah, S/o. Bhadraiah, Age: 50 Yrs, All are Agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
66. Bandi Veeramma, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: 48 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Bandipalem village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.
67. Kotal Narayanamma, W/o. Krishnaiah, Age: 45 Yrs, Household, R/o. Redlakunta village, Kodad mandal.
68. Nettem Chinakotaiah
69. Nettem Pedakotaiah, S/o. Janaiah, Age: 70 Yrs.
70.Oruganti Laxminarayana, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
71. Pasupuleti Adinarayana (Died per LRs D-139 & 140)
72. Pentyala Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 65 Yrs.
73. Thummala Thulasamma, W/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: 60 Yrs, All are Agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
74. Neelavelli Thirupathamma, W/o. Kotaiah, Age: 58 yrs, Household, R/o. Chinnamodugupalli, Vastavai mandal, Krishna Dist.
75. Muttavarapu Narayanamma (Died per L.Rs D-141 to 146)
76. Thatha Udayamma, W/o. Bixamaiah, Age: 45 Yrs, Household, R/o. Pindiprolu village, Thirumalayapalem mandal, Khammam Dist.
77.Rayalla Krishnamma, W/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: 45 Yrs, Household, R/o. Kodad village & mandal, Nalgonda Dist
78.Unnam Devamma, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: 78 Yrs.
79.P. Polaiah, S/o. Papaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
80.Yarakalapudi Ramaiah (Die per L.Rs D-147 to 153)
S C J
Page 5 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
81.Yarakalapudi Saidaiah, S/o. Yadaiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
82.Yarakalapudi Kotaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
83. Yarakalapudi Seetharamaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
84.Panga Veeraiah, S/o. Chinakashaiah, Age: 70 Yrs All are Agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
85.Bhadramma, W/o. Sangaiah, Age: 40 Yrs, Household, R/o. Gandrai village, Joggaiahpet mandal, Krishna district.
86.Bhutham Srinivasa Rao, S/o. China Veeraiah, Age: 25 Yrs.
87. Gunda Satyanarayana (Died per L.Rs D-154 to 159)
88.Manchani Guravareddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, Age: 35 Yrs.
89.Manchani Venkata Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy, Age: 28 Yrs
90. Manchani Seethamma W/o. Rami Reddy, Age: 55 Yrs
91. Poreddy Narayanamma (Died per L.Rs. D-160 to 162) 92 Poreddy Bhadramma, W/o. Narsi Reddy, Age: 36 Yrs, All are Agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
93.Mudela Rajyam, W/o. Veera Reddy, Age: 34 Yrs, Household, R/o. Reballi village, Mellachervu mandal.
94. Sareddy Guravamma, W/o. Venkateshwara Reddy, Age: 32 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Morampalli Bazar, Bhurgampahad mandal, Khammam Dist.
95.Ummineni Appa Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 60 Yrs.
96.Kode Ramanarsaiah, S/o. Chinnaiah, Age: 60 Yrs.
97.Jagini Seetharamaiah, S/o. Gopaiah, Age: 60 Yrs.
98.Jagini Kantha Rao, S/o. Gopaiah, Age: 48 Yrs.
99.Jagini Venkata Rao, S/o. Gopaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
100.Suri Narsamma, W/o. Narsaiah, Age: 40 Yrs.
101.Pamuluri Atchuta Rao, S/o. China Ramaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
102.Pamuluri Nageswara Rao, S/o. China Ramaiah, Age: 48 yrs.
103. Pamuluri Satyanarayana, S/o. China Ranaiah, Age: 46 Yrs, All are Agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
104.Nalajala Swarajyam, W/o. Ramanadham, Age: 52 Yrs, Household, R/o. Chandarlabadu village, Krishna Dist.
105.Gudi Laxmamma
106.Javvaji Thirupathaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 75 Yrs.
107.Javvaji Ravi, S/o. Nayudaiah, Age: 20 Yrs.
108.Javvaji Laxmamma, W/o. Nayudaiah, Age: 60 Yrs.
109.Mutthineni Jaganmohan Rao, S/o. Pedakotaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
110.Vippakuntla Seethamma (Died per L.Rs. D-163 to 171)
111.Pavuluri Appa Rao, S/o. Peda Ramaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
S C J
Page 6 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
112.Varuganti Bixmaiah, S/o. China Veeraiah, Age: 75 Yrs.
113.Putta Narsaiah (Died per L.Rs D-172 to 175)
114.Mutthineni Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Kistaiah, Age: 65 Yrs.
115.Javvaji Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Venkataiah, Age: 65 Yrs.
116.Jagini Saidaiah (Died per L.Rs. D-176 & 177)
117.Pasupuleti Shambhaiah, S/o. Thirupathaiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
118.Pasupuleti Veeraiah, S/o. Thirupaupati Age: 50 Yrs
119.Pasupuleti Venkata Rao, S/o. Thirupathaiah, Age: 35 Yrs
120.Mundra Narayana, S/o. Kistaiah (died)
121.Kode Chennaiah, S/o. Veeraiah (Died)
122.A. Mujakar Rao, S/o. Latchaiah, Age: 35 Yrs
123.Vattikonda Venkaiah, S/o. Seethaith, Age: 35 Yrs, All are Agriculturists, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
124.Chityala Thirupathaiah, S/o. Janakiramaiah, Age: 55 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Jaggaiahpet village and mandal.
125. Pamuluri Satyanarayana, S/o. China Ramaiah, Age: 50 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
126.Nelavelli Krishna Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinamodugupalem village, Vatsavai mandal.
127. Nelavelli Durga Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Age: 36 Yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o. Babu Camp, 4th line, Bhadrachalam-Kothagudem mandal, Khammam dist.
128.Pentyala Nagamani, W/o. Venkateshwara Rao, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
129. Kommineni Seethamahalaxmi, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Occ: Milk Business, R/o. Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna Dist.
130. Pasupuleti Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Age: 24 Yrs.
131. Pasupuleti Narasimha Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Age: 23 Yrs.
132. Pasupuleti Ramesh, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Age: 19 Yrs.
133. Pasupuleti Bhadramma, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Age: 45 Yrs, All are Agriculturists, R/o. Jerripothulagudem village, Chilukuru mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
134. Haramasa Narsaiah, S/o. Bixamaiah, Age: 75 Yrs, Agriculture, R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal.
135.Muttavarapu Thulisamma, W/o. Pullaiah, Age: 70 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Kapugallu village, Kodad mandal.
136.Jangala Ushaiah, S/o. Pullaiah, Age: 33 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal.
S C J
Page 7 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
137.Potu Sridevi, W/o. Pitchaiah, Age: 25 Yrs, Household, R/o. Dondapadu village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
138. Puttapaka Savitramma, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Age: 22 Yrs, Household, R/o. Chennarigudem, Chilukur mandal.
139. Pasupuleti Rama Rao, S/o. Adinarayana, Age: 35 Yrs, Agril, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
140. Pasupuleti Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Adinarayana, Age: 30 Yrs, Agril, R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal.
141.Muttavarupu Anasuyamma, W/o. Ambarisham, Age: 45 Yrs, Household, Kapugallu village, Kodad mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
142. Vemulapalli Sunitha, W/o. Ravichandra, Age: 25 Yrs, Household, R/o. Govt. Hospital line, Kodad village, Nalgonda Dist.
143. Kolli Anitha, W/o. Vijayakumar, Age: 22 Yrs, Household, C/o. Muttavarapu Anasuyamma, W/o. Ambarisham, Kapugallu, Kodad Mandal Nalgonda Dist.
144.Unnam Prameela Devi, W/o. Venkateshwar Rao, Age: 40 Yrs, Household, Kapugallu village, Kodad mandal.
145. Ravella Krishna Kumari W/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: 38 Yrs, Household, Kodad village and mandal.
146. Tata Udayamma, W/o. Bixamaiah, Age: 35 Yrs, Household, Pindiprolu, Thirumalayapalem mandal, Khammam Dist.
147. Yerukalapudi Samrajyam, W/o. Ramaiah, Age: 60 Yrs.
148. Yerukalapudi Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 40 Yrs.
149. Yerukalapudi Gopaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 38 Yrs.
150. Yerukalapudi Saidulu, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 35 Yrs.
151. Basaboina Badramma, W/o. Bhadraiah, Age: 42 Yrs, All are R/o. Revuru, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
152. Jonnalagadda Aruna, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: 25 Yrs, Household, Ganugubanda village, Garidepalli mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
153. Panga Anjali, W/o. Ramaiah, Age: 19 Yrs, R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
154. Gunda Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Satyanaryana, Age: 32 Yrs.
155. Gunda Laxminarayanavaraprasada Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Age:28 Yrs
156. Gunda Susheela, D/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 25 Yrs.
157. Gunda Hanumayamma, D/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 22 Yrs, All are R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
158. Oruganti Kameshwaramma, W/o. Pulla Rao, Age: 26 Yrs, Household, Vellaturu village, Mellachervu mandal.
S C J
Page 8 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
159. Kottha Swarajyam, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Age: 24 Yrs, Household, Burugadda village, Huzurnagar mandal,
160. Poreddy Saida Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Age: 30 Yrs.
161.Poreddy Saidi Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Age: 29 Yrs, Both are R/o. Dondapadu village, Mellachervu mandal,
162. Poreddy Navab Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Age: 26 Yrs, Agriculture, R/o. Mellachervu village and mandal
163. Vippakuntla Subbamına, W/o. Narsi Reddy, Age: 45 Yrs.
164. Vippakuntla Srinivasa Redy, S/o. Narsi Reddy, Age: 33 Yrs.
165. Vippakuntla Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy, Age: 32 Yrs
166.Vippakuntla Laxma Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy
167.Vippakuntla Veera Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy
168. Vippakuntla Ravi Reddy S/o. Narapa Reddy, Age: 35 Yrs, All are R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
169. Panagalla Sathyavathi, W/o. Venkateshwara Reddy, Age: 25 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Pakani Nagar, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna Dist.
170. Madira Laxmi, W/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 22 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Dondapadu village, Mellachervu mandal.
171.Vuyyuri Krishna Kumari, W/o. Venkateshwara Reddy, Age: 25 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.5-100/1. Sitharampuram street, Jaggaiahpet post and mandal, Krishna Dist.
172. Putta Sivakeshava, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Employee, C/o. Ganta Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Kodad.
173. Putta Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 35 Yrs, Occ: Employee, C/o. Sri. Vasavi Pigments, Dhaniyala Appaiah, Kakinada.
174. Ganta Damayanthi, W/o. Venkateshwara Rao, Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Household, Vidhyadharapuram, R.T.C., Apartments, Vijayawada.
175. Ganta Laxmi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Age: 24 yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Rythupet, Nandigama village and mandal, Krishna Dist.
176. Jagini Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 50 Yrs, Agriculture, R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
177. Jagini Hanumaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 55 Yrs, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Kallagadda Bazar, Kodad town and mandal.
178. Jagini Seetharamaiah, S/o. Gopaiah, Age: 35 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
179. Jagini Venkat Ramaiah, S/o. Gopaiah, Age: 38 Yrs, Occ: VCL Employee R/o. Dondapadu village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
180. Jagini Narsamma, W/o. Narsimha Rao, Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Revuru village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
S C J
Page 9 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
181. Nelavelli Krishna Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Age: 45 Yrs, R/o. Pedamodugupalli village, Chilikallu, via Vatsavai mandal, Krishna Dist.
182. Nelavelli Durga Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Age: 43 Yrs, R/o. N.K.Nagar, C/o. Bikkasani Nageswara Rao, Babu Campus Colony, D.No. 5-1-30, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist.
183. Komminei Seethamaha Lakshmi. Wo: Srinivasa Rao, Age: 38 Yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. Shanthinagar, Jaggaiahpet Post.
184. Pentyala Nagamani, W/o. Venkalistara Rao, Age: 35 Yrs, R/o. Revoor Post, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
185. Pasupuleti Venkata Rao, S/o. Thirupathaiah, Age: 35 Yrs, Occ: VCL Hospital Employee, R/o. Dondapadu village, Mellachervu Mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
186. Vattikunta Narayana, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture.
187. Vattikunta Kondaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 35, Occ: Agriculture.
188. Vattikunta Ramaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 32 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture.
189. Vattikunta Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 30 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture.
190. Vattikunta Seetharamaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 38 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture All are R/o. Karampudi village, Guntur Dist.
191. Nalajala Kankaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
192.Kankanala Nagamani, W/o. Appa Rao Age: 40 Yrs, Both are R/o. Yerraram village, Kodad mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
193. Ballari Sujatha, W/o. China Rangaiah, Age: 35 Yrs, R/o. Dorakunta village, Kodad mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
194. Naidu Annapurna, W/o. Pitchaiah, Age: 30 Yrs, R/o. Yeturu Post, Nalgonda Dist.
195.Narla China Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Laxmaiah, Age: 40 Yrs.,
196. Thummala Pitchamma, D/o. Laxmaiah, Age: 42 Yrs, Both are R/o. Revoor village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
197.Jagini Venkatramaiah, S/o. Gopaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
198. Jagini Seetharamaiah S/o. Gopaiah, Age: 45 Yrs, Both are R/o. Revoor village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
199. Jagini Kantha Rao, S/o. Gopaiah, Age: 40 Yrs, R/o. Vishnu Cements Ltd. Dondapadu, Mellachervu, Nalgonda Dist.
200. Jagini Narsamma D/o. Gopaiah, Age: 42 Yrs, R/o. Revoor village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
201. Narla Narsaiah, S/o. Keshavaiah, Age: 55 Yrs.
202. Narla Papa Rao, S/o. Keshavaiah, Age: 50 Yrs.
203. Narla Muddi Ramaiah, S/o. Keshavaiah, Age: 45 Yrs.
S C J
Page 10 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
204. Gorre Seethamma, W/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: 40 Yrs, All are R/o. Revoor village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
205. Narla Rama Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age: 40 yrs.
206. Narla Seetharamulu, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: 35 Yrs, Both are R/o. Revoor village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
207. Mundra Narsimha Rao, S/o. Narayana, Age: 55 Yrs.
208. Mundra Ramaiah, S/o. Narayana, Age: 50 Yrs, Both are R/o. Rythupeta, Near Mokkapati Venkateswara Rao, Ex-M.L.A., Nandigama, Krishna Dist.
209. Mudra Bhaskar Rao. S/o. Narayana, Age: 47 Yrs, R/o. Near Raghavaiah Park, Opp: Vijayawada Seeds Shop, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.
210. Mudra Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Narayana, Age: 45 Yrs, R/o. Sahara, Quarters, Vanastalipuram, Hyderabad.
211. Mallela Prabhavathi, W/o. Babu, Age: 43 Yrs.
212. Mallela Hanumayamma, C/o. Babu, Age: 40 Yrs. Both are R/o. Redlakunta village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
213.Kode Suryanarayana, S/o. Chennaiah, Age: 60 Yrs.
214. Kode Raghava Rao, S/o. Chennaiah, Age: 55 Yrs. Both are R/o. Revoor village, Mellachervu mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
215. Ganta Laxmi, W/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 53 Yrs, R/o. Gowtham Nagar Boinapally, Secunderabad.
216.Koti Rajyalaxmi, W/o. Venkateshwara Rao, Age: 50 Yrs, R/o. Kattukasaram village, Nelakondapalli (M), Khammam Dist.
217. Kanaparthi Radhamma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, Age: 48 Yrs, R/o. Gandrai Post, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna Dist.
218. Kondi Veerasree, W/o. Stalin, Age: 40 Yrs, R/o. Opp: Little Angels School, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna Dist.
219.Pentyala Venkateshwarlu
220.Pentyala Papa Rao
221. Pentyala Prasad Rao
222. Pentyala Vishnu Vardhan
223. Samineni Laxmikanthamma (L.Rs. of D.8 added as Defendants No. 219 to 223 vide I.A. No.608/2012)
224. Muthineni Kotaiah
225. Muthineni Chinna Kistaiah
226. Nallani Thulasi
227. Nallani Kistamma (L.Rs of D114 added as Defendants No. 224 to 227 vide I.A. No.612/2012)
S C J
Page 11 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
228. Oruganti Srirama Rao
229. Oruganti Veeraiah
230. Oruganti Venkateshwar Rao (L.Rs of D112 added as Defendants No. 228 to 230 vide I.A. No.611/2012)
231.Oruganti Krishna Rao
232. Charumathi
233. Palakudi Padmaja
234. Oruganti Narsamma (L.Rs of D70 added as Defendants No. 231 to 234 vide I.A. No.610/2012)
235. Nettam Venkateshwarlu
236. Nettam Subba Rao
237. Charu Pullamma
238. Nalajala Subbamma (L.Rs of D69 added as Defendants No. 235 to 238 vide I.A.No.298/2012) … Defendants
This suit is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Bhagwandas Mandhani & Sri. M. Rama Rao, Advocate Counsel for the Plaintiffs and of Sri. P. Ravindra Reddy, Counsel for the Defendant No.1 and of Sri. B. Koti Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No. 48 and other defendants are remained exparte after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This is a suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property i.e., land to an extent of Ac.237-39 gts in Sy.No.795 at Ramapuram village,
H/o.Revuru village of Mellachervu mandal, Suryapet District, erstwhile
Nalgonda District from the defendants.
2. Originally, the above suit is filed before the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Suryapet vide O.S.No. 36 of 1996; and later vide Orders of Hon’ble Principal
District Judge and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda received in Dis. No.
13771/2005/A1 dt: 22-12-2005, the above case was transferred to the Court
S C J
Page 12 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda and renumbered as O.S.No. 170 of 2005.
Thereafter, as per the Orders of Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Nalgonda in
Transfer O.P.No. 164 of 2006 dt: 04-09-2006 received in Dis. No. 8860/2006
dt : 29-09-2006, the above case was again re-transferred to the court of
Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. Again vide orders of Hon’ble Principal District
Judge and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda received in Dis. No. 4853/09/A1 dt: 01-
06-2009, the above case is again re-transferred to the Court of Senior Civil
Judge, Miryalaguda and renumbered as O.S.No. 93 of 2009. After
establishment of Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Huzurnagar, the above case is again transferred to this Court on the point of jurisdiction vide orders of
Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda received in Dis.No.
1778/14/A1 dated : 27-03-2014 and renumbered as O.S.No. 388 of 2014.
3. During the course of trial, the plaintiff nos. 2, 9 and 12 died. As per the orders in IA No. 62/2021 dt: 23-11-2021, the plaintiff nos. 16 to 18 are added as legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff no. 2. As per the orders in
IA No. 131/2024 dt: 01-05-2024the plaintiff nos. 19 to 21 are added as legal
representatives of the deceased Plaintiff no. 9. As per the orders in IA No.
202/2024 dt:10-09-2024, the Plaintiff nos. 22 and 23 are added as legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff No. 12.
4. Originally, the suit is filed against the defendant no. 1 alone; and after filing of written statement, the defendant nos. 2 to 177 are added.
Thereafter some of the defendants i.e., 2, 8, 13, 17, 19, 26, 27, 42, 49, 62,
S C J
Page 13 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
63, 69, 70, 71, 75, 80, 87, 91, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 120 and 121 died and their legal representatives are brought on record as defendants nos. 178 to 238.
5. The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:
(a) Originally late Revuri Venkatamma was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land. Late Revuri Venkatamma had one son by name Sunder
Rama Rao and daughter by name Sundaramma. Sundaramma is the mother- in-law of the plaintiff No.14.
(b)The said Revuri Venkatamma died in the year 1940 and her son
Sunder Rama Rao predeceased her in the year 1938. After death of
Venkatamma, all her properties including the suit land devolved upon
Venkataram Ranga Rao, who was the son of her predeceased son Sunder
Rama Rao; and daughter Sundaramma. The said Venkataram Ranga Rao (Sic
Sundaramma) died in the year 1950 leaving behind him his son Narsinga Rao to succeed all his properties. The said Narsinga Rao died in the year 1958 leaving behind him his wife i.e., plaintiff No.14 and his daughter i.e., plaintiff No.6. Late Venkataram Ranga Rao also died in 1950 survived by his two sons namely Sundar Rama Rao and Kishan Rao. But the whereabouts of
Sundara Rama Rao are not known to anyone since 1973 and therefore, the said Sundaram Rama Rao is presumed to be legally not alive and all his properties including his undivided interest in the suit land devolved upon his
S C J
Page 14 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
wife i.e., plaintiff No.15, his sons i.e., plaintiff Nos.7 to 11 and his daughters i.e., plaintiff Nos.12 and 13.
(c)It is further stated that the plaintiff No.6, who is daughter of plaintiff No.14, was given in marriage to Kishan Rao, who is the brother of
Sundara Rama Rao. The said Kishan Rao died in the year 1968 leaving behind him, his wife/plaintiff No.6, sons/plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 and daughters/plaintiff
Nos.1, 4 & 5 to succeed his properties including undivided interest in the suit land. The genealogical table showing the relationship of plaintiffs is as follows :
Revuri Venkatamma (died in 1940)
__________________________ Sunder Rama Rao(died in 1938)Sundaramma(died) Madhava Rao(died in 1950) Venkat Rama Ranga Rao (Died in 1938)Narsing Rao (Died in 1958) ______________________________= Ranganayakamm (P14) Sunder Rama Rao Krishan Rao (Died in1968) =Annapurnamma (P15) = (Hymavathi (P6) |_____________________________________________________ | |Durga Bhavani Narsing Rao Usha Rani Ranga Rao (Died)Vijayalaxmi |(P.1) (P.3) (P5)(P2) (P4) | | _______________________________________________________________________ Ranga Rao SeetharamaRao Srinivas Rao Sailaja Umamaheshwar Rao Jaganmohan Rao Rajyalaxmi (P7)(P9)(P11)(P13)(P8)(P10) (P12)
LRS of Ranga Rao (Died) (P2)
___________________________________ Ravi Krishna Padmavathi(P.17) Rajyalaxmi(P.18) (P16)(P17) (P18)
S C J
Page 15 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
(d)It is further stated that the suit land is baren land, incapable of cultivation or for carrying any agricultural operation therein. Therefore, the suit land was not divided between the plaintiffs and it was kept joint. The plaintiffs filed certified copy of Sethwar for the year 1955 to prove the ownership and possession of Revuri Venkatamma, who is common ancestor of the plaintiffs, over the suit land.
(e)It is stated that in or about June, 1993, the defendant No.1 has erected pillars around a major portion of the suit land without any consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. After the plaintiffs came to know of the illegal activities of the defendant No.1, they have protested for raising the pillars; but the defendant No.1 did not care for it. Then, the plaintiff No.10 applied for certified copies of Pahani Patrikas, Faisal Patties and other
Revenue Records regarding the suit land and on enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that at the instance of the defendant No.1, the revenue records were tampered and certified copies of the said records were not furnished. It is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu issued Memo vide
No.C-1961/87, Dt: 17.09.1987 and C-1275/1988, Dt: 16.07.1988 undertaking to furnish the available copies, but they are not furnished to the plaintiffs at the instance and in collusion with the defendant No.1. On coming to know about the said fact, the plaintiffs have made a complaint to the District
Collector, erstwhile Nalgonda District for taking necessary action and the same is pending enquiry.
S C J
Page 16 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
(f)The plaintiffs further stated that the defendant No.1 has no right upon the suit schedule land and therefore they got issued legal notice,
dt:30.01.1996 to the defendant No.1 and other officials of the Defendant
Company calling upon them to remove the pillars erected by them and hand over the vacant possession of the suit land; but inspite of the said legal notice, the defendant No.1 has not removed the pillars. It is stated that, though no agricultural operations or acts of possession could be carried on the suit land, but the plaintiffs believed that erection of pillars around a major portion of the suit land may amount to illegal occupation of the suit land by the defendant No.1, therefore they being owners and in possession of the suit land till 1993 having succeeded to the same through thier common ancestor Revuri Venkatamma sought for recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendant No.1.
6. Originally, the suit is filed against the defendant no. 1 company only, but on the basis of the plea taken by the defendant no. 1 in the written statement, the plaintiffs sought for impleading of other defendants alleging that the defendant nos. 2 to 177, who are the alleged vendors of the defendant no. 1, had no right, interest or title over the suit property in any manner and that the defendant no. 1 colluded with the defendant nos. 2 to 177 foisted revenue records and therefore, the alleged transaction between the defendant no. 1 and its alleged vendors are nothing but sham, bogus and
S C J
Page 17 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
foisted with ulterior motives and without any lawful authority. Hence this suit for recovery of possession of suit land from the defendants.
7. Written Statement of the defendant no. 1 :The written statement of the defendant No.1 is as follows :
i.The defendant No.1 denied that the plaintiffs are the owners and were in possession of suit land till 1993 having succeeded the same through their common ancestor Revuri Ventakamma and stated that neither Revuri
Venkatamma nor the plaintiffs are having any right, title or connection with the suit land. The defendant No.1 also denied that the suit land was not divided between the plaintiffs and it was kept joint and stated that the
Sethwar in the year 1955 filed by the plaintiffs does not confer ownership nor prove the possession of Revuri Venkatamma over the suit land.
ii.The defendant No.1 stated that they have taken the possession of the land subsequent to purchase from its original owners wherein it had purchased Ac. 268.15 gts of land in Sy.No.795 from its original owners for a valuable consideration in the year 1984 and all the sale deeds were registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kodad. The details of the purchase made by the defendant No.1 is as follows:
Sl. Regd. Date Survey Extent Name of the Vendors Consideration
No Doc.No No. 11191/8404.04.198479523.201. Takkellapati Pullaiah,49,350.00 S/o. Nagaiah 2.Tummala Venkaiah,
S C J
Page 18 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
S/o.Perumallaiah 3.Tummala Venkaiah, S/o.Perumallaiah 4.Potu Ramaiah, S/o.Appaiah 5.Pasupuleti Narsaiah, S/o.Hanumanthaiah 6.Shaik Badesaheb, S/o.Chandu Saheb 21203/8405.04.198479520.101.Takkellapati Pullaiah, 42,525.00 S/o.Nagaiah 2.Ravella Lingaiah, S/o.Venkaiah 3.Oruganti China Veeraiah 4.Shaik Lalmiya, S/o.Chandu Saheb 5.Kosuri Ramaiah, S/o.Tirupataiah 6.Pasupuleti Buchaiah, S/o.Narasaiah 7.Polisetti Kistaiah, S/o.Govindaiah 8.Muttuneni Bhikmaiah, S/o.Kistaiah 31204/8406.04.198479513.301.Takkellapati Pullaiah, 28,875.00 S/o.Nagaiah 2.Haramasa Saidaiah, S/o.Veeraiah 3.Amaraboina Achaiah, S/o.Venkaiah 4.Narala Laxmaiah, S/o. Mattaiah 5.Jagine Seshaiah, S/o.Sambaiah 6.Sathuluri Narasaiah, S/o.Venkaiah 41234/8406.04.198479522.201.Kode Seethamma, 47,250.00 W/o.Late Venkateswarlu 2.Sadam Ithamraju S/o.Tirupataiah
3. Ravella Rama Rao S/o.Lingaiah
4. Sadam Veeraswamy S/o. Guravaiah
5. Yaragorla Jittaiah S/o.Latchaiah
6. Sadam Nageswara Rao S/o.Pitchaiah 51236/8406.04.198479514.041.Kode Seethamma W/o.Late 29,452.50 Venkateswarlu
2. Gayam Seetaram Reddy S/o. Veera Reddy
S C J
Page 19 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
3. Ravella Narasimha S/o. Venkaiah 61237/8406.04.198479522.201.Haramasa Bhikshmaiah, 47,250.00 S/o.Narasaiah 2.Narala Ramaiah, S/o.Papaiah 3.Yaragorla Shambaiah, S/o. Lachaiah
4. Ganta Satyanarayana S/o.Ramaiah
5. Yaragorla Lachaiah, S/o. Kotaiah
6. Nettam Venkateswarlu S/o.Pedakotaiah
7. Ravella Seetaramaiah S/o.Venkaiah
8. Jangala Pullaiah S/o. Vasaiah
9. Muttineni Bikshmaiah S/o. Kistaiah
10. Sadam Sydamma W/o.Veeraiah
11. Todeti Mallaiah S/o. Veeraiah 71238/8407.04.198479521.121. Haramasa Bhikshmaiah44,730.00 S/o.Narasaiah
2. Juneboiyena Ramaiah S/o. Kanakaiah
3. Bhootam Subbaiah S/o. Yalamandaiah
4. Pasupuleti Hanumaiah S/o. Appaiah 81239/8407.04.19847957.081.Kode Seetamma 14,700.00 W/o. Late Venkateswarlu
2. Inturi Apparao S/o. Pullaiah
3. Narala Kesavaiah S/o. Narasaiah
4. Narala Venkateswarlu S/o. Chandraiah 91245/8407.04.198479522.201.Takkellapati Pullaiah 47,250.00 S/o.Nagaiah
2. Nettam Kasaiah S/o.Velamandaiah
3. Nettam Badraiah S/o.Velamandaiah
4. Nettam Chinakotaiah S/o.Nagaiah
5. Nettam Pedakotaiah S/o.Janaiah
6. Oruganti Laxminarayana S/o.Ramaiah
7. Pasupuleti Adinarayana S/o.Gopaiah
S C J
Page 20 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
101249/8407.04.198479522.201. Pentala Nanamma47,250.00 W/o. Late Narasaiah
2. Ravella Lingaiah S/o. Venkaiah
3. Muttavarapu Ambareswara Rao S/o. Ramanadham
4. P. Pullaiah S/o. Papaiah
5. Yarakalapudi Ramaiah S/o. Venkaiah
6. Yarakalapudi Saidaiah S/o. Adaiah
7. Yarakalapudi Kotaiah S/o. Ramaiah
8. Yarakalapudi Seetaramaiah S/o. Venkaiah
9. Panga Sangamma W/o. Chinakasaiah 111252/8407.04.19847956.001.Pentala Ramaiah 12,600.00 S/o. Narasaiah 2.Bhootam China Veeraiah S/o.Velamandaiah 121253/8407.04.19847956.001. Tummala Tulasamma12,600.00 W/o. Seetaramaiah
2. Gunda Satyanarayana S/o. Hanumaiah
3. Machani Rami Reddy S/o. Gurava Reddy 131294/8412.04.198479521.201.Takkellapati Pullaiah 45,150.00 S/o. Nagaiah
2. Ummineni Appa Rao S/o. Venkaiah
3. Kode Ramanarasaiah S/o. Chennaiah
4. Jageni Gopaiah S/o. Lachaiah
5. Pamuluri Chinaramaiah S/o. Atchaiah
6. Javvaji Tirupataiah S/o.Narasaiah
7. Javvaji Nayudaiah S/o. Appaiah
8. M.Jaganmohan Rao S/o.Pedakotaiah 141299/8412.04.19847959.361. Pentala Nanamma20,790.00 W/o. Late Narasaiah
2. Ravella Seetaramaiah S/o. Venkataiah
3. Vippakuntla Seetamma W/o. Veera Reddy
S C J
Page 21 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
151313/8413.04.198479522.201. Takkellapati Pullaiah47,250.00 S/o. Nagaiah
2. Oruganti Bikshmaiah S/o. China Veeraiah
3. Pavuluri Appa Rao S/o. Peda Ramaiah
4. Putta Narasaiah S/o. Subbaiah
5. Muttuneni Venkateswarlu S/o. Kistaiah
6. Javvaji Venkateswarlu S/o. Venkaiah
7. Jagini Saidaiah S/o. Venkaiah
8. Pasupuleti Tirupataiah S/o. China Veeraiah 161383/8417.04.19847957.151.Takkellapati Pullaiah 15,450.50 S/o. Nagaiah
2. Mundra Narayana S/o. Kistaiah
3. Kodi Chinnaiah S/o. Veeraiah
4. A.Mujakar Rao S/o. Latchaiah
5. Vottikunta Venkaiah S/o. Seetaiah 172630/8421.06.19847952.001. Pamuluri China Ramaiah4,200.00 S/o. Atchaiah 182250/8508.08.19857953.001. Chityala Tirupataiah6,300.00 iii. It is further stated that the vendors of the above said land had represented that they are the absolute owners and exclusive possessors of their respective lands since 1945 and that in all the revenue records, the name of the vendors are mentioned as pattedars and possessors of the suit lands. Immediately after the purchase, the defendant No.1 was kept in possession of the suit land and since then the defendant No.1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
iv.It is also stated that in the pahani patrikas for the years 1960-61 to 1967-68, 1970-71, 1972-73 to 1976-77, 1979-80 to 1984-85, the names of the
S C J
Page 22 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
vendors are recorded as pattedars and possessors for the suit land. The defendant no. 1 also filed the Shesala (three years) pahani patrikas for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58.
v.It is further stated that after purchase the defendant No.1 applied for mutation and on perusing the Regd. Sale Deeds and after thorough enquiry the Tahsildar had mutated the lands showing the list in the names of the defendant No.1 vide mutation serial No.79 in the year 1983-84 and serial
Nos. 101, 179, 188 in the year 1984-85. Thus, from the date of purchase till today the defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit land as absolute owner and exclusive possessor; but in all the revenue records the name of the defendant No.1 has been recorded as owner and possessor and filed pahani patrikas for the years 1985-86 to 1995-96.
vi. It is further stated that in the year 1995, the plaintiff Nos.6 and 14 and some others have filed objection petition before the District Collector,
Nalgonda objecting the mutation of the lands out of Sy.No.795(suit land), 815 and 850 in the name of defendant No.1. The Revenue Authorities have inspected the suit lands and made thorough enquiries and collected the relevant sale deeds from the original vendors and come to a conclusion that the vendors are the pattedars and possessors of the suit land; as such objection petition filed by the plaintiff Nos.6 and 14 is false. It is stated that as per the direction of District Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer,
S C J
Page 23 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Mellachervu enquired the matter and submitted his report vide
Lt.No.1044/95.
vii. It is further stated that, late Narsinga Rao through whom the plaintiffs are claiming right was not recorded as owner of the suit land in
Sy.No.795 in the Khasra holding for the year 1954-55. That the plaintiffs even after having knowledge of the above said fact have filed this suit on false grounds by intentionally concealing the material facts before the court and thereby played fraud upon court. The defendant no. 1 while denying the tampering of revenue records stated that the revenue records are maintained by the revenue officials in normal course of their day to day activities. The Memos filed by the plaintiffs are false and prepared for the purpose of making false allegations against the defendant No.1.
viii. The defendant No.1 while admitting the receipt of legal notice got issued by the plaintiffs stated that before issuing of the said legal notice the plaintiffs have started demanding some money from the defendant No.1 on the pretext that the business of the defendant No.1 is in prosperity, but the defendant No.1 have not yielded for the illegal demand of the plaintiffs and as such they have got issued false legal notice and when they were questioned, they apologized and assured the defendant No.1 that they will not approach the court, as such under the such impression and also that the plaintiffs are no way concern with the suit land the defendant No.1 had kept quite; but by taking advantage of their post, the plaintiffs have created the
S C J
Page 24 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
false records with Sethwar for the year 1954-55 only and that basing on that false document only they have filed this suit which is not at all maintainable in the eye of law or on facts.
ix. It is further stated the Revuri Sundara Rama Rao, who is father of plaintiff Nos.7 to 14 and husband of plaintiff No.15 worked as Patwari of
Revuru village from 1950 to 1970. The defendant No.1 stated that the plaintiffs are never in possession of the suit land at any time within the prescribing period of 12 years before the filing of this suit as such this suit is barred by limitation and also there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file this suit.
x.The defendant No.1 also stated that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as the plaintiffs are not entitled to file the suit jointly and that they are belonged to separate families and they are not having cause of action to file the suit.
xi. The defendant No.1 also stated the present market value of the suit land is about Rs.20,000/- per acre; as such the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient. The defendants finally stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek relief of possession and present suit is filed to extract money from them. Submitting, thus the defendant No.1 sought for dismissal of the suit with costs.
S C J
Page 25 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
8. The defendant No.48 filed separate written statement and same was adopted by the defendant nos. 8, 14, 15, 32, 41, 43, 45, 61, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 78, 79, 81, 95, 97, 98, 103, 109, 112, 114, 119 & 154.
9. The written statement of the defendant No. 48 and adoption memo of other defendants was misplaced and same was reconstructed vide orders of
Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Nalgonda received in Proc. Dis.No.
2089/19/A3 dt: 28-03-2019 and accordingly they filed copy of written statement of defendant no. 48. The written statement of the defendant no.
48 is as follows :
i.The defendant No.48 in his written statement also denied the plaint averments and stated that Revuri Venkatamma was neither owner nor possessor of the suit land and stated that the defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the suit land. The defendant No. 48 further stated that by the death of Kishan Rao, the suit land is not in his possession or enjoyment; as such leaving behind him, his wife/plaintiff No.6, his sons/plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 and his daughters/plaintiff Nos.1, 4 & 5 to succeed his properties does not arise at all. It is stated that on the date of his death, the said Kishan Rao was not having any right or interest over the suit land and stated that the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor in possession of the suit land till 1993.
ii.It is stated that the Sethwar for the year 1955 is not a proper document to recognize the ownership as the suit is filed in the year 1996. It
S C J
Page 26 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
is stated that after 1955 no where the names of Revuri Venkatamma or any other person of the plaintiffs’ family is found in the revenue records. Thus, it is clear that the family of the plaintiffs were not having any connection or concern whatsoever the suit land, as they have lost the possession in the year 1955 and as such the suit itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
iii. The defendant no. 48 further stated that defendant No.1 purchased the suit land through Regd. Sale Deeds in the year 1984, since then the defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further stated that, in the year 1984 itself the defendant No.1 erected the pillars showing their boundary and denied the allegation that the defendant
No.1 erected the pillars in the year 1993. The defendant No.48 while admitting memos filed by the plaintiffs stated that the memos are not at all useful document in any manner. The plaintiffs also filed a false complaint
before the District Collector and in this regard an enquiry was made by the
Joint Collector, Nalgonda and the Joint Collector taking into consideration of the documents filed by the defendant No.1 dismissed their complaint.
iv.It is stated that the plaintiffs have not filed a scrap of paper to show that they are in possession of the suit land till 1993 and thus, the suit is hopelessly time barred, as none of the family members of the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land from the year 1955.
S C J
Page 27 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
v.The defendant No.48 further stated that in the year 1945, Revuri
Sundara Rama Rao and Naraparaju Narasinga Rao sold the suit land through a sale agreement to the same villagers and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and that in all the revenue records, the name of the villagers are shown as owners and possessors and that the plaintiffs are fully aware about their purchase and also their possession. They are also aware that the said farmers sold the suit land to the defendant No.1 through
Regd. Sale Deeds and whereas the defendant No.48 is one of the vendor of his land to the defendant No.1 through Regd. Sale Deed.
vi. It is further stated that after purchase of suit land by the defendant
No.1 and thereafter constructing of M/s. Sri Vishnu Cements Ltd., the value of suit land is raised and by seeing the hike in the price, the plaintiffs with greedy eye and malicious intention filed this false suit without any right or concern. It is further stated that the family members of the plaintiffs were the village Patwari till the abolition affected in the year 1984 as such they fully aware about the revenue records as maintained by them. Submitting thus, the defendant No.48 sought for dismissal of the suit with costs.
10. The defendant nos. 3 to 5, 9 to 12, 14 16 to 18, 20, 22 to 26, 28 to 30, 32, 33, 35, 41, 43, 46, 50, 52, 53 to 59, 61 to 65, 67 to 70, 72, 73, 77, 79, 81 to 84, 86, 88 to 90, 93 to 97, 97 to 103, 106 to 108, 112, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 125 and 128 are called absent and they are set exparte on 14.06.2002.
S C J
Page 28 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
11. The defendant nos. 34, 36, 66, 126 and 129 are called absent and they are set exparte on 13.09.2002.
12. The defendant nos. 92, 120, 6, 7, 60, 95, 111 and 123 are called absent and they are set exparte on 13.12.2002.
13. The defendant nos. 15, 44, 45, 47, 48, 78 and 109 are called absent and they are set exparte on 13.03.2003.
14. The defendant nos. 37 to 40 are called absent and they are set exparte on 25.02.2004.
15. The defendant nos. 85, 124, and 127 are called absent and they are set exparte on 02.07.2004.
16. The Defendant nos. to 3 to 7, 9, 17, 20, 21, 25, 31, 33 to 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 50 to 55, 57, 59, 60, 66, 67, 69, 78, 79, 88, 90, 92, 93, 96, 100, 102, 104, 105, 122, 123, 125, 128 to 136, 138 to 141, 143, 144, 147 to 149, 150, 151, 153, 155 to 157, 160, 161, 163 to 165, 167, 168, 170, 175 to 181, 184, 185, 187, 188 to 190 are called absent and they are set exparte on 18.08.2004.
17. The defendant nos. 129, 171, 124, 169, 182, 183, 184, 173 and 174 are called absent and they are set exparte on 27-08-2004.
18. The defendant nos. 74, 126 and 146 are called absent and they are set exparte on 07.09.2004.
S C J
Page 29 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
19. The defendant nos. 18, 30 and 137 are called absent and they are set exparte on 14.09.2004.
20. The defendant nos. 195, 196, 201 to 206 and 218 are called absent and they are set ex parte on 02.12.2004.
21. The defendant nos. 191 to 194, 207 to 212 and 215 to 217 are called absent and they are set exparte on 06.12.2004.
22. The defendant nos. 213 and 214 are called absent and they are set exparte on 14.12.2004.
23. The other defendants did not choose to appear and file written statement, hence this court treated as no written statement on their behalf.
24.On the basis of above rival contentions, the Court of Senior Civil
Judge, Suryapet settled the following issues for trial.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit property ?
2. Whether the court fee is paid is insufficient ?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
4 To what relief ?
25. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined the Plaintiff No.10 as
PW1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A14 documents. On behalf of the defendant no. 1, its Senior Liason Officer is examined as DW1 and he got marked Ex.B1
S C J
Page 30 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
to B79 documents. The defendant No.32 is examined as DW2 and one inde- pendent witness Sri. Mudiyala Venkat Reddy as DW3. The defendant No.48 is examined as DW4. The defendant no. 1 also summoned and examined the then Sub-Registrar, Huzurnagar as DW5.
26. Heard the submissions of both sides counsel. I have also perused all the written arguments filed on behalf of both the plaintiffs and defendants.
27. ISSUE No.1:The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of possession of suit schedule land on the basis of title. In the present case the plaintiffs are claiming title through one Revuri Venkatamma as her legal descendants.
Question arises on whom burden of proof lies in a suit for recovery of possession based on a title. In Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri1 the Apex
Court held as under:
“The plaintiff’s suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the file that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property… …”
28. Thus, it is clear from the dictum laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Brahma Nand Puri case that in a suit for possession of suit property based on a title, the plaintiff must succeed or fail on the title that he establishes.
If he cannot succeed in proving his title, the suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession may or may not have title to the property.
Coming to the present case, as stated supra, the plaintiffs are claiming their 1AIR 1965 SC 1506
S C J
Page 31 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
title as the legal descendants of Revuri Venkatamma from whom they have allegedly inherited the title to the suit schedule land. Therefore, the plaintiffs must succeed or fail on the title they establish; and if they fail to do so, they must fail to get the relief of possession irrespective of title of the defendants in the suit schedule land. Therefore, initial burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish (i) the title of Late Revuri Venkatamma as the original title holder of the suit schedule land, (ii) the plaintiffs are the legal descendants of Late Revuri Venkatamma, (iii) the plaintiffs being the successors of Late Revuri Venkatamma have succeeded to the suit schedule land, and (iv) the defendants have illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit schedule land by making alleged construction of compound wall in part of the suit schedule property.
29. To prove the title of Late Revuri Venkatamma, the plaintiffs have relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Ex. A1, A14, A11 and A12 documents. The plaintiffs also relied upon the cross-examination of
DWs 1 to 4 and Ex. B2 Sale Agreement, dt: 20-03-1945.
30. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that Ex. A1 Shetwar is a public document prepared in usual performance of official duties and proof of the same by oral evidence is not necessary and relied upon the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Madamanchi Ramappa and
another vs. Mutharulu Bojjappa2, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme 2 AIR 1963 SC 1964 (FB)
S C J
Page 32 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Court that the document in question being a certified copy of a public document need not have been proved by calling a witness.
31. He also submitted that Ex. A14 Faisal Patti is also a public document maintained by the Mandal Revenue Officer in discharge of his official duties whenever lands are partitioned, death of pattedar takes place and succession is to be reflected, transfer of land is effected in respect of respective khatadar i.e., pattedar and then the entries are taken into
Supplementary Shetwar and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in the case of G. Satyanarayana vs. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh3 and also in Geeta Tirupath Reddy vs. State of A.P.4. He further submitted that the entries in Khasra would serve the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Joint Collector,
District Ranga Reddy and another vs. D. Narsing Rao and others5.
32. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that the defendants could not place any record to show that the aforesaid entries are not true and infact the title is traced from Shethwar. While relying on Ex.
A11 and A12 reports submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu to the District Collector, Nalgonda and the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Suryapet that the name of N. Narsing Rao is recorded as heir to Revuri 3 2014(3) ALT 473 4 AIR 1978 AP 302 52015(3) SCC 695
S C J
Page 33 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Venkatamma and submitted that Khasra pahani by itself did not create any title but recognize the existing title in official course of business in favour of
Revuri Venkatamma and on her death inherited by N. Narsing Rao and relied upon the Division Bench decision of Hon’ble High Court of AP reported in the case of Mylaram Lachaiah vs Nafeesunnisa Begum6, wherein it was held by
Hon’ble High Court that “Khasra Pahani is the record of rights notified
under Sec. 4 of the Regulation and also held that the Record of Rights do
not in any manner alter the pre-existing rights of the parties.”
33. While relying on Ex. B2 Sale Agreement dt: 20-03-1945, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the alleged Ex. B2 sale agreement, which is a concocted document, relied by the defendants proves that the alleged sale of 280 acres in Sy.No. 795 of Revuru village standing patta and in possession of Narsing Rao and therefore, the defendants are estopped from disputing the relations of plaintiffs with Late Revuri Venkatamma and thus the plaintiffs have not only proved the title of Revuri Venkatamma, they have also proved that the plaintiffs are legal descendants of Late Revuri
Venakatamma and the defendants did not dispute the relationship and their genealogy and omission to cross-examine disputing the relationship with
Revuri Venkatamma leads to the only conclusion that the defendants have accepted the plaintiffs case in entirety as to relationship and placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of 6 ILR 1972 AP 652
S C J
Page 34 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Rajinder Pershad (dead) by Lrs. vs. Smt. Darshana Devi7 and also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in the case of
M/s. Rudnap Export-Import vs. Eastern Associates Co., and others8.
34. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs are governed by Hindu Law and as on the alleged date of death of
Revuri Venkatamma, there was no codified law with regard to the succession of properties of Hindus and the old Hindu Law was applicable. Further, the plaintiffs did not place any material to show that Venkatamma died in the year 1940 and whereas her son predeceased her in the year 1938 and therefore her paternal grandson alleged to have succeeded to the said properties and in the absence of death certificates of Venkatamma and her son and birth certificate of her paternal grandson, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the contention of the plaintiffs is a correct one, since there was no succession as per Hindu Law prevailing in those days and survivorship was the law applicable at that time. Thus, there is no proof that the property said to be of Venkatamma and succeeded by her paternal grandson, even assuming for a moment that the Sethwar is showing the name of Venkatamma as pattadar.
35. With regard to Ex. A1, the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 submitted that the document got marked as exhibit A-1 by the plaintiffs by contending that it is a Sethwar, but it is not a Sethwar and the same is not 7 2001 SAR 763 (DB) 8AIR 1984 DEL 20
S C J
Page 35 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
admissible in the eye of law. In Telangana area the process of preparation of
Sethwars of all the agricultural lands was commenced in the year 1919 and concluded in the year 1939, and whereas the document filed by plaintiffs and got marked as Sethwar is showing that it is of the year 1955 and therefore the same is not admissible in the eye of law. He also submitted that copy of Sethwar is not filed and only supplementary Sethwar filed and there is no record to show that when it was implemented as already explained and further the document filed by plaintiffs by claiming as Faisal
Patti is not showing to which year it belongs and there is no reference of the order passed by the authority and even the said document is incomplete as the supporting order of "Kammi" is not filed.
36. Similarly, the document got marked as Exhibit A-14 by showing it as
Faisal Patti is also not admissible in the eye of law, since no proceedings number is referred and it is not showing as Faisal Patti and it is also not showing the year of the said document and therefore no reliance can be placed on the said document.
37. While relying on the Ex. B3 orders, the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 submitted that the Ex. B3 orders of Joint Collector, Suryapet clearly goes to show that the claim to the suit land by the plaintiffs is not tenable in the eye of law since the same is not included in the khatha of Sri
Narsinga Rao as per holding register of 1955-56. This categorically goes to show that the plaintiffs did not prefer any claim during the period of
S C J
Page 36 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
preparation of Khasara Pahani for the year 1954-55 as they are aware that they have no title for the same by that time for one reason or the other reason.
38. He further submitted that as seen from Exhibit B-2, the entire extent of land in Sy.No. 795 was sold by Naraparaju Narsinga Rao and another in favour of Pentela Narsaiah and others and delivered possession of the said property to the said persons and thus it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs lost their possession in the year 1945 itself and they did not come into possession thereafter at any point of time.
39. He also submitted that the holding register for the year 1954-55, which were prepared as per the Board Standing Orders and prepared 1954-55
Khasra Pahani, the plaintiffs did not make any efforts to recover the possession of the land shown in exhibit B-2, which is more than the extent of the suit land till the date of filing the present suit.
40. Finally, he submitted that the title of Revuri Venkatamma was not established consequently the plaintiffs have also not established their title and as such the suit filed by plaintiffs by claiming the recovery of possession based on title is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the suit filed by the plaintiffs without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable since there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs as falsely claiming by the plaintiffs.
S C J
Page 37 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
41. I have gone through the both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties. PW1 in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Ex. A1 to A14 documents. Whereas the defendant no. 1 company examined its Senior Liaison Officer as DW1. DW1 in his chief-examination affidavit reiterated the defence taken in the written statement and got marked Ex.B1 to B79 documents. The defendant No.32 is examined as DW2 and one independent witness as DW3.
42. DW2 in his chief-examination affidavit deposed that the defendant no. 1 company purchased the suit schedule property from the owners and possessors of the suit land and one Kodi Seethamma and Sadam Item Raju sold an area of Ac.22-20 guntas in Sy.No. 795 to the defendant no. 1 through a Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. NO. 1234/1984 dt: 06-04-1984; and he along with others stood as attesters to the said document; and since the date of purchase the defendant no. 1 company is in possession and that the plaintiffs are not the owners nor possessors of the suit land and also that they are not having any rights over the same.
43. DW3 in his chief examination deposed that he is having land of Ac.5-20 guntas in Sy.No. 815 on the southern side of the suit land. He is also having land of Ac.2-08 guntas in Sy.No. 824 and Ac.1-26 guntas in Sy.No. 849 near by the suit land and that since his childhood suit land was in possession and enjoyment of the villagers and that 20 years prior to his evidence on 8-6-
S C J
Page 38 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
2005 the defendant no. 1 company purchased the suit land from the ryots of the villagers and since then they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the same; and that the plaintiffs or their predecessors are never in possession of the suit land since last 60 years; and also that the plaintiffs are not having any right or concern over the suit land.
44. The defendant No.48 is examined as DW4. DW4 in his chief-examination affidavit deposed that from the year 1955 the plaintiffs or their family members are not having any right or concern whatsoever the suit land and that in the year 1984 the defendant no. 1 purchased the suit land through registered sale deeds and that himself and Pendela Nanamma, Vippakuntla
Seethamma executed Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 1299/1984
dt:12-4-1984 in favour of defendant No. 1 and on the same day delivered the
possession to the defendant No. 1 with all absolute rights. DW4 further deposed that he also stood as attesters to the document Nos. 1204/1984, 1236/1984, 1239/1984, 1249/1984, 1252/1984, 1313/1984. DW4 also deposed that his father late Ravilla Venkaiah signed as attestor to the sale agreement dated : 20-03-1945 executed by Naraparaju Narsinga Rao and
Revuri Sundera Rama Rao in favour of Pentala Narsaiah, Paramathmla
Anantha Ramaiah, Veruganti Venkaiah and others; and that the vendors and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands from 1945 to 1984 till the same was sold to the defendant No.1. DW4 further deposed that himself and other vendors of the suit lands have declared
S C J
Page 39 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
the suit land in Ceiling Declarations as per their possession and the same
was computed by the Verification Officer in their Holdings. 9
45. The defendant no. 1 also summoned and examined the then Sub-
Registrar, Huzurnagar as DW5. DW5 deposed that Ex. B8 to B25 are certified copies of registered sale deeds issued from their office on the basis of their office records.
46. I have also gone through the Ex. A1 to A14 and Ex. B1 to B79 documents.
Ex. A1 is Certified Copy of Sethwar for the year 1955 of the Revuru village.
Ex. A1 shows the name of Revuri Venkatamma as Khatedar of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.237.39 guntas in Sy.No. 795(suit schedule land),
Ac.36.26 guntas potu karab and Ac.110-02 guntas khushki in Sy.No. 815 and
Ac.57.14 guntas potu karab and Ac.172.03 guntas khushki in Sy.No. 850 of
Revuru Village, Huzurnagar Taluka, erstwhile Nalgonda District. Thus the Ex.
A1 clearly shows the name of Late Revuri Venkatamma as khatadar of
Ac.237.39 Guntas of land in Sy.No. 795 which is suit schedule land herein.
47. Ex. A11 is Letter addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu to the District Collector, Nalgonda in Lr.No. F/2122/98 dated : 20-09-1999.
Ex. A12 is another Letter addressed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet in Lr.No. F/2122/98 dt: 16-09- 1998. In both the Ex. A11 and A12 letters the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Mellachervu stated that as per the Sethwar of Revoor village Smt. R.
9Para 9 of Chief Examination Affidavit of DW4
S C J
Page 40 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Venkatamma was recorded as Pattedar of various survey numbers in addition to land to an extent of Ac.237.37 guntas in Sy.No. 795(suit schedule land),
Ac.146.28 guntas in Sy.No. 815 and Ac.229.17 guntas in Sy.No. 850.
48. Ex. B3 is Certified Copy of Order of Joint Collector, Nalgonda in Case No.
D1/34034/98 dated : 20-03-2022. The Joint Collector, Nalgonda in Ex. B3 orders, who called for the reports from the Tahasildar, observed that as per the settlement records i.e., Sethwar Smt. R. Venkatamma was the pattedar of the suit land i.e., Ac.237.37 guntas in Sy.No. 795, Ac.146.28 guntas in
Sy.No. 815 and Ac.229.17 guntas in Sy.No. 850. The defendants are not disputing the Ex. A1 and they are disputing that it is only a Supplementary
Sethwar but there is no record when it was implemented. Since the Ex. A11,
A12 and B3 documents clearly establishes that as per the Sethwar Smt.
Revuri Venkatamma was the pattedar, now they cannot dispute the same documents. Moreover, the defendants have not placed any record to show that the aforesaid entries in Ex. A1 are not true; and infact the title of R.
Venkatamma, who is the original pattadar, is traced from Shethwar.
49. In Union of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,10 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Setwar is a settlement register
prepared by the Survey Officer at the time of revised survey and
settlement in the year 1358 Fasli in which the names of the predecessors
in title of the plaintiff are shown as pattedars and in other words,
102014(2) SCC 269(DB)
S C J
Page 41 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Sethwar is the exhibit of rights and title of the plaintiff’s predecessors-
in-title.
50. In G. Satyanarayana v. Government of Andhra Pradesh case our
Hon’ble High Court observed as under:
“From the lengthy discussion on the land tenures undertaken hereinbefore, it could be deduced that the genesis of ones title is traceable to his possession. A registered occupant of the land, both under the ryotwari tenure and also under the estates, is recognised as a person holding rights over the land. Subject to payment of land revenue till the land is transferred to another person, a registered occupant was conferred with the right of selling the land to any third party without restrictions. Thus, the recognised possession can be said to be the source of a persons title. The possession of a person is reflected in the records. As noticed earlier, the A-Register/Diglot in Madras Presidency and the Sethwar in Telangana Area was the mother of all the Registers. Though the primary intention of preparing this Register was to classify the lands according to the soil and potentiality and assess the revenue, recording the names of the persons in occupation was an equally important object in preparing this Register, for, without recording the names of the persons in occupation, the Government will not be able to collect revenue. All the revenue records such as Registers A to E and monthly and annual Accounts No.1 to 4 and No.10 Accounts in Andhra area and Wasool Baqui, Khasra Pahani, Pahani Patrik, Choufasla, Faisal patti etc., discussed hereinbefore, in Telangana Area are based on the basic register of Diglot/Sethwar. Therefore, if a persons name is recorded as an occupant or pattadar in these records, a necessary presumption would arise in his favour or in favour of the persons who claim through him that he holds title to the land. In case of a dispute between two private parties, this presumption can be rebutted by the rival claimant by producing better evidence, such as subsequent partitions, mutation in the revenue record and registered sale transactions etc. In many cases, after preparation of Diglot/Sethwar, changes in ownership of land may occur. In such cases, a person who sets up rival claim must be able to show that either he or his predecessor-in-title derived right through sale deeds supported by entries in revenue record."
51. Since the entries in the sethwar prepared and maintained under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and when a person name is recorded as pattadar and khatadar he has to be declared to be the owner of the property
S C J
Page 42 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
and there is no necessity of proving the source of acquisition as same is evidence of right and title of the predecessors-in-title.
52. In the present case, Ex. A1 Sethwar clearly shows the name of Smt.
Revuri Venkatamma as Khatedar in respect of suit schedule land and other lands, which was not disputed by the defendants, therefore, it can be safely held that Smt. Revuri Venkatamma was the original title holder of the suit schedule land.
53. The learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 submitted that Ex. A1 is only a supplementary sethwar but not a copy of Sethwar, therefore it cannot be looked into for deciding title of Smt. R. Venkatamma. Ex. A1 is a certified copy of Nakal Sethwar. Further, the revenue authorities under Ex. A11, A12 and B3 found that as per the settlement records i.e., Sethwar Smt. R.
Venkatamma was the pattedar of the suit schedule land which was not even disputed by the defendant no. 1. Therefore, there is no force in the said submission of the defendant no. 1 and this court opines that the plaintiffs have successfully established the title of Late Revuri Venkatamma as the original title holder of the suit schedule land.
54. The next point that has to be established by the plaintiffs is that they are the legal descendants of Late Revuri Venkatamma. To prove the same, the plaintiffs contended that Late Revuri Venkatamma had one son Sunder
Rama Rao and daughter Sundaramma. Revuri Venkatamma died in the year
S C J
Page 43 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
1940 and whereas her son Sunder Rama Rao predeceased her in the year 1938 leaving behind him his son Venkatarama Ranga Rao. The said
Venkatarama Ranga Rao died in 1950 leaving behind him two sons Sundara
Rama Rao and Kishan Rao. Naraparaju Narsing Rao, who is son of
Sundaramma, died in 1958 leaving behind him wife/Plaintiff no. 14 and daughter/plaintiff no. 6, who is given in marriage with Kishan Rao. The
Plaintiff Nos. 7 to 11 are the sons, the plaintiff nos. 12 and 13 are the daughters, the Plaintiff no. 15 is widow of Late Revuri Sundar Rama Rao. The
Plaintiff nos. 1, 4 & 5 are the daughters, the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are the sons, the plaintiff no. 6 is widow of Late Revuri Kishan Rao. The Plaintiff no.
14 is mother of the plaintiff no. 6 and also the widow of Late Naraparaju
Narsinga Rao, who is son of Late Sundaramma. The genealogy tree of Late
Revuri Venkatamma is as follows :
Revuri Venkatamma (died in 1940)
__________________________ Sunder Rama Rao(died in 1938)Sundaramma(died) Madhava Rao(died in 1950) Venkat Rama Ranga Rao (Died in 1938)Narsing Rao (Died in 1958) ______________________________= Ranganayakamm (P14) Sunder Rama Rao Krishan Rao (Died in1968) =Annapurnamma (P15) = (Hymavathi (P6) |_____________________________________________________ | |Durga Bhavani Narsing Rao Usha Rani Ranga Rao (Died)Vijayalaxmi |(P.1) (P.3) (P5)(P2) (P4) | | _______________________________________________________________________ Ranga Rao SeetharamaRao Srinivas Rao Sailaja Umamaheshwar Rao Jaganmohan Rao Rajyalaxmi (P7)(P9)(P11)(P13)(P8)(P10) (P12)
S C J
Page 44 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
LRS of Ranga Rao (Died) (P2)
___________________________________ Ravi Krishna Padmavathi(P.17) Rajyalaxmi(P.18) (P16)(P17) (P18)
55. To prove the above relationship, the plaintiffs relied upon Ex. A11, A12,
A14, B3, B78 and B79 documents. In Ex. A11, A12, A14, B3 the revenue authorities found that Late Sri. N. Narasinga Rao was the legal heir of R.
Venkatamma. In Ex. B77 Certified Copy of Ceiling declaration, Ex. B79
Certified Copy of Verification Report and Ex. B78 Certified Copy of Petition filed in C.C.NO. 4059 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Huzurnagar, the plaintiff no. 6 Smt. Revuri Hymavathi submitted that her husband Sri. Revuri
Kishan Rao died in the year 1969 leaving behind widow(plaintiff no. 6), daughters i.e., plaintiff no. 1, 4 and 5 and sons i.e., plaintiff no. 2 & 3 to succeed his estate.
56. Similarly in Ex. B72 Certified Copy of Ceiling declaration of Smt. Revuri
Annapurnamma (Plaintiff No. 15), Ex. B73 Certified Copy of Statement of
Patwari Sri. Kalagotla Ramireddi, Ex. B74 Certified Copy of Statement of
Declarant Smt. Revuri Annapurnamma (plaintiff No.15), Ex. B75 Certified
Copy of Orders of Land Reforms Tribunal, Huzurnagar dt: 12-10-1977 and Ex.
B76 Certified copy of Orders of Land Reforms Tribunal, Huzurnagar dt: 27-11- 1980, the plaintiff No. 15/Smt. Annapurnamma submitted that since last three years her husband Sri. Revuri Sunder Ramara Rao whereabouts were not known and he has wife(plaintiff No. 15), sons i.e., Plaintiff Nos. 7 to 11
S C J
Page 45 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
and two daughters i.e., Plaintiff nos. 12 and 13 and they have succeeded to his estate.
57. The plaintiff no. 14 Smt. Narapuraju Ranganayakamma is widow of Late
Naraparaju Narsinga Rao, who is the legal heir of original pattedar Smt. R.
Venkatamma which is evident from Ex. A11, A12, A14 and Ex. B3 documents stated supra. The plaintiff nos. 16 to 18 are added as legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff no. 2 vide orders in IA No. 62/2021 dt: 23-11-2021.
The plaintiff nos. 19 to 21 are added as legal representatives of the deceased
Plaintiff no. 9 vide orders in IA No. 131/2024 dt: 01-05-2024. The Plaintiff
Nos. 22 to 23 are added as legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff No.
12 vide orders in IA No. 202/2024 dated : 10-09-2024.
58. The defendants did not dispute the above relationship of plaintiffs and and their genealogy during the elaborate cross-examination of PW1 and omission to cross-examine disputing their relationship with Revuri
Venkatamma leads to the only conclusion that the defendants have accepted the relationship of the plaintiffs with Late Revuri Venkatamma. Moreover, the defendant no. 1 in the counter filed before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda submitted that the plaintiffs or their predecessor in title have not shown the lands in their ceiling declarations and these lands are also not shown in their holding i.e., in Khata No. 4. Further, the defendants are estopped from denying the said relationship of the plaintiffs as they are relying on Ex. B2 sale agreement dated : 20-03-1945 which proves that the alleged sale of 280
S C J
Page 46 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
acres in Sy.No. 795 of Revuri village standing patta and in possession of
Narsing Rao and Revuri Sunder Rama Rao. Thus the above documents clearly prove that the defendants are not disputing the relationship of the plaintiffs with Late Revuri Venkatamma and therefore, the plaintiffs have successfully proved that they are the legal descendants of Late Revuri Venkatamma.
59. The third point that has to be proved by the plaintiffs is that they being the legal descendants of Late Revuri Venkatamma have succeeded to the suit schedule land and they have been in possession till the defendant no. 1 made alleged construction of compound wall major portion of the suit land in the year 1993.
60. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that like Ex. A1 sethwar
Ex. A14 Faisal Patti is also a public document maintained by the Mandal
Revenue Officer in discharge of his official duties whenever lands are partitioned, death of pattedar takes place and succession is to be reflected, transfer of land is effected in respect of respective khatadar i.e., pattedar and then the entries are taken into Supplementary Shetwar. In the present case, the patta which was standing in favour of Revuri Venkatamma by virtue of Zamima Shetwar was mutated in favour of Narsing Rao, who is the ancestor of the plaintiffs. Both Shetwar and Zamima Shetwar are documents prepared under a statute by Survey and Settlement Department and same is evidence of title and the plaintiffs being heirs of said R. Venkatamma inherited the property and by virtue of Zamima Shetwar, entry made in Faisal
S C J
Page 47 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Patti is conclusive proof of the title of the plaintiffs. In the present case while admitting the Ex. A14 no objection was raised about the mode of proof of said document, therefore Ex. A14 is conclusive proof of Naraparaju
Narsing Rao being the title holder of suit land in support of Ex. A1 setwar and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of AP reported in the case of
G. Satyanarayana and Geeta Tirupath Reddy cases stated supra, wherein it was held by Hon’ble High Court that Faisal patti is a public document and that bears the endorsement of mutation of patta made by the competent revenue authority during the course of the Jamabandi proceedings. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of
Madamanchi Ramappa case stated supra wherein it was held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the document in question being a certified copy of a public document need not have been proved by calling a witness.
61. While relying on Ex. A11, A12 reports submitted by the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Mellachervu and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District stated supra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that entries in Khasra would serve the purpose of a deed of title when there is no other title.
62. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that the defendants could not place any record to show that the aforesaid entries in
Ex. A14 are not true and infact the title is traced from Shethwar. While relying on Ex. A11 and A12 reports submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
S C J
Page 48 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Mellachervu to the District Collector, Nalgonda and the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Suryapet in response to the Plaintiff NO. 14’s application that the name of N. Narsing Rao is recorded as heir to Revuri Venkatamma and submitted that Khasra pahani though by itself did not create any title but recognize the existing title in official course of business in favour of Revuri
Venkatamma and on her death inherited by N. Narsing Rao and therefore contra evidence i.e., Ex. B6 and B7 wherein the MRO informed the defendant no. 1 that Khasra is in torn condition or the entry is not made therein in respect of suit land are obviously falsehood and falsity is established by Ex.
A12 and A11 and relied upon the Division Bench decision of Hon’ble High
Court of AP reported in the case of Mylaram Lachaiah case stated supra.
Thus to prove the inheritance of title from Late Revuri Venkatamma the plaintiffs have strongly relied upon the Ex. A2, A3, A5 to A14 and B6 and B7 documents.
63. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 while reiterating the submissions made in paras Nos.36 to 39 stated supra also submitted that the plaintiffs also did not make their claim before the recording authority under the Amended Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 as amended in the year 1989, which also strengthens that the plaintiffs are very much aware that they are no way concerned with the suit land.
S C J
Page 49 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
64. While relying on the cross-examination of the PW1, the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 submitted that the evidence of the PW-1 during the course of the cross examination categorically goes to show that the plaintiffs were not in possession till 1955-56 and the explanation in that regard by the
PW1 is not a correct one since there is no bar for recording the pattadar column for recording the names of the pattedars irrespective of the nature of the land like stony land or covered with hillock or marshy land or covered with thorny bushes or water logged and so on so forth. The further answers of the PW-1 in the cross examination goes to show that no documentary evidence is placed to show that the legal heirs of Naraparaju Narsinga Rao became owners of land.
65. He also submitted that PW-1 admitted that the names of plaintiffs were not entered in the revenue records subsequent to 1955-56, which goes to show that the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the suit land. The plaintiffs except filing copy of Supplementary Sethwar, they did not file any other record for the period prior to 1955-56 and which goes to show that there is no possession either to the plaintiffs or to their predecessor in interest over the suit land as falsely claiming by them.
66. With regard to the Ceiling Declarations, the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 submitted that the family of the plaintiffs filed Ceiling
Declarations as per the provisions under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holding) Act, 1973, which came into force in the early
S C J
Page 50 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
days of 1971 and did not show any piece of suit land in the said Ceiling
Declarations, since they are aware that they have no title and possession over the suit land and strongly relied upon Ex. B3 to B7, B26 to B78 documents.
67. I have gone through all the above documents relied by both the plaintiffs and also the defendants. Ex. A14 is Certified Copy of Faisal Patti for the year 1953. It shows that Patta was mutated in favour of Naraparaju
Narsing Rao for Sy.No. 795 by virtue of Zamima Shethwar. However, Ex.A14 do not disclose any mutation proceedings number and there is no reference of the order passed by the authority under which patta was mutated in the name of Late Naraparaju Narsinga Rao. Further, Ex. A14 is not supported with any order of “Kammi”.
68. Ex. A11 is the Report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Mellachervu to the District Collector, Nalgonda in Lr.No. F/2122/98 dated :
20-09-1999. Ex. A12 is Report submitted by Mandal Revenue Officer,
Mellachervu to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet in Lr.No. F/2122/98
dated : 16-09-1998. Both the Ex. A11 and A12 reports are submitted in
response to the application filed by the Plaintiff No. 14. In both the Ex. A11 and A12 letters the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu stated that as per the Sethwar of Revoor village Smt. R. Venkatamma was recorded as Pattedar of various survey numbers in addition to land to an extent of Ac.237.37 guntas in Sy.No. 795(suit schedule land), Ac.146.28 guntas in Sy.No. 815 and
S C J
Page 51 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Ac.229.17 guntas in Sy.No. 850 and subsequently the name of Sri. Late N.
Narasinga Rao, who is legal heir of Late R. Venkatamma, was recorded as
Pattedar in the Khasra Pahani, but in the Khasra Holding Register the above
three survey numbers are not recorded in the name of Late Narasinga
Rao. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu also stated that in Khasra
Pahani for the year 1954-55 in respect of Ac.237.37 guntas in Sy.No. 795
no entry was made in respect of names of Pattedar and Enjoyer. He also stated that Late Sri. N. Narasinga Rao was the legal heir of R. Venkatamma and in the Khasra holding register the above three survey numbers i.e.,
Sy.No. 795, 815 and 850 are not mentioned in the account of the Pattedar
i.e., N. Narsinga Rao and that in subsequent year pahanies onwards the
names of enjoyers are mentioned as Pattedars and some extents are
mentioned as “Gramasthulu” and “Choppdoddulu” written in pencil and submitted the entries made in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 and
Pahanies for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58 for suit schedule survey no. 795 which ares as follows.
Khasra Pahani 1954 – 55
Sy.No. Extent Pattedar Enjoyer Ac. guntas 795237.37Not available in the record
S C J
Page 52 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
1955 – 56 to 1957-58 years Pahanies
Sy.No. Extent Pattedar Enjoyer Ac. guntas 795/A131.16------ 795/AA131.15------ 795/E2.00Pavuluri--- Ramaiah 795/EE2.00Chittala--- Gopallu 795/U1.00Chittala--- Gopallu
69. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu also stated that after 1955-56 to 1957-58 in the records some changes were happened in the Pahani without faisal patti and subsequently the defendant no. 1 company purchased some land from the local farmers through registered documents and the said registered documents were implemented in the revenue records and at present the defendant no. 1 company is in possession of the afore said lands.
Pahani for the year 1996-97 for suit schedule survey no. 795 is as follows :
1996-97 year Pahani
Sy.No. Extent Pattedar Enjoyer
Ac. guntas 795/A16.00Sri Vishnu CementsSri Vishnu Cements Ltd. Ltd., 795/AA26.00-- do ---- do -- 795/AA331.32-- do ---- do -- 795/AA443.12Kode SeethammaKode Seethamma W/o. Venkateswarlu 795/A517.32Kode BixmaiahKode Bixmaiah
S C J
Page 53 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
795/A61.00MuthineniMuthineni Sitaramma Seetaramma W/o. Hariprasad 795/A71.00Jivvaji AdilaxmiJivvadi Adilaxmi S/o. Nayudaiah 795/AA822.00Sri Vishnu CementsSri Vishnu Cements Ltd. Ltd., 795/E131.15Sri Vishnu Cements-- do -- Ltd., 795/EE2.00-- do ---- do -- 795/U1.00-- do ---- do
70. Finally, the Mandal Revenue Officer stated that names of Revuri
Hymavathi (Plaintiff No. 6 herein) and Naraparaju Ranganayakamma (Plaintiff no. 14 herein) were not recorded in the pahani and both are the legal heirs of Late N. Narsinga Rao who is recorded as Pattedar at the time of
Khasra Pahani and that the lands in the above three survey numbers are unfit for cultivation and fully covered with limestone.
71. Coming to the Exhibit B series documents, Ex. B4 and B5 are the reports
dated : 20-05-1995 and 31-08-1995 submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Mellachervu to the District Collector, Nalgonda. As per the Ex. B4 the Mandal
Revenue Officer noticed that the relevant page in khasra Volume No. 2 for the year 1954-55 for the pattadar and enjoyer of suit survey number 795 has been torn off and for the years 1956-57 to 1964-65 the pattadar and enjoyer columns were left blank. He also noticed that in the year 1964-65 the names of Pavuluri China Ramaiah, Chittela Gopalu etc., are recorded as Pattedar
S C J
Page 54 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
and Enjoyer. As per the pahani 1965-66 the names of Yaragorla Lachanna,
Patel Narsaiah and others, Takkellapati Pullaiah and others names are recorded as pattedar and enjoyer; and that the Zamabandi Faisal Patti register was not received from the Mandal Revenue Office, Kodad.
72. In Ex. B5 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu submitted his report stating that in 1954 Khasra holding register the other lands of Sri. Naraparaju
Narsinga Rao are recorded and whereas the lands in Sy.No. 795/A, 795/AA, 815 and 850 were deleted from the Khata No. 188 of Sri Naraparaju Narsinga
Rao and therefore the above three survey numbers lands are not recorded and finally stated that prior to 1954-55 Khasra the pattedar Sri.Naraparaju
Narsinga Rao lost his patta rights in favour of the villagers.
73. Ex. B3 is Certified Copy of Order of Joint Collector, Nalgonda in Case
No.D1/34034/98 dt: 20-03-2022. The Joint Collector, Nalgonda in Ex. B3 orders observed that as per the Ex. A12 report submitted by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Mellachervu that as per the Sethwar Smt. R. Venkatamma was pattedar of the suit land and the pahani for the year 1954-55 i.e., first record of rights is in torned condition, the subsequent 3 years pahani is verified and found that the pattedar and possessor column of Sy.No. 795 are kept blank and for Sy.Nos. 815 and 850 the names of Sri. Pavurala China
Ramaiah and several other persons are recorded as pattedars and the same was continued upto 1964-65 and during the year 1965-66 Sri. Yeragorla
Lachanna etc., are recorded as pattedars of Sy.No. 795; and likewise, it is
S C J
Page 55 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
recorded in the name of the vendors of the defendant no. 1 upto 1984-85 from whom the defendant no. 1 company has purchased the suit land through registered documents.
74. Ex. B65 is Family Holding Register of Naraparaju Narsinga Rao (vide
Khata No. 188) for the year 1954-55 and Ex. B66 is Family Holding Register of
Revuri Kishan Rao (vide Khata No. 34) for the year 1954-55. In both Ex. B65
and B66 Holding Registers the suit schedule land is not recorded either in
the name of Naraparaju Narsinga Rao or in the name of Revuri Kishan Rao.
75. Ex. B68 to B71 are No. 4 adangals for the year 1999-2000. These
pahanies show that Revuri Annapurnamma (Plaintiff No. 15), Naraparaju
Narsinga Rao, Naraparaju Ranganayakamma, (Plaintiff No.14), Revuri
Hymavathi (Plaintiff No. 6) and Revuri Venkata Rangarao and others are
having lands in different survey numbers but not in the suit schedule
survey numbers.
76. Ex. B72 to B76 are Certified Copies of Ceiling Declaration Proceedings of
Smt. Revuri Annapurnamma (Plaintiff No. 15) and Ex. B77 to B79 are
Certified Copies of Ceiling Declaration Proceedings of Smt. Revuri Hymavathi (Plaintiff No. 6). In Ex. B72 to B79 Ceiling Declaration proceedings, both
the declarants i.e., plaintiff No.15 and 16 have not disclosed the suit
schedule land in Sy.No. 795 and in fact they have disclosed the other
lands in different survey numbers including the lands sold to different
S C J
Page 56 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
persons. They have also made declaration that except the lands shown in
their respective declarations their family is not having any other lands
including the joint family lands in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.
77. Ex. B26 is Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 and it shows that no details were recorded.
78. I have also gone through the A6 to A10 and Ex. B26 to B79 documents.
Ex. A6 is pahani patrika for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 & 1957-58. Ex. A7 to
A10 are pahani patrikas for the years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1963-64 and 1964-65 respectively. Ex. B27 is Pahani Patrika for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 & 1957-
58. Ex. B28 to B64 are pahanies for the year 1960-61, 1961-62, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 respectively.
79. In Ex. A6 to A10 and B27 to B47 pahanies names of Pavuluri China
Ramaiah for Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No. 795/E, Chittela Gopallu for Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No. 795/EE and Chittela Gopallu for Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No.
795/U are recorded as pattedars but in Ex. A6 to A10 and Ex. B27 to B31 pahanies pattedar and enjoyer columns for Ac.131.16 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A and Ac.131.15 guntas in Sy.No. 795/AA was not recorded in the names of
S C J
Page 57 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
any persons. However in the year 1966-67(Ex. B32 pahani) the names of
Paragorla Lachayya and Pentala Narsaiah and others for Ac.131.16 guntas in
Sy.No. 795/A and the name of Takkellapati Pullaiah and others for Ac.131.15 guntas in Sy.No. 795/AA was recorded as pattedar and enjoyer and also as their own property. The name of Takkellapati Pullaiah and others for
Ac.131.15 guntas in Sy.No. 795/AA was continued till the year 1983-84.
Whereas the names of Paragorla Lachayya and Pentala Narsaiah and others for Ac.131.16 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A was continued till the year 1968-69. In 1970-71 the name of Oruganti Laxmi Narayana, in 1971-72 the names of
Narsamma, Bitchamayya and Venkateswarlu was recorded as pattedar and enjoyer of Ac.131.16 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A and same was continued till the year 1983-84. One Mutineni Seetaravamma name was recorded as enjoyer of
Ac.131.16 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A for the year 1982-83 and 1983-84.
80. The Ex. B49 to B64 pahanies show the name of the defendant no. 1 as pattedar and enjoyer of Ac.6-00 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A1, Ac.6-00 guntas in
Sy.No. 795/A2, Ac.31-32 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A3, Ac.22-20 guntas in Sy.No.
795/A6, Ac.131-15 guntas in Sy.No. 795/AA, Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No. 795/E,
Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No. 795/EE and Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No. 795/U. The name of one Kode Sheetamma W/o. Venkateshwarlu is recorded as pattedar and enjoyer of Ac.43.32 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A4. The name of one Bixmaiah is pattedar and enjoyer of Ac.21-32 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A5 till the year 1990-91 and thereafter in the year 1991-92 his name was recorded as
S C J
Page 58 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
pattedar and enjoyer of Ac.17-32 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A5 and the name of one Muttineni Seetaravamma W/o. Hari Prasad as pattedar and enjoyer of
Ac.2-20 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A51 and the name of one Javvaji Aadi Laxmi
W/o. Ramudayya as pattedar and enjoyer of Ac.1-00 guntas in
Sy.No.795/A52. Thus Ex. B36 to B64 pahanies show the name of the defendant No.1 as pattedar and enjoyer of total Ac.202.27 guntas of land in
Sy.No. 795. PW1 is not disputing the above entries made in Ex. A6 to A10 and
Ex. B26 to B79 documents.
81. Ex. A2 is Letter issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu
dated: 07-09-1987 to the PW1 informing him that Khasra Pahani for the year
1954-55, Pahanies for the years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962- 63, 1963-64, 1968-69, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-71, 1978-79, 1977-78 and 1979-80 are not available in their office. Similar information is furnished to the defendant no. 1 vide Ex. B6 letter dt: 25-02-2000 and Ex. B7 letter dt :
28-09-2004.
82. Ex. A3 is another letter of Mandal Revenue Officer dated : 16-7-1988 informing Revuri Ranga Rao that Khasra Pahani for the Sy.Nos. 659, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674 and 791, 795 was in torn condition and was incomplete and further there were strike outs in some survey numbers and therefore they are unable to furnish the certified copies to him. Ex. A5 is Memo issued by
Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellachervu dt : 6-12-2004 that due to non availability of pahanies for the years 1950-51, 1953-54, 1954-55 (khasra),
S C J
Page 59 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
1959-60, 1962-63, 1965-66 they are unable to furnish certified copies of the same to Revuri Jagan Mohan Rao.
83. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that by virtue of Zamima Shetwar the patta which was standing in the name of Revuri Venkatamma was mutated in favour of Naraparaju Narsinga Rao, who is the heir of Revuri
Venkatamma and ancestor of the plaintiffs and further Setwar and Zamima
Shetwar are public documents prepared under a statute by Survey and
Settlement department, therefore the same is evidence of title and the plaintiffs being the heirs of said Revuri Venkatamma have inherited the property and entry made in Ex. A14 Faisal Patti, which is a public document, is conclusive proof of the title of the plaintiffs. It is also their case that since
Khasra Pahani by itself did not create any title but it does not alter the preexisting rights of the parties as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector, District Ranga Reddy and another vs. D. Narsing
Rao.
84. As stated supra, the Ex. A14 shows that Patta was mutated in favour of
Naraparaju Narsing Rao for Sy.No. 795 by virtue of Zamima Shethwar.
However, Ex. A14 do not disclose any mutation proceedings number and there is no reference of the order passed by the authority under which patta was mutated in the name of Late Naraparaju Narsinga Rao. Further, Ex. A14 is not supported with any order of “Kammi”. Besides this, in Ex. B65 and B66
Family Holding register for the year 1953-54 prepared as per the Board
S C J
Page 60 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Standing Orders the suit schedule land is not recorded either in the name of Late Naraparaju Narsinga Rao or in the name of Late Kishan Rao.
Neither Naraparaju Narsinga Rao nor Kishan Rao or any of the plaintiffs on their behalf have claimed the suit schedule land during the preparation of
Khasra Pahani 1954-55 or they have claimed the suit schedule land under A.P.
ROR Act, 1978 and for the first time in the year 1996 i.e., after period of 40 years from preparation of Khasra Pahani they have made claim for the suit land.
85. Further the Plaintiff Nos. 15 and plaintiff no. 6 in their respective ceiling declarations under Ex. B72 to B79 have not disclosed the suit schedule land as the land inherited from the original pattedar Late Smt. Revuri
Venkatamma or from Late Naraparaju Narsinga Rao. The Joint Collector,
Nalgonda, in his Ex. B3 orders in Case NO. D1/34034/98 dated : 20-03-2002 also observed the non-disclosure of suit schedule land in ceiling declaration by the Plaintiffs and failure to furnish declaration under Sec. 8 of A.P. Land
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is liable for penal action under Sec. 24 of the said Act; and therefore non-filing of declaration creates cloud on the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
86. In the present case, the suit schedule land is not a small extent and infact it is a vast extent of Ac. 237-39 guntas. Once such vast extent of land of Ac.237.39 guntas of land is not disclosed in ceiling declaration before the
Land Reforms Tribunal, which has not been filed and admitted by the PW1
S C J
Page 61 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
and also not recorded in the Holding Registers and not making any claim during the preparation of Khasra pahani in the year 1954-55 and also under
A.P. ROR Act, 1978, a natural presumption would arise that as the suit schedule land was not there, as such they have not claimed the land during the preparation of Khasra Pahani, ROR Act and also not disclosed before the
Land Reforms Tribunal. Once the court observes that the suit schedule land is not there, it must be presumed that they have sold out the land to others and that is the reason, they have not disclosed or claimed the suit schedule land at any point of time and it is only after period of 40 years of preparation of Khasra Pahani 1954-55, they have falsely made claim of title over the suit schedule land and therefore, it can be safely held that the plaintiffs are deemed to be no longer owners of the suit schedule property.
87. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the suit schedule land is a stony and hillock land and same is unfit for cultivation and therefore, it does not come under the definition of land under Sec. 3(j) of
A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and therefore, the suit land, which is unfit for cultivation, is not disclosed in ceiling declaration and as such the plaintiffs did not lost their title and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble A.P. High Court reported in the case of B.R.
Koteswara Rao vs. G. Rameswari bai @ G. Rameswari11.
11AIR 2004 AP 34
S C J
Page 62 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
88. Thus, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that as the suit land is unfit for cultivation as it is a stony and hillock land, therefore, it does not come under the definition of land and therefore, they have not disclosed the same in ceiling declaration and therefore it is not a ceiling surplus land.
89. Section 3(j) of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricltural Holdings) Act, 1973 defines “land”, which reads as under :
(j) 'land' means land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, or for purposes ancillary thereto, including horticulture, forest land, pasture land, waste land, plantation and tope; and includes land deemed to be agricultural land under this Act.
Explanation I. - Where any land is held under ryotwari settlement it shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be land under this Act.
Explanation II. - 'land' shall not include the land appurtenant to a building;
90. A bare reading of Sec. 3(j) of Act it can be noticed that stony or hillock land was not exempted from ceiling declaration and infact waste land which is unfit for cultivation is also included in the definition of ‘land’ under the
Act. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot contend that suit schedule land does not come under the ceiling declaration under the Act and therefore they have not disclosed in their ceiling declarations. Moreover, the Joint Collector,
Nalgonda in Ex. B3 orders observed that the plaintiff nos. 15 and 6have not disclosed the suit schedule land in ceiling declaration and found that they are liable for penal action under Section 24 of the Act. Once the suit schedule land comes under the definition of Ceiling Declaration, a duty is
S C J
Page 63 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
cast upon the plaintiffs to disclose the suit schedule land, irrespective of it is a stony land or unfit for cultivation, before the Land Reforms Tribunal, who has to decide whether the plaintiffs have any surplus land or not and also that the suit schedule land comes under ceiling declaration or not. But in the present case, the plaintiffs intentionally did not disclose the vast extent of suit schedule land of more than 200 acres in ceiling declaration; and without disclosing any such declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal under the
Act are seeking the equitable relief of recovery of possession from the defendants behind the back of the State rights over the surplus land. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must do equity. As stated supra, in the present case, the plaintiffs have not disclosed the suit schedule land in ceiling declaration and failure to disclose the said declaration amounts to suppression of material facts which amounts to playing fraud on the Court and also on the affected party i.e., State herein and whoever plays fraud is not entitled for any relief muchless equitable relief of recovery of possession.
91. Further, in Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao vs. Indukuru Ramachandra
Reddy (dead) by LRs and others12it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that
“where any order passed by the Couurt is likely to adversely affect and
interfere in the rights of the State under the Ceiling Declaration Act,
State is a necessary party”. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not disclosed the suit schedule land in ceiling declaration and same was observed by the 122017 SCC Online SC 392
S C J
Page 64 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Joint Collector in his Ex. B3 orders dated : 20-03-2002. Further, it is nowhere the case of the defendant no. 1 that its vendors or their alleged ancestors have made any ceiling declaration under the Act and that suit schedule land is declared as non-surplus land of the vendors or their alleged ancestors. The defendants also withhold the material evidence to prove that the suit schedule land is not a ceiling surplus land. Infact in Ex. B8 to B25 the alleged vendors of the defendant no. 1 have declared that as they are holding less than the one standard holding as such they have not filed any ceiling declaration before the Lands Reforms Tribunal, contrary to these documents, DW4, who is defendant No.48 in the suit, deposed that himself and other vendors have allegedly declared the suit land in ceiling declaration and same was computed by the Verification Officer in their holdings.
However, the DW4 did not choose to produce the said ceiling declaration proceedings and inturn withhold the said proceedings. Thus, the evidence adduced by both the plaintiffs and defendants clearly show that the suit land was not disclosed in ceiling declaration either by any of the plaintiffs and by any of the defendants or their alleged ancestors.
92. Now a question arises that declaration made by the vendors of defendant No.1 in Ex.B8 to B25 sale deeds are sufficient to come to a conclusion that suit schedule land does not come under ceiling declaration.
As per the Act, the Land Reforms Tribunal is the appropriate authority to decide whether any land is ceiling surplus land or not. Therefore, unless the
S C J
Page 65 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Land Reforms Tribunal decides the same, the declaration made by the alleged vendors of the defendant no. 1 cannot be looked into. In the present case, inspite of having such knowledge that a vast extent of suit land of about more than 200 acres is to be decided by the Land Reforms Tribunal either as ceiling surplus land or not, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants choose to take any steps to implead the State as necessary party to the suit or summon any documents from the Land Reforms Tribunal that suit schedule land does not fall under ceiling surplus land. Thus both the plaintiffs and defendants failed to prove that suit schedule land is a ceiling surplus land or not. In the present case vast extent of more than 200 acres are claiming by both the parties; and any order passed by this court certainly affects the
State, therefore, plaintiffs and defendants who did not choose to implead the State as party defendants is not entitled for the equitable relief and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground non joinder of necessary party i.e., State.
93. I have gone through the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in
B.R. Koteswar Rao case stated supra. In the aforesaid case, the defendant admitted the title and ownership of the plaintiff and therefore, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that non-inclusion of the suit land in ceiling declaration of the plaintiff, by itself is not a ground to non-suit the plaintiff; and that when plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property and when 1st defendant is not entitled to the relief of specific
S C J
Page 66 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
performance sought by him, she is entitled to seek recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant. If plaintiff did not declare the plaint schedule land in her declaration filed under the 1973 Act, or has not intimated the concerned authorities under the 1973 Act about her entitlement to possession of the plaint schedule land, as per Section 18 of the 1973 Act, it is for the authorities under the 1973 Act to initiate appropriate proceedings or take action against the plaintiffs as per the provisions of the 1973 Act. Therefore, a copy of this order is to be marked
to Collector, Rangareddy District and the Additional Revenue Divisional
Officer, Medchal appointed for looking after implementation of 1973
Act, for taking necessary steps .
94. In the present case, the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs failed to prove their inheritance of title over the suit schedule land; and as such the cited decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the dictum laid down by Hon’ble
Suprme Court in Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao and Hon’ble High Court
in B.R. Koteswar Rao cases and also as per the observation made by this court opines that a copy of this judgment is required to be marked to the
District Collector, Suryapet District and the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Huzurnagar appointed for looking after implementation of 1973 Ceiling
Declaration Act, for taking necessary steps over the suit land.
S C J
Page 67 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
95. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the Ex. B8 to B25 under which the defendant no. 1 company is claiming title do not disclose the source of title of alleged vendors of the defendant no. 1 and also that the defendant no. 1 could not establish that the alleged vendors of the defendant no. 1 under Ex. B8 to B25 sale deeds have got any title muchless valid title to convey better title to the defendant no. 1. The pahanies under which the defendant no. 1 is claiming title of his vendors does not confer any title. The Ex. B2 agreement of sale dated : 20-03-1945 under which the defendant no. 1 is claiming title does not create any valid title in favour of the alleged vendors of the defendant no. 1. Further Ex. B2 on the face of it is a void document as the document is uncertain, very contracting parties are not certain and capable of being made certain. He also submitted that an agreement of sale does not create any right and it merely gives a right to enforce it specifically as equitable relief in a court of law; but in this case no suit for specific performance was filed; and therefore Ex. B2 agreement even if it is marked it does not dispense with its proof and finally, he submitted that the plaintiffs have got better title through the original pattedar Smt.
Revuri Venkatamma; and the mere non recording of their names in the revenue records does not extinguish their title and prayed to decree the suit.
96. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 submitted that in the present case, neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors in interest raised any objections for the entries in the revenue records more particularly
S C J
Page 68 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
pahani patrikas though the said family was the holder of the post of Patwari and allowed the public at large to believe that they are not the owners or possessors of the said land and the same belongs to others in the village whose names are recorded as pattedars and possessors of the said lands.
Therefore, the said behavior of the plaintiffs and their predecessors gave rise to believe that the persons those whose names are recorded in the revenue records are the owners and possessors and they can deal with the said property in the manner in which they want to deal as absolute owners and possessors.
97. The learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 further submitted that the contention of the plaintiffs that the contract shown in exhibit B-2 is only executory contract and not a executed contract is not tenable in the eye of law, since it was a practice in those days to record the names of the purchasers on the oral information furnished to the Patwari by the vendor and the vendee about the alienation of the property held by the vendor as per the rules prevailing in Nizam Government. He further submitted that if really the contract through exhibit B-2 was not concluded, the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest would have initiated the necessary legal proceedings in that regard and they would have got incorporated their names in the holding register by placing their claim before the authority concerned which prepared the said record in those days and therefore opposed the above contention of the plaintiffs.
S C J
Page 69 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
98. It is settled law that the revenue entries does not confer any title and mere non-raising of any objection by the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest for the entries in the revenue records more particularly pahani patrikas though the said family was the holder of the post of Patwari does not confer any title on the vendors of the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 ought to have produced relevant documents to show that how its vendors have got title to execute any registered sale deed under Ex. B18 to
B25 in favour of the defendant no. 1. In Ex. B18 to B25 except mentioning that the vendor no. 1 in each sale deed is owner and other vendors are possessors have allegedly alienated the land to the defendant no. 1 do not disclose any khata number, patta number etc. of the alleged vendors. Even the Ex. B18 to B25 sale deeds are silent as to how its vendors have got title or acquired the lands thereunder. Further Ex. B2 sale agreement dated : 20- 03-1945 under which Naraparaju Narsing Rao and Revuri Sunder Rama Rao allegedly alienated 280 acres of land in Sy.No. 795 to Pentala Narsaiah,
Paramatmula Ananta Ramaiah and Oruganti Venkaiah is not an executed contract and it is only an executory contract as the alleged purchasers have not paid total sale consideration amount to the above vendors and both have allegedly agreed to perform the contract till the end of December, 1945.
Except Ex. B2 the defendant no. 1 have not produced any other documents, whether the above alleged purchasers have paid balance sale consideration and obtained registered conveyance deed in their favour or got mutated their names in the revenue records. Thus, there are no other documents or
S C J
Page 70 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
records to show the better title of above purchasers under Ex.B2.
Admittedly, the above alleged purchasers names were not recorded in Khasra
Pahani, Theensal pahani. No ones names were recorded in respect of
Ac.135.16 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A and Ac.135.16 guntas in Sy.No. 795/AA and it is only in the year 1965-66 onwards the names of Yaragorla Lachanna,
Patelu Narsaiah and others for Ac.131-16 guntas in Sy.No. 795/A and name of
Takkellapati Pullaiah and others for Ac.131-16 guntas in Sy.No. 795/AA was recorded. Inspite of making observation by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Mellachervue in Ex. B5 report, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant no. 1 choose to take any steps to call for the relevant records from the Office of
Tahasildar, Huzurnagar and Kodad and like the plaintiffs, the defendant no. 1 also kept quite. Even it did not choose to bring any documents to show the alleged relationship of its vendors with the purchasers under Ex. B2 Sale
Agreement, dated : 20-03-1945. The Joint Collector, Nalgonda in Ex. B3 orders also observed about the legal right of its vendors to sell the suit land to the defendant no. 1. Even Ex. B2 sale agreement was not brought to the notice of any of Mandal Revenue Officer of Mellachervu Mandal, Revenue
Divisional Officer, the Joint Collector, Nalgonda. Ex. B2 was also not filed along with the written statement; and it is only produced during the pendancy of the case; and till that day Ex. B2 has not seen the light. Though the defendant no. 1 examined DW3 and DW4 to prove the genuineness of Ex.
B2; but they are neither executants nor attestors to the said document, therefore, their evidence cannot be looked into. Further mere marking of a
S C J
Page 71 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
document does not dispense with its proof. Moreover, mere delivery of alleged possession under Ex. B2 does not confer any title on the above alleged purchasers. Thus, the defendant no. 1 failed to prove the title of its vendors or their predecessors in interest. Therefore, mere entry of name of the vendors in the pahanies do not confer any title on them; and therefore it cannot be held that its vendors, who have no valid title, have conveyed better title under Ex. B18 to B25 sale deeds to the defendant no. 1 and thereby the defendant No.1 got valid title to the suit land. Therefore, there is no force in the said submission of the defendant no. 1 and it can be held that the title of the defendant No.1 is also under cloud.
99. Now question arises since the defendant no. 1 did not get valid title, the plaintiffs are entitled for the recovery of possession as they have alleged better title than the defendant no. 1. The law on this aspect is well settled.
In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami13, the Apex
Court held the law in the following terms :
“29. In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the Court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored with him. However, as held in A. Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. Chenchamma & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 136, there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of 13AIR 2003 SC 4548
S C J
Page 72 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title.”
100. Thus, it is clear from the above dictum that unless the plaintiffs are able to establish high degree of probability to shift the onus on the
defendant and the weakness in the case of the defendant is not a ground
to decree the suit. In the present case, as stated supra, the plaintiffs except relying on Ex. A1 Sethwar in the name of Revuri Venkatamma, they have not produced any other records like Khasra Pahani, Holding Register etc., to show that the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest have inherited the said property from Smt. Revuri Venkatamma. Moreover, the plaintiffs themselves have not disclosed the suit land in ceiling declaration and also they have not taken any steps to got mutate their names in the revenue records under ROR Act and they kept silent; and it is only in the year 1995 i.e., after 40 years, they made application before the revenue authorities for the alleged illegal mutation in the name of defendant no. 1; and the Joint
Collector, Nalgonda vide orders in Ex. B3 refused to grant relief to them and dismissed their application and same has become final as they have not challenged before the higher forum. Thus, the plaintiffs have not established acquisition of title from Smt. Revuri Venkatamma; and once they have not discharged their initial burden of proof, onus never shifts onto the shoulders of the defendants notwithstanding that the defendant no. 1 has got valid title from its vendors. Therefore, seen from any angle, the said contention
S C J
Page 73 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
of the plaintiffs is not legally sustainable and weakness in the case of the defendants is not a ground to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
101. From the above discussions, this court opines that though the plaintiffs are able to establish the title of Smt. Revuri Venkatamma and also their relationship with her; but they have failed to establish their acquisition/ inheritance of suit land from Smt. Revuri Venkatamma; and once they have failed to establish acquisition/inheritance of title to the suit schedule land, they are not entitled for the equitable relief of recovery of possession on the basis of title notwithstanding that the defendant No.1 failed to establish its title over the suit land. Moreover, the defendants denied the title both in the Counter filed before the Joint Collector and also in the written statement. Further, the plaintiffs have got knowledge that since the year 1954-55 onwards the revenue records were not continuing in the names of any of the plaintiffs, but they have kept quite. Thus a cloud was created on the title of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs did not choose to seek any declaration of their title and therefore, the present suit for recovery of possession without seeking declaration is not maintainable and present suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the issue no. 1 is answered.
102. ISSUE No. 2 :
This issue is framed on the basis of the plea taken by the defendants that the present market value of the suit land is of Rs.20,000/- per acre and
S C J
Page 74 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
as such the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is not sufficient.
103. In the present case, the plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 4,75,950/- i.e., Rs.2,000/- per acre for the total suit schedule land measuring Ac.237-39 gts and accordingly paid the advalorem court fee of Rs. 6,026/- under Sec.29
R/w. Sec. 50(1) of A.P.C.F.& S.V.Act. Though the defendants took the plea that the suit schedule land is about Rs.20,000/- per acre, but the DW1 did not depose the actual market value of the suit schedule property in his chief examination affidavit or choose to file Market Value Certificate or summon the same from the Office of Sub-Registrar. Thus, except vaguely taking the plea that the suit is not properly valued at Rs.20,000/- per acre and the court fee paid is not sufficient they did not produce any document in support of their contention and thus they have failed to prove that the suit is not properly valued as alleged by them. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record the contention of the defendants cannot sustain and this issue is required to be answered against the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
104. ISSUE No. 3 :
The defendants also took a plea that the suit is barred of limitation. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the provision of law i.e.,
Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 with the regard to the limitation as
S C J
Page 75 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
submitted by the plaintiffs is not applicable to the case of the plaintiffs, since, earlier Limitation Act, 1908 was in force for a period of 19 years from the date of loss of possession of the suit by the plaintiffs through the Ex.B2 and as such the limitation for filing of the suit started running in the year 1945 completed in the year 1957 itself as per the Article 142 of Limitation
Act, 1908 and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation.
105. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that in a suit based on a title, the plaintiffs need not be prove that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land within 12 years of the date of the suit. As per
Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the suit for limitation arises when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. As per the
Article 65 of Limitation Act the starting point for the limitation from the date when the possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff and Article 142 of the
Limitation Act, 1908, which has undergone metamorphic sea change in view of Article 65 of 1963, is not applicable to the facts of the case and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision reported in the case of
Indira vs Arumugam and another14, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that :
The aforesaid reasoning of the learned Judge, with respect, cannot be sustained as it proceeds on the assumption as if old Article 142 of the earlier Limitation Act was in force wherein the plaintiff who based his case on title had to prove not only title but also possession within 12 years of the date of the suit. The said provision of law has undergone a 14AIR 1999 SC 1549
S C J
Page 76 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
metamorphic sea change as we find under the Limitation Act, 1963 Article 65 which reads as under:
Description of Suit Period of Limitation Time from which period
begins to run
ForpossessionofTwelve yearsWhen the possession of the immovable property or defendant becomes adverse any interest therein based to the plaintiff on title
5.It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non- suited. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter was missed by the learned Judge and, therefore, the entire reasoning for disposing of the second appeal has got vitiated. Only on that short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the question of law framed by the learned Judge for disposing of the second appeal, this appeal is allowed. The impugned decision rendered is set aside and the second appeal is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to proceed further with the hearing of the appeal with respect to the substantial question aforementioned in accordance with law.
106. Thus, it is clear from the above dictum laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that under the old Limitation Act, 1908, the plaintiff not only had to prove the title but also has to prove his possession within the 12 years from the date of institution of the suit in order to recover the possession of immovable property, but under the new Limitation Act, 1963 there has been a change in the law and as per Articles 64 and 65 of the new Act, the plaintiff
S C J
Page 77 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
has only to prove his title and it is for the defendants to prove the acquisition to title by adverse possession or claiming title to himself. Since, the present suit is filed in the year 1996 and as such the contention of the defendants that the Article 140 of Limitation Act of the year 1908 is applicable to the facts of the present case does not arise and as on the date of the filing of the suit, the new Limitation Act 1963 is in force and as such the Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the facts of the present case.
107. As stated supra, as per the Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 the starting point for limitation for filing suit for possession of immovable property based on the title is 12 years from the date on the possession of defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove that the possession of the defendant has become adverse to him. In the present case, the plaintiffs pleaded that in or about June, 1993 the defendant No.1 had allegedly erected the pillars around the major portion of the suit land without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs and after coming to know of the illegal acts of the defendant No.1, they have allegedly protested for raising the pillars but the defendant No.1 did got care for it and later on, the PW1 applied for certified copy of pahanies and other revenue records and on enquiry they allegedly came to know that at the instance of defendant No.1 the revenue records were allegedly tampered and therefore they have got issued Ex.A4 legal notice, dated: 30.01.1996
S C J
Page 78 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
calling upon the defendant No.1 to remove the alleged constructions and hand over the vacant physical possession of the suit land to them. Thus, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that in or about June, 1993 the defendant
No.1 have allegedly erected the pillars around the major portion of the suit land that too without their alleged consent and knowledge. However, the plaintiffs except vaguely pleading that they have allegedly come to know about the alleged erection of pillars in the month of June, 1993, they have not produced any material like photographs or examine any other persons to support their contention. In the present case, the plaintiffs are also having the land in Sy.No. 850 i.e., on the Southern side of the suit schedule land.
Once, the plaintiffs are one of the boundary owners of the suit schedule land, now they cannot contend that only in the month of June, 1993 they have got alleged knowledge about the alleged erection of pillars by the defendant No.1 and also alleged mutation of name of defendant no. 1 in the revenue records and also alleged tampering of revenue records in the name of defendant No.1 vendors or their predeceasers. On the other hand, the
PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that till 1955 or 1956 his alleged predecessor in title had lost possession of the suit land and thereafter they are not in possession. He also admitted there is no any record to show that they are in possession of the suit land till 1955-56. The above admission made by the PW1 in his cross-examination clearly shows that they were not in possession of the suit schedule land much prior to the alleged cause of action in the month of June, 1993 which never occurred. Though, as per the
S C J
Page 79 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 the starting date for filing suit for possession arises when the possession of the defendant become adverse to the plaintiff, but in the present case, the plaintiffs not only failed to prove their acquisition of title but they have also failed to prove that the alleged cause of action occurred in the year 1993. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and infact they have lost their title in the year 1954-55 i.e., during the period of Khasara pahani; and now i.e., after 40 years, the plaintiffs cannot take the shelter under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and sought for recovery of possession based on the title which they failed to prove it. As stated supra, the plaintiffs inspite of having knowledge that there is a cloud created on their title, they did not choose to seek for declaration of title and in turn took the shelter under Article 65 of Limitation
Act, 1963 by seeking the recovery of possession on the basis of title, as such they failed to prove their case. Since the plaintiffs failed to establish the title; as such Article 65 of Limitation Act does not come to their rescue and therefore this suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
108. ISSUE No.4: To what relief ?
IN THE RESULT, this suit is dismissed. Office is directed to submit copy of this Judgment to the District Collector, Suryapet and Revenue Divisional
Officer, Huzurnagar appointed for looking after implementation of Telangana
Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 for taking necessary
S C J
Page 80 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
steps over the suit land there under. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
(Partly typed to my dictation and Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2025).
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW-1: Revuri Jagan Mohan Rao
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
DW-1: Chekuri Venkata Subramanya Raju DW-2: Ravilla Rama Rao DW-3: Mudiyala Venkat Reddy DW-4: Ravilla Seetharamaiah DW-5: G. Sathaiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of the Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1Certified copy of Sethwar for the year 1955 of Revuru (v) for Sy.No. 795 showing Revuri Venkatamma as Khatedar Ex.A2Certified copy of Memo dated 17.09.1987 issued by M.R.O MellAcheruvu stating that the Kharsa pahani and some of the Pahanies are not available in their office Ex.A3Certified copy of Memo dated 16-07-1988 issued by M.RO Mellacheruvu stating that the Khasra Pahani for the Sy. No.795 is in torn condition. Ex.A4Office copy of Legal Notice dated 30-01-1996 issued to D-1
S C J
Page 81 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Ex.A5Memo dated 6-12-2004 issued by MRO Mellacheruvu stating that some of the Pahanies for the years 1950-51 to 1953-54, 1954-55, 1959-60, 1962- 63, 1965-66 are not available in the Office. Ex.A6Certified copy of Pahanies for the 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 for years Sy.No. 795 of Revaru Village Ex.A7Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61 for Sy.No 795 of Revaru Village Ex.A8Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62 for Sy No 795 of Revaru Village Ex.A9Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1963-64 for Sy.No 795 of Revaru Village
Ex.A10Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65 for Sy.No 795 of Revaru Village Ex.A11Letter No.F/2122/98, dated 20-9-1999 addressed to the Hon’ble District Collector Nalgonda by M.R.O Mellacheruvu in respect of Sy.No. 795 and other numbers as attested by MRO, Mellachervu Ex.A12Letter addressed by MRO Mellacheruvu in File No.F/2122/98 dated 16-9- 1998 to the RDO Suryapeta attested by MRO, Mellachervu. Ex.A13Service Certificate dated 19-10-2004 issued by MRO Huzurnagar showing Revuru Sundar Rama Rao working as Asaldar Patwari of Revenue Village from 09-01-1967 to 31-05-1972 Ex.A14Certified copy of Faisal Patti for the year 1953.
On behalf of the Defendants :
Ex.B1Authorisation Letter, dated 03-02-2005 Ex.B2Sale Agreement dated 20-03-1945 Ex.B3Order passed by Joint Collector, dated 20-03-2002 Ex.B4Report sent by M.R.O to District Collector, dated 20-05-1995 Ex.B5Report sent by M.R.O to District Collector, dated 31-08-1995 Ex.B6M.R.O Note dated 25-02-2000 Ex.B7M.R.O Note dated 28-09-2004 Ex.B8Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1191/84 dated 04-04-1984 Ex.B9Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1203/84 dated 05-04-1984 Ex.B10Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1204/84 dated 06-04-1984 Ex.B11Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1234/84 dated 06-04-1984 Ex.B12Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1236/84 dated 06-04-1984
S C J
Page 82 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Ex.B13Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1237/84 dated 06-04-1984 Ex.B14Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1238/84 dated 07-04-1984 Ex.B15Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1239/84 dated 07-04-1984 Ex.B16Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1245/84 dated 07-04-1984 Ex.B17Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1249/84 dated 07-04-1984 Ex.B18Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1252/84 dated 07-04-1984 Ex.B19Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1253/84 dated 07-04-1984 Ex.B20Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1294/84 dated 12-04-1984 Ex.B21Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1299/84 dated 12-04-1984 Ex.B22Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1313/84 dated 13-04-1984 Ex.B23Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.1383/84 dated 17-04-1984 Ex.B24Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.2630/84 dated 21-06-1984 Ex.B25Copy of Regd.Sale Deed No.2250/85 dated 08-08-1985 Ex.B26Certified copy of Khasra Pahanies for the year 1954-55 Ex.B27Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1955-56 to 1957-58 Ex.B28Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1960-61 Ex.B29Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1961-62 Ex.B30Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1963-64 Ex.B31Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1964-65 Ex.B32Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1966-67 Ex.B33Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1967-68 Ex.B34Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1968-69 Ex.B35Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1970-71 Ex.B36Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1971-72 Ex.B37Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1972-73 Ex.B38Certified copy of Pahanies for the Year 1973-74 Ex.B39Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1974-75 Ex.B40Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1975-76 Ex.B41Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1976-77 Ex.B42Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1977-78 Ex.B43Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1979-80 Ex.B44Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1980-81 Ex.B45Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1981-82 Ex.B46Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1982-83
S C J
Page 83 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Ex.B47Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1983-84 Ex.B48Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1984-85 Ex.B49Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1985-86 Ex.B50Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1986-87 Ex.B51Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1987-88 Ex.B52Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1988-89 Ex.B53Certified copyof Pahanies for the year 1989-90 Ex.B54Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1990-91 Ex.B55Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1991-92 Ex.B56Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1992-93 Ex.B57Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1993-94 Ex.B58Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1994-95 Ex.B59Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1995-96 Ex.B60Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1996-97 Ex.B61Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1997-98 Ex.B62Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 1998-99 Ex.B63Certified copy of Pahanies for the Year 1999-2000 Ex.B64Certified copy of Pahanies for the year 2000-2001 Ex.B65Certified copy of Kasra holding for the year 1954-55 pertaining to Naraparaju Narasinga Rao Ex.B66Certified copy of the Kasra holding for the year 1954-55 pertaining to Revuri Kishan Rao Ex.B67Certified copy of the Choupasala for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to Revuri Annapurnamma Ex.B68Certified copy of the Choupasala for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to Narapuraju Narsinga Rao Ex.B69Certified copy of Choupasala for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to Narapuraju Ranganayakamma Ex.B70Certified copy of the Choupasala for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to Revuri Hymavathi Ex.B71Certified copy of Choupasala for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to Revuri Venkata Ranga Rao Ex.B72Certified copy of ceiling declaration C.C No.3485/1975 pertaining to Revoori Annapurnamma Ex.B73Certified copy of the Statement of Patwari in CC No.3485/1975 Ex.B74Certified copy of the Statement of Declarent in CC No.3485/1975
S C J
Page 84 of 84 OS No.388 of 2014
Ex.B75Certified copy of the Orders passed by the R.D.O. Nalgonda in CC No.3485/1975 Ex.B76Certified copy of the Orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Huzurnagar in CC No.3485/1975 Ex.B77Certified copy of the Ceiling Declaration No.4059/1975 pertaining to Revoori Hymavathi Ex.B78Certified copy of Statement of Declarant in CC No.4059/1975 Ex.B79Certified copy of the Verification Report of Tahsildar, Huzurnagar in CC No.4059/1975
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR
Copy to:
1) The District Collector, Suryapet } For taking necessary steps under Telangana
2) The Revenue Divisional Officer } Lands Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Huzurnagar }Holdings) Act, 1973 over the suit schedule land.
S C J