1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR
Present : Sri K.B. Narasimhulu I Additional District & Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar
Wednesday, this the 27th day of February, 2019
OS No. 256 of 2013
Between:
1. Thoola Ramulu Goud S/o. Late Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Thoola Narsimha Das Goud S/o. Late Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah Aged about 56 Years, Occ: Agriculture
3. Thoola Devaiah Goud S/o. Late Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah Aged about 52 Years, Occ: Agriculture
4. Thoola Srinivas Goud S/o. Late Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Agriculture
5. Thoola Sandeep Goud S/o. Late Rangaiah Aged about 22 Years, Occ: Agriculture
All R/o. H. No. 1-61/2, Turkayamjal Village
Hayathnagar Mandal, RR District ...Plaintiffs
And
1. Tammali Mallesh S/o. Late Jangaiah Aged about 65 Years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Tammali Sreedhar S/o. Tammali Mallesh Aged about 35 Years, Occ: Photographer
3. Tammali Rajender S/o. Tammali Mallesh Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Govt Employee
4. Tammali Jaichander S/o. Tammali Mallesh Aged about 38 Years, Occ: Business
All R/o. Sriram Nagar Colony Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal
Ranga Reddy District ...Defendants
2
OS No. 1286 of 2013
Between: Tammali Mallesh S/o. Late Jangaiah Aged about 65 Years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. 4-106/6, Sriram Nagar Colony, Turkayamjal
Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...Plaintiff
And
1. Thoola Ramulu Goud S/o. Late Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Thoola Narsimha Das Goud S/o. Late Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah Aged about 56 Years, Occ: Agriculture
3. Thoola Devaiah Goud S/o. Late Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah Aged about 52 Years, Occ: Agriculture
4. Thoola Srinivas Goud S/o. Late Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Agriculture
5. Thoola Sandeep Goud S/o. Late Rangaiah Aged about 22 Years, Occ: Agriculture
All R/o. H. No. 1-61/2, Turkayamjal Village
Hayathnagar Mandal, RR District ...Defendants
These suits are coming on 05-01-2019 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Venkat Reddy, Counsel for Plaintiff in OS No. 256 of 2013 and of Sri K. Ramchander Rao, Counsel for the Defendants in OS No. 256 of 2013 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following common judgment;
COMMON JUDGMENT
These suits are filed by the plaintiffs.
In fact, OS No. 256 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking declaration to declare the plaintiffs as absolute owners and possessors of the plaint schedule property and consequentially to grant injunction against the defendants restraining 3 them from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third parties.
While, OS No. 1286 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiff who is D-1 in
OS No. 256 of 2013 against the defendants ie, plaintiffs in OS No. 256
of 2013 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.
1.Pleadings in OS No. 256 of 2013:
The plaintiffs are the absolute owners, possessors and in enjoyment of the agricultural land bearing survey No. 186 admeasuring
Ac. 1-01 gunta, situated at Turkayamjal village, Hayathnagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District. That the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 4 along with one late
Thoola Rangaiah, who is the father of Plaintiff No.5, are the real brothers and sons of late Thoola @Borra Veeraiah. Originally, the said
Thoola @ Borra Veeraiah was the father of the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and grandfather of plaintiff No.5 herein was in possession of the suit land in
Sy. No. 186 admeasuring 1-01 gts situated at Turkayamjal Village prior to 1950 as tenant. Further, the father of defendant No.1 and grand father of defendant No.2 to 4 by name Thammali Jangaiah was the recorded pattadar of the suit land. That after introduction of the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Protected Tenancy Act, 1950 the said
Thoola Veeraiah has been declared as protected tenant of the suit land 4 under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Thus the father of the
Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and grandfather of plaintiff No.5 Thoola Veeraiah, during his life time was in possession initially as tenant and subsequently as protected tenant and later on as purchaser and owner and after his death, the plaintiffs herein continued to be in uninterrupted, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land in succession and cultivating the same, without any interruption, obstruction or claim whatsoever the same. That since Thoola Veeraiah was in possession of the suit land as protected tenant, the pattadar by name Tammali Jangaiah, sold the suit property in favour of Thoola
Veeraiah by receiving valuable sale consideration and to that effect he executed an unregistered sale document in faovur of Thoola Veeraiah long back in the year 1956 itself. The said Thoola Veeeraiah was an agriculturist, uneducated and did not know about the procedure to get his name mutated in the revenue records. However, on the advice of a known person Veeraiah filed an application before the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Hayatnagar in the year 1998, under the provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 for grant of mutation and validation of the said document. After receipt of the application, the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued necessary notices as required under the ROR Act and Rules and after obtaining the report, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar has passed orders mutating the name of T. Veeraiah in respect of the suit land vide
Proceedings No. 102 of 1998 dated 26.06.1998 marking a copy of the 5 said orders to the V.A.O, Turkayamjal with direction to issue Pattadar
Pass Book and Title Deed to the T. Veeraiah and accordingly the pattadar pass book and title deed have been issued to him. Since then the said T. Veeraiah being an illiterate was under the impression that his name in respect of the suit land has been mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor, but the V.A.O failed to implement the said orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer and not mutated the name of said T. Veeraiah in the revenue Records and as such the name of Tammali Jangaiah, who was the father of defendant No.1 and grandfather of Defendant No.2 to 4 continued wrongly and nominally, in the revenue records, because of inaction of the V.A.O concerned.
That after noticing the wrongful continuation of the name of Thammali
Jangaiah in the revenue records, they have approached the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar and requested to enter their names by removing the name of T. Jangaiah, but they directed the plaintiffs to approach the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional
Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division for correction and immediately they approached the R.D.O and filed an application on 15.03.2012 requesting to remove the name of Tammali Jangaiah and thereby enter the name of Toola Veeraiah by way of rectification and correction as per the orders passed by the M.R.O dated 26.06.1998 and the same is pending.
Subsequent to purchase, the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and grandfather of plaintiff No.5, after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat constructed poultry sheds and running 6
Poultry farm besides carrying agriculture and loan was also obtained over the suit land from the Turkayamzal Farmers Co-operative and subsequently the said loan was cleared by the plaintiffs and they also paid the Land Revenue to Government and the Rythu Pass Book have also been issued in the name of Thoola Veeraiah. The defendants who are highly influenced persons and one of the defendant by name
Tammali Rajender son of T. Mallesh is working as V.R.O., taking advantage of the official capacity have managed the Revenue
Authorities got entered the name of Tammali Jangaiah, the father of defendant No.1, even though the said Thammali Jangaiah died in year 1998 and his name is entered in the year 2005-06 as possessor and pattadar, thus a dead person name is got entered in the revenue records and taking advantage of such wrongful managed and scattered entries in the name of dead person and taking advantage of illiteracy and innocence of the plaintiffs, by way of suppressing the material facts, the defendants have filed a suit against the plaintiffs herein, bearing OS No. 404 of 2012 for grant of perpetual injunction on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in respect of the suit land. They also filed an IA No. 435 of 2012 for grant of interim injunction, for which the plaintiffs herein have filed their detailed written statement, counter and counter claim. That as per the orders of the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, the
Revenue Inspector of Hayatnagar Mandal conducted panchanama on 01.03.2012 before the panchas, in presence of V.R.O concerned and the 7 said panchanama categorically shows that “the father of Thoola Ramulu by name Toola Veeraiah possessing the land in Sy.NO. 186, Ac. 1001 gts of Turkayamjal village for the last 60 years by cultivating the same and purchased the said land from Thammali Jangaiah. The defendants have filed the suit vide OS No. 404 of 2012 on the file of the VII
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and in the said suit
in Para No.4, denied the title of the plaintiffs, as such the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit seeking declaration of title. That
Thoola Ramulu Goud S/o. Late Veeraiah has filed a Revision bearing file No. D5/3584/2012 before the Collector (Joint Collector), Ranga
Redd District under Section 9 of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Books Act, 1971 for correction of entries in the pahani patriks from 2005-06 onwards to till date in respect of the suit land. The case was taken on file and the Collector has sought a detailed report from the Dy. Collector & Tahsildar, Hayatnagar Mandal, RR District vide letter No. D5/3584/2012 dated 10.10.2012 and in compliance of the said letter, the Dy. Collector and Tahsildar has got enquired the matter in detail by the Revenue Inspector of his office and village Revenue
Officer, Thurkayamjal village and obtained the report from them and after obtaining the report, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar vide his
Lr.No. B/656/12 dated 24.12.2012 has submitted his report that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land in succession for the last more than 60 years as purchases. That the plaintiffs herein are in continuous, un-interrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment of 8 the suit land, initially as tenant earlier to1950 and subsequently after enforcement of the Tenancy Act as Protected tenants an later on as purchasers in succession, which is quite evidenced by the Panchanama conducted by the M.R.I and V.R.O of Hayatnagar Mandal, thus, even otherwise also the plaintiffs have perfected their title by way of prescription and long standing possession, adverse to the interest of all inclusive of the defendants herein and the defendants who have no concern, right, title, interest or possession over the suit land are persistently to cause interference into the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land, as such their acts are liable to be restrained by way of lawful means of granting injunction.
Hence the suit.
2.The defendant No. 1 filed written statement adopted by defendants 2 to 4 denying the claim of the plaintiffs. It is contended that the Veeraiah became PT of the suit land and the said Veeraiah was in possession of the land only as lease holder from year to year but he was doing so on behalf of the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have created a new and false story that the father of the plaintiffs is
Borra @ Thoolla Veeraiah. Even though the plaintiffs who are the defendants in OS.No. 404/2012 on the file of the VII Additional Senior
Civil Judge, RR District, in respect of the same property, never taken
the said plea in the said suit and they have cooked up a new story
before the court. The plaintiffs after seeing that in the records it was
recorded as Borra Veeraiah and to suit those entries created a false 9 story. It is denied that the father of the defendants offered to sell the suit lands to Veeraiah and it is also denied that his father executed an unregistered sale document in favour of the father of the plaintiffs in the year 1956. It is denied that the said Veeraiah made application for mutation before the Tahsildar, Hayatnagar and mutation was effected in his name and the MRO directed the VRO to incorporate the names of the father of the plaintiffs in the pahanis and also to issue pass book and title deed and subsequently pass book and title deed issued in the name of said Veeeraiah, but not incorporated the name of Veeraiah in the pahanis. It is also denied that the plaintiffs made an application
before the Dy. Collector cum Tahsildar and also before the RDO East
Division requesting to enter the names of the plaintiffs in the pahanis.
The defendants are not aware whether any panchanama was conducted in presence of the village elders. The said panchanama was got prepared with the collusion and managing the revenue authorities without issuing any notice to him and the same is not binding on him.
Further, the said panchanama is illegal on the face of it since as on the date of conducting the alleged panchanama the name of his father is recorded as pattedar and possessor and the said panchanama was conducted without issuing any notice to him, who is the interested person, hence the said panchanama cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the case. That his father herein never sold the land to any person more specifically to the father of the plaintiffs herein at any point of time. Further it is also disputed the genuineness 10 of the said proceedings alleged to have been issued by the Tahsildar,
Hayathnagar Mandal vide proceedings No.B/102/1998 and after receiving the copy of the said document, the defendant filed an application for issuance of the CC of the said proceedings and to his surprise the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar issued the CC of the said proceedings, which is pertaining to the lands of Anajpur village, which is categorically goes to establish the alleged proceedings of mutation as claimed by the plaintiffs are bogus, forged and fabricated only to grab the valuable property of the defendant herein. Further the plaintiffs are playing fraud on the court and as well as on this defendant, since in the counter affidavit filed in the IA No. 435/2012, filed by them, they have stated that they got proceedings in file No.B/1021/1998, but when the CC of the memo issued by the Tahsildar, stating that the proceedings pertaining to Koheda village, the plaintiffs got crated another bogus proceedings with different file numbers, hence the conduct of the plaintiffs is fraudulent and they are habituated to creating one document or the other. Further, the alleged sale document through which the plaintiffs’ father alleged to have purchased from the father of the defendant has not been filed before this Court, which categorically goes to show that there was no sale nor any such things took place in between them. The proceedings under which they alleged to have got mutated is bogus one hence the pass book and title deeds are also bogus. The defendants have moved a private complaint before
VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar and when his complaint was 11 not enquired by the police Vanasthalipuram, the Court after going through the complaint referred the matter to the PS Vanasthalipuram for investigation. The police registered a case under Section 420 etc, and registered a FIR No. 944/2012 and the matter is being investigated.
If at all the alleged mutation proceedings in favour of the father of the plaintiffs passed in the year 1998, it is not explained why the father of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs kept quiet for all these years without getting implemented in the revenue records and no explanation has been given by the plaintiffs. Further the delay in applying to the
Tahsildar, also goes to establish that the proceedings are bogus and the plaintiffs’ cannot claim rights basing on the bogus documents. The defendant is not aware whether the father of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs obtained any bank loan from the bank as alleged. It is contended that in the plaint in OS. No. 404/2012, that the defendant No.1 had already constructed a poultry shed when the plaintiff’s father was the lease holder of the land by obtaining loan from the bank does not give any right or title to the plaintiffs. The alleged rythuwari pass book alleged to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Hayatnagar is also a bogus one since all the proceedings filed by the plaintiffs are bogus ones. Even if it is mentioned in the alleged bogus pass book as KHANGI KHAREEDU it will not be a document creating title and ownership for the plaintiffs.
When the alleged sale document is not filed before the Court, all the other documents become irrelevant for the purpose of the case. Further, even in the plaint in OS No. 404/2012 also the defendant No.1 had 12 categorically stated that the plaintiffs left possession of the land in the year 2005-06 only and since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. Even it is mentioned as KHANGI
KHAREEDu in pahanis the same cannot be taken as purchase without filing the original document before this Court. That when the defendant
No1 had filed the above suit, the plaintiffs created a false story and filed the present suit, which is not maintainable. That after 2005-06 the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit lands and it is the 1st defendant, who is in possession of the land and basing on his factual possession his father name has been incorporated in the pahanis both as pattedar and possessor. That the defendant No.3, who is the son of defendant No.1, is nothing to do with the alleged act of managing the
VRO. The MRO who is the authority under ROR act followed due procedure and made entries. Hence the said entry in the possessory column was incorporated taking into consideration of the possession of defendant No.1 as on the spot. Further, if at all the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the said entries various forums are available to the plaintiffs to get the entries corrected, but the plaintiffs keeping quiet for all these years suddenly started leveling baseless allegations against the son of defendant No.1 and the same are not tenable in the eye of law.
It is denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands. The plaintiffs have not filed any single document to establish that they are in possession of the suit lands as on the date of filing the suit, but it is 1st defendant who is in possession of the suit lands and all the 13 documents filed by the defendants categorically establishes the said fact.
That basing on his possession and as the plaintiffs interfering with his possession, he filed the said suit for perpetual injunction. It is denied that any panchanama was conducted. That the plaintiffs are in the habit of creating false story by creating false documents. The plaintiffs never had possession over the suit land and it is the defendant No. 1 who is in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the plaint schedule property and they are not entitled for declaration and prayed to dismiss the suit.
3.Pleadings in OS No. 1286 of 2013:
The father of the plaintiff Tammalli Jangaiah is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Survey No. 186 admeasuring Ac.1- 01gts situated at Turkayamzal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, RR District having acquired by his father. That during the life time of the father of the plaintiff has given the suit lands on lease on Batai basis to the father of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and grandfather of defendant No. 5 as he was unable to cultivate the lands personally. The said Veeraiah used to cultivate the suit lands with half share in the agricultural produces and the said lease continued till the death of the father of the plaintiff who died in the year 1998. Subsequently, after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs continued the same relationship with the father of the defendants, who used to cultivate the same with the help of the defendatns. That subsequently, the plaintiff constructed 14 a shed for the purpose of running poultry farm as the land was not yielding substantial benefits. Due to inexperience in the said filed, the plaintiff sustained loss and the defendants expressed their inability to continue their lease since they have no scope of improvement of income from the suit lands. Hence in the year 2005-06 they left the land as batai holders and since then the defendants ceased to having any interest, right or possession over the suit land. During the period of lease, the name of the father of the plaintiff was appearing in the pattedar column whereas the name of Veeraiah was appearing in occupancy column. Thereafter, since 2005-06 onwards, there is relationship between the plaintiff ,and the defendants and till today also the name of the father of the plaintiff is appearing in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor. The plaintiff with an intention to get the land mutated in his name in revenue records, since his father is no more has applied for succession before the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar
Mandal and the same is pending. That to the surprise of the plaintiff, they received a caveat notice from Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate in which the defendant No. 2 claims that they are the absolute owners and possessor of the suit land and they got their right by way of succession.
In fact, neither the defendants nor their father have any right over the suit property. But, the defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property on 25-02-2012 and they again tried to grab the property on 28-02-2012 and on 01-03-2012, but the plaintiff resisted the same with the help of village elders. That 15 while leaving the defendants threatened the plaintiff to dispossess them from the plaint schedule property, as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction.
4.i)The defendant No. 2 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that The suit of the plaintiff is neither maintainable in law, nor on facts, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has not disclosed all the material facts
before the Court, but by misrepresenting the facts, he approached the
and filed the Suit. It is denied that the father of the plaintiff by name
Tammali Jangaiah was the absolute owner and pattadar and possessor of the agricultural land in Sy. No. 186, admeasuring Ac. 1-01 gts., of
Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R. R. District, as the same acquired by father of defendant No. 2. During his life time, the father of plaintiff gave the suit lands on lease basis (Batai) to the father of the defendants No. 1 to 4 and grand father of Defendant No. 5, by name
Thoolla Veeraiah who used to cultivate the suit lands on Batai basis with half share in the agricultural products and that the said lease continued till the death of his father in the year 1998 and that subsequently, after his death the plaintiff continued the same relationship with the father of the defendants who with the help of the defendants herein used to cultivate the suit lands. It is also denied that the plaintiff has constructed a shed for the purpose of running poultry, since the land was not yielding any substantial benefits and the defendants continues to be having the relationship of Batai holders, due 16 to inexperience in the said field, the said business also ran into losses and hence the defendants who were the Batai holders of the land expressed their inability to continue their lease since they have no scope for improvement of income from the suit lands and hence in the agriculture year of 2005-2006 they left the land as Batai holders and that the said agricultural year on wards, the defendants ceased to be having any interest, right or possession over the suit land. It is denied that during the period of lease, the name of father of plaintiff father was appearing in the pattadar column of pahani, whereas the name of the Veeraiah was appearing in occupancy column of pahani and as such since the year 2005-2006 onwards, there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants existing for any purpose. In fact the father of defendants No. 1 to 4 and grand father of Defendant No. 5 by name
Thulla alias Borra Veeraiah was the protected Tenant of the land bearing Sy. No. 1863, admeasuring Ac. 1-01 gts., situated at
Turkayamjal Village, plaintiff Mandal, Plaintiff, of which one Thammilla
Jangaiah was the recorded plaintiff. Subsequently, the said Thulla alias
Borra Veeraiah purchased the said from its orginal owner. But, the plaintiff herein who never seen in the picutre and never in possession or cultivated the suit land. But through the present para, this defendant came to know that the plaintiff, taking advantage of the fact that, these defendants are agriculturists and illiterates, with a malafide intention and motve has approached the Revenue Authorities in the Revenue
Sadassu and filed application for getting succession, for which these 17 defendants herein filed objections and to stop such illegal and unlawful acts of the plaintiff. Accordingly the Tahasildar was not granted my succession since this defendants are in physical possession of the suit property. That the plaintiff is highly influential person having money and muscle at his disposal and he tried to cause interference into the lawful possession of these defendants over the suit schedule lands, but these defendants resisted and could retain their possession. Having failed in his efforts, the plaintiff spread rumours in the village that he is intending to file a suit and by hoo0k or crook will dispossess these defendants from the said land and to get possession of the same and after sensing such unlawful motive of the plaintiff, one of the defendant has taken steps and filed caveat petition before the Hon’ble Court. As alleged, these defendants neither they are not the Batai holders nor left the land in the year 2005-2006 as alleged. The plaintiff never in possession of the suit land and whereas these defendants are in continuous, un-interrupted, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land in succession right from 1950 onwards in succession till today as absolute owners by paying land revenue to Government, without any interruption or claim from anybody else, more particularly from the plaintiff herein. That these defendants are in continuous, un-interrupted, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land in succession right from 1950 onwards in succession till today as absolute owners, and as such the plaintiff cannot say that defendants are having no right, concern or possession over the suit land. It is denied that after filing 18 the caveat petition the defendants tried to grab the suit lands from the possession of plaintiff on 25-02-2012 and also tried to grab the suit lands on 28-02-2012 and on 01-03-2012 and that the plaintiffs resisted their illegal attempts. In fact these defendants, are in actual and physical possession of the suit land and as such the question of trying to grab the suit lands from the non-existing possession of the plaintiff does not arise at all and as such the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the said allegations. It is also denied the allegation that finally they came to the suit lands on 03-03-2012 and tried to dispossess the plaintiff. That the plaintiff is never in possession of the suit schedule land and as such the question of bent upon to interfere with the non existing possession and to grab the suit lands by hook or crook does not arise and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs more particularly for perpetual injunction and prayed to dismiss the suit.
ii)The defendants 1, 3 and 5 filed memo adopting the written statement of defendant No. 1.
5.The defendants 1 to 5 also filed counter claim denying the claim of the plaintiff for perpetual injunction and prayed the court to grant injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants over the plaint schedule property.
6.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:
19
i)Issues in OS No. 256 of 2013
1) Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property?
2) Whether the father of the plaintiffs is the protected tenant of the suit property?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
4) To what relief?
ii)Issues in OS No. 1286 of 2013:
1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule of property?
3) Whether the defendants are absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
5) To what relief
7.Initially, the suit in OS No. 1286 of 2013 is filed before Principal
Senior Civil Judge, RR District and numbered as OS No. 404 of 2012.
After filing of OS No. 256 of 2013, the plaintiffs therein filed TOP No.
429 of 2013 seeking transfer of OS No. 404 of 2012 to try along with
OS No. 256 of 2013 and the same was allowed by orders of the
Principal District Judge, RR District dated 23-08-2013 and accordingly,
the suit in OS No. 404 of 2012 is transferred and renumbered as OS
No.1286 of 2013.
20
8.Since the suit OS No. 256 of 2013 is filed for declaration of title, while OS No. 1286 of 2013 is filed for perpetual injunction and as the parties and suit property is one and the same, both the suits are clubbed together and as the suit OS No. 256 of 2013 being comprehensive suit, evidence is recorded in OS No. 256 of 2013.
9.During the trial, the plaintiffs examined PWs 1 to 4 to prove their case and marked Ex. A1 to A57 on their behalf. On the other hand, the defendants examined DW1 to 4 on their behalf.
10.Heard both sides on record.
11.These two suits are being disposed off by this common judgment.
Evidence is recorded in the OS 256 of 2013 which is a comprehensive suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of the land of Ac. 1-01 gt in Sy No. 186, Turkayamjal village. The other suit OS1286/2013 is filed by the defendant No. 1 in
OS 256/2013 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to
5 in that suit who happened to be the plaintiffs 1 to 5 in OS 256/2013.
The suit OS 1286/2013 was originally filed in March 2012 before the
Senior Civil Judge’s Court and was numbered as OS404/2012. On
transfer of that suit also to this court, both the suits were jointly tried, and the evidence is recorded in common in OS 256/2013. For convenience, the parties are referred hereafter as per their array in OS 256 of 2013 only.
21
12.The plaintiff 1 to 4 are the sons and the 5th plaintiff’s father
Rangaiah are the sons of Borrayya alias Veeraiah. The schedule property originally belonged to its registered pattadar Jangaiah who died in the year 1998. The defendant No. 1 is the son and the defendants 2 to 4 are grandsons of Jangaiah. Prior to 1956, Veeraiah has been cultivating that land, he is declared as Permanent Tenant in that land under the provisions of AP (Telangana area) Protected
Tenancy Act, 1950. However, in 1956, it is alleged in the plaint,
Jangaiah sold the property to Borra Veeraiah under an unregistered ‘sale deed’ dated 17-8-1956 (ExA56) and thereafter Veeraiah had been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the said land in his right.
His name has been incorporated by mutation in the revenue records under the proceedings No. 102 of 1998, dated 26.6.1998 by the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar (Ex A1) under the Record of Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Even though pattadar pass book and title deed were issued to Borra Veeraiah (Exs A23 & 24), the
Village Revenue Officer did not carryout his name in the revenue records and name of Jangaiah has been continued, the plaintiffs, after demise of Veeraiah filed application on 15.3.2012 to the Revenue
Divisional Officer to remove the name of Jangaiah and incorporate the name of their predecessor Borra Veeraiah which was pending at the time of filing of suit. It is stated in the plaint that Borra Veeraiah erected poultry sheds in the land, raised loan from co-operative society, paid land revenue.
22
13.As the matters stand thus, it is alleged in the plaint that, the son of 1st defendant is a VRO, had manipulated the revenue records and though Jangaiah died in the year 1998, got his name entered in the revenue record during 2005-06 and on that basis, the defendants filed the other suit for permanent injunction. It is also stated that in the report of Revenue Inspector dated 1.3.2012 (Ex. A20), it is reported that the predecessor of the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land for over 60 years, having purchased it from Jangaiah. The report of
Deputy Collector dated 24.12. 2012 (Ex A22) also revealed the same fact. In as much as, in the words of the plaintiffs, their title to the schedule property is denied by the defendants in their suit OS 404/2012 (now OS 1286/2013) the suit is filed for declaration of plaintiffs’ title and possession in the suit immovable property. It is also pertinent to note from para 11 of the plaint, the plaintiffs are claiming acquisition of title by prescription, even if their purchase is not legal because of their continuous, un-interrupted and peaceful possession of the land for over a statutory period.
14.It is noticed from the record, that Ex. A-56 unregistered and unstamped sale deed was impounded by this Court and necessary Stamp duty and penalty was also collected from the plaintiffs before marking that document in the evidence. The effect of non-registration of Ex
A56 will be separately dealt with in the forthcoming paragraphs of this judgment.
23
15.The 1st defendant filed detailed Written Statement denying the pliant referred claims and contended, in brief, (i) that the plaintiffs have to prove that their father is Borra Veeraiah alias Veeraiah; (ii)
Borra Veeraiah is not a protected tenant, nor had purchased the property from Jangaiah under unregistered sale deed; (iii) the order of
MRO, ordering mutation and issuing pattadar pass book and title deed is false and the above proceedings are not true; and those proceedings are obtained behind the back of the defendants contrary to the procedure; (iv) 1st defendant erected poultry shed and not plaintiffs’ predecessor Borrayya; (v) the entry in the pass book that the plaintiffs’ predecessor acquired property by way of ‘Khangi Khareedu’ does not confer any right or title in the property in the plaintiffs; (vi) the plaintiffs left possession of the land in the year 2005-06 and thereafter the 1st defendant is in possession of the land; and lastly, (vii) the suit is not properly valued and because the plaintiffs are not in possession of the land by the date of suit, relief of injunction cannot be claimed by them.
16.PWs 1 to 4 are examined to prove the facts pleaded by the plaintiff and on their behalf Ex. A1 to A57 are marked. For the
Defendants, DW1 to 4 are examined. However, DW2 and 3 are not tendered for cross examination and the defendants did not taken coercive steps for their appearance. Resultantly their evidence is of no avail.
24
17.Upon perusing the issues framed, the issues are recasted for the purpose of discussion. The issues in OS No. 256 of 2013 being comprehensive suit for declaration, the issues 1 to 3 are maintained as it is. Whereas, the issues in OS No. 1286 of 2013 being the suit for perpetual injunction, the issues which were already framed are not properly drafted, since the earlier Issues 1 to 3 are pertaining to the ownership and title and therefore, the issues in OS No. 1286 are re-casted as:
1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? And
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
18.The answers on the above points would ultimately result in answering the above Issues 1 to 3 framed in OS No. 256 of 2013 together. In that perspective, I proceed to analyze the evidence vis-à-vis documents, adduced by both sides. I have heard the oral arguments addressed by both the Ld. Counsels in support of their respective cases, besides, perusing the written submissions made by them.
19.In the first instance, a duty is cast on this court to examine whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. As the Ld.
counsel for the plaintiffs have taken me through the plaint averments and the Written Statement assertions, I have meticulously read the 25 pleadings and relevant documentary and oral evidence in that regard.
According to the plaint, Borra Veeraiah was a Protected Tenant initially, and later in the year 1956, he had purchased the property from the original pattadar Jangaiah under the Ex. A56 sale deed. It is however, argued for the defendants that Ex. A56 is unstamped and unregistered and it cannot confer valid title on the plaintiffs through their predecessor Borra Veeraiah. It is on record that during pendency of suit, Ex. A56 was impounded and Stamp duty and penalty was collected by this Court. Under letter of this court marked Ex. A57, the
Dt. Registrar was informed about the payment of Stamp duty and penalty.
20.So far as non-registration of the Ex. A56, the argument of the plaintiffs is that an unregistered document is admissible in evidence in proof of nature of possession. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that to prove that Borra Veeraiah was let into possession of the land lawfully and that the entry into the land by him is in the nature of purchase and these are the facts that could be proved by Ex.
A56. To buttress my above view, I have the advantage of referring to a
Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Haranchandra Vs. Kali
Prasanna AIR 1932 Calcutta 83 which had observed that: "the date on which possession began, is a collateral purpose." In Bhaiya Ramanuj Vs.
Lalu (AIR 1981 SC 1937) it has been held by the Supreme Court:
"proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits the use of the document, even though unregistered, as evidence of any 26 collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. "
Approving this observation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Bhanwarlal And Others vs Hiralal 2001 (3) MPHT 309 laid down as follows:
“The unregistered Sale Deed dated 26-4-1951 (Ex. P-1) must be held as receivable as evidence of a collateral transaction such as the origin of purchaser's entry into the house and the character of his subsequent possession. The First Appellate Court has not committed any legal error in relying upon the unregistered Sale Deed Ex. P-1 for the limited purpose of holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the house in dispute from the year 1951 in his own right. His possession was for a period of more than twelve years. Therefore, he has perfected his title by adverse possession.” (Emphasis is added by me)
21.It is in the light of the above settled position of law, it is apposite to look into the pleadings. Regarding the factum of possession, the plaint, at various places made the following statements:
Para 3: “…Thoola Veeraiah, during his life time was in possession initially as tenant subsequently as protected tenant and later on as purchaser and owner. After the death of Veeraiah, the plaintiff herein continued to be un-interrupted, peaceful possession and enjoyment…”
Para 4: “...since Thoola Veeraiah @ Borra Veeraiah was in possession of the suit land as protected tenant, the pattadar by name Tammali Jangaiah, sold the suit (sic. land) in favour of Thoola Veeraiah by receiving valuable sale consideration and to that effect he executed an un-registered sale document in favour of Thoola Veeraiah long back in the year 1956 itself…”
22.As against the above pleas, the defendant No. 1 in his Written statement, makes the following statements of defence:
Para 4: “… As a matter of fact this defendant is in possession after the death of his father.” 27
Para 7: “…Further, even in the plaint in OS No. 404/2012 (1286 of 2013 New) also this defendant had categorically stated that the plaintiffs left possession of the land in the year 2005-06 only and since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands….After 2005-2006 the plaintiffs never in possession of the suit lands and it is this defendant who is in possession of the land…”
23. Very interesting to note from the above averments of the written statement, which are running contrary to each other; viz., in the first part, the defendant completely denies the possession of the plaintiff and asserts that after the death of his father, the defendant alone is in possession; whereas in the second part, he admits that till 2005-06, the plaintiffs were in possession of the property. This second part of the pleading belies the stand taken by the defendants that the plaintiffs or their predecessor Borra Veeraiah had never been in possession of the suit land.
24.This circumstance makes me to examine the line of evidence because, when once it was admitted that at one point of time, Veeraiah was in possession of the land, there is a presumption of backward and forward as postulated by Sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement, while examining the
scope and function of Sec. 114, made a clear statement of law that that presumption of continuity as envisaged in Section 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act can be drawn backward also. (Ref: Salem Municipality vs.
P. Kumar & Others2018 (15) SCALE 699)
In similar set of fact, as the Apex Court held that- 28 “…in the instant case, there is no affirmative evidence on record in the form of revenue record that the plaintiff’s vendor was in possession on the date of abolition and thereafter plaintiff remained in possession at any point of time. When the presumption is thus operating in favour of the plaintiffs, it is the defendants who have to rebut that presumption…”
25. In that legal façade, I am to delve upon the evidence adduced by both parties regarding the factum of possession. The DW1 (1st defendant) in his cross examination stated that his father died in the year 1988. In the teeth of this fact, the averment in the Written statement that after the death of his father, the defendant is continuing in possession of the suit land, has to be taken that he is in possession of the land since 1988; whereas, inconsistent with the said plea, in para 7 of the written statement, the defendants plead that after 2005-2006 the plaintiffs are not in possession of the land. It is unknown in whose possession the land was between 1988 and 2005-06. In that respect, the inconsistent and rather conflicting assertions made by the defendant make me to disbelieve any such statement unless some positive evidence is placed by the defendants to rebut the presumption under
Sec. 114 of he Evidence Act, as aforesaid.
26.In the cross examination dated 11.06.2015, DW1 states that Tulla
Veeraiah father of the plaintiff was in possession of the land for a period of 20 years until 2004. He could not dispute the correctness of entry shown in Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 (Ex A7) where in the name of
Veeraiah was shown as protected tenant in the year 1956. In para 4 of the chief examination affidavit, DW1 swears that “...father of the 29 plaintiff by name Toolla Veeraiah who used to cultivate the lands on batai basis for majority of the time and after his death, his sons continued to cultivate the lands as the sons of Veeraiah.” In that way, the defendants have adequately admitted the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land, however in the capacity of tenant on batai basis, that means on payment of lease rental basis.
27.In his further evidence in chief examination, the DW1 stated that as the land was not yielding results, they have erected shed to run poultry farm with the help of the plaintiffs and in that venture also, the plaintiffs continued as batai holders. He has deposed in cross examination that the poultry sheds are erected during 1979-1988.
Besides absence of the theory of ‘poultry sheds’ erected by the defendants in the suit land, when DW1 maintains that for 20 years until 2004 only Veeraiah was tenant, it goes to the year 1984 only when Veeraiah came into possession of the land as tenant; in that even how since 1979, the family of Veeraiah continued to do batai with the defendants in the suit land, remains mystic. On the other hand, this statement of DW1 takes me to accept that even prior to 1988, plaintiff’s father was in occupation of the land.
28.So far as the entries in Revenue accounts is concerned, even though in the written statement, it is specifically pleaded by the defendants that they are bogus, in the cross examination DW1 admits that till 2004, the names of plaintiffs were shown as possessors. Of 30 course, the DW1 denied all the revenue records and proceedings of the authorities including the order of the MRO ordering mutation of name and pleaded his ignorance about the contents of report of MRO that
Veeraiah is mentioned as possessor and that he is in possession of the property for the last over 60 years.
29.To corroborate the evidence of DW1, one person said to have worked in the land on behalf of the defendants was examined as DW4.
He deposed that he was servant of defendants for 10years. He deposed in the cross examination that in the suit land he is doing agricultural work in the suit land for the past 10 years. His date of evidence is in
July 2015. The period of “10 years” goes to the year 2005. Even according to DW1, from or after 2005, there is no ‘agriculture’ in the suit land as such but there is poultry farm. Thus, the evidence of DW4 is contrary to the stand of defendants and it is unreliable.
30. In the light of the above inconsistent evidence of defendants, holding that such varying evidence cannot rebut the presumption under
Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act, I would like to arrive at the facts emerged from the plaintiffs’ evidence at once. At the outset I am to note that the evidence of plaintiffs regarding their possession is mostly on the basis of documentary evidence, and particularly the official documents like proceedings of Revenue Authorities, revenue accounts etc. In one knock of defence in the written statement, the defendants have tried to brush aside the probative value of those documents simply 31 claiming that they are ‘bogus’ and ‘manipulated’. The copies of official record are marked as EX. A1 (Proceedings of MRO under ROR Act), Ex.
A2-Pass Book and Title Deed which are issued in June 1998. The Land
Revenue Receipts are substantiating the payment of cist by the plaintiffs since prior to 1971. Further the Certified copy of Pahani for 1954-55 which is continued till 2012 indicates that the Plaintiffs’ predecessor
Borrayya alias Veeraiah is shown as owner and possessor of the suit land. There is no dispute about the identity of the land.
31. Thus, the possession shown in the name of Borra Veeraiah has been further corroborated by the fact that for the first time in the year 2012 only, the defendants made application to the MRO to enter their names in the revenue record by deleting the name of the Plaintiffs. DW1 admits that prior to 2012 they did not apply to the MRO for mutating their names even though they have knowledge, obviously, that their names are not incorporated in the revenue records and the names of the plaintiffs and their predecessor has been shown as owners and possessors of the land. It is also in evidence that the plaintiffs have been taking loans against security of suit land as evidenced by Ex A16.
32. It is very easy to say that the government record is created or manipulated. But if once it is apparent from the document that it is reflecting the official transaction at the instance of the Government or its officers in discharge of their duty, the presumption is in favour of the reliability, truth and trustworthiness of those records. To buttress 32 this view there are umpteen judicial precedents. I rely on the judgment of AP High Court in Rajeswar Rao v. Narsing Rao AIR 1952 Hyd. 75 where their Lordships observed in this regard:
“In this High Court the Pahani Patrik entries have always been looked upon with considerable reliance in view of the fact that these entries are made in discharge of official duties to keep up the Revenue record of the cultivators. If the defendants or any one of them or somebody on their behalf cultivated these lands, it was not difficult for them to produce entries if any, to discharge the onus which was not on them initially but at least for the purposes of rebuttal. As regards revenue receipts if there were any in possession of the defendants, if the defendants had taken entries, they might have produced them. The absence of this kind of evidence for the rebuttal of the plaintiff evidence can only lead to one conclusion that in this village the 'Pahanipathrak' entries that exist are the only ones produced by the plaintiff and that the only receipts that were given from the Revenue Department are those produced by the plaintiff."
33. In Viswa Vijaya v. Fakrul Hussain AIR1976SC1485 the Supreme Court held as follows:
"It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally to be accepted at their face value and Courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply to genuine, not forged or fraudulent entries. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made, fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title."
The defendants’ written statement reads that the MRO did not follow the procedure and did not issue notice to them while issuing
Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed and incorporating the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records. However, the presumption is that the authorities have followed due procedure while issuing orders or other proceedings. The defendant did not adduce any cogent and acceptable 33 evidence about violation of procedural mandates by the revenue authorities while taking up the proceedings. In all, the defendants miserably failed to rebut the presumption attached to the above government records, which indicates that the plaintiffs’ predecessor had been the owner and possessor of the suit land since 1956. I recall my observations earlier, that the presumption under sec. 114 also supports the above view.
34.In addition to Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act, section 6 of the AP
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 also provides another presumption of correctness of the entries in the ROR. That section is extracted for immediate reference:
“Section 6-Presumption of correctness of entries in record of rights: Every entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Any mortgage or charge created earlier to a mortgage or charge created in favour of a credit agency shall lose its priority if it is not entered in the pattadar pass book.” (Emphasis added by me)
It has been canvassed vehemently by the learned Counsel for the defendants that the application of the defendants to modify the entries in Pattadar Pass Book and Title deed under the ROR is pending and so, unless the concerned authorities under the Record of Rights and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 orders in favour of the plaintiff, they cannot seek declaratory relief. I find no force in this contention and my reasons are given below.
34
35. According to Section 6 of the Act as extracted above, till the ROR is amended, the presumption is favouring the Plaintiffs whose names are show in the ROR as owners and possessors. The defendants did not file any suit for declaration of their title to suit property. Even the
Revenue Officer, under the ROR Act cannot decide the complex issues relating to title and he has to direct the parties to approach a Civil court by filing a suit under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as per section 8 of the Act.
36. In all, I find that the possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessor in title Borrayya alias Veeraiah has been recorded as owner and possessor of the land for a long time and till now, the ROR is not amended under the provisions of the ROR Act. I repel the contentions of the defendants in this respect.
37.The second aspect of the issue is about the unregistered sale deed. Under unregistered sale deed which is inadmissible in proving title, nevertheless it could be referred to as explaining the nature and character of the possession thereof held by the party and from the transfer effected in violation of the law, the transferee would be deemed to be in adverse possession ever since the date of the transfer.
(Ref: G. Narayan Reddy vs. P. Narayana Reddy 2016 (3) ALT 12) In this case, facts show that the plaintiff was in possession of immovable property under an unregistered gift deed which is not admissible in evidence. In spite of that, it is held that such possession become 35 adverse to the original owner. The Supreme Court observed that when a person is in possession asserting to be the owner, even if he fails to establish his title, his possession would still be adverse to the true owner. (Ref: L.N. Aswathama And Anr vs P. Prakash(2009)13 SCC 229)
As per the observations recorded above, since the name of
Borrayya alias Veeraiah, the predecessor of the plaintiffs has been shown as possessor and pattadar, this fact supports the purchase of the land under the Ex. A56 unregistered sale deed. Even the plaintiffs’ possession is taken to be under that unregistered sale deed, the law is well settled as above, that the person in possession of property under an invalid document, can acquire title adverse to the original owner. In the plaint there is specific averment projecting the claim of the plaintiffs that their possession is by prescriptive title also as held in
L.N. Aswathama (supra)
38. In view of the above circumstances I answer the Issues 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
39. Issue No. 4 in OS No. 256 of 2013:
In the result of findings on Issues No. 1 to 3 as above, the suit
OS.256/2013 is decreed as follows:
1) A decree declaring that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule land;
2) a consequential permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants in that suit from alienating the property to others; 36
3) That the suit OS 1286/2013 is dismissed but without costs in view of the decree granted in OS 256/2013
4) That both the parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant in part and also typed to my dictation,corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of February, 2019
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS
P.W-1:T. Narsimha Das Goud P.W-2:G. Pandari P.W-3:Kotha Kurma Pochaiah P.W-4:J. Gopal Reddy
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
D.W-1:T. Mallesh D.W-2:G. Narsimha (eschewed) D.W-3:K. Raja Gopal (eschewed) D.W-4:V. Chandraiah
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.A-1 : Original order/proceedings in File No. B/102/98 issued by MRO, Hayathnagar dated 26-06-1998 Ex.A-2:Rytu Passbook dated 26-06-1998 Ex.A-3:Land revenue receipt dated 12-06-1977 Ex.A-4:Land revenue receipt dated 29-06-1977 Ex.A-5:Land revenue receipt dated 27-06-1983 Ex.A-6:Land revenue receipt dated 18-10-1988 Ex.A-7:Cc of pahani patrika 1954-55 Ex.A-8:Cc of pahani patrika 1981-82 Ex.A-9:Cc of pahani patrika 1982-83 Ex.A-10:Cc of pahani patrika 1986-87 Ex.A-11:Cc of pahani patrika 1992-93 Ex.A-12:Cc of pahani patrika 1996-97 Ex.A-13:Cc of pahani patrika 1997-98 Ex.A-14:Cc of pahani patrika 1999-2000 Ex.A-15:Cc of pahani patrika 2002-03 Ex.A-16:Loan sanction application dated 07-04-1979 Ex.A-17:Loan sanction application dated 08-12-1980 37
Ex.A-18:Copy of application dated 16-02-2012 Ex.A-19:Copy of application dated 15-03-2012 Ex.A-20:Cc of panchanama dated 01-03-2012 Ex.A-21:Original sanction plan issued by Grampanchayat, Turkayamjal dated 19-11-1999 Ex.A-22:Copy of report of MRO sent to Collector vide file No. B/656/2012 dated 24-12-2012 Ex.A-23:Original pattadar pass book dated 24-12-2012 Ex.A-24:Original title deed dated 24-12-2012 Ex.A-25:Copy of revision letter in File No.D5/3584/2012 Ex.A-26:Cc of memo issued by Deputy Collector Ex.A-27:Cc of pahani for the year 1955-59 Ex.A-28:Cc of pahani for the year 1958-59 Ex.A-29:Cc of pahani for the year 1959-60 Ex.A-30:Cc of pahani for the year 1960-61 Ex.A-31:Cc of pahani for the year 1961-62 Ex.A-32:Cc of pahani for the year 1962-63 Ex.A-33:Cc of pahani for the year 1963-64 Ex.A-34:Cc of pahani for the year 1965-66 Ex.A-35:Cc of pahani for the year 1966-67 Ex.A-36:Cc of pahani for the year 1967-68 Ex.A-37:Cc of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.A-38:Cc of pahani for the year 1975-76 Ex.A-39:Cc of pahani for the year 1977-78 Ex.A-40:Cc of pahani for the year 1978-79 Ex.A-41:Cc of pahani for the year 1983-84 Ex.A-42:Cc of pahani for the year 1987-88 Ex.A-43:Cc of pahani for the year 1988-89 Ex.A-44:Cc of pahani for the year 1990-91 Ex.A-45:Cc of pahani for the year 1993-94 Ex.A-46:Cc of pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.A-47:Cc of pahani for the year 1995-96 Ex.A-48:Cc of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.A-49:Cc of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.A-50:Cc of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.A-51:Cc of pahani for the year 2009-10 Ex.A-52:Original sale deed dated 20-05-1957 with typed copy Ex.A-53:Proceedings of MRO, Hayathnagar- 8434 dt.23-11-06 Ex.A-54:Proceedings of RDO, dt.27-10-1996 in J/2306/1992 Ex.A-55:Proceedings of ORC in File No. J/2306/1992 Ex.A-56:Unregistered sale deed dated 17-08-1956 Ex.A-57:Letter of District Registrar about collection of stamp duty and penalty on Ex.A-56.
38
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
Ex.B-1:Cc of pahani for the year 1991 Ex.B-2:Cc of pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.B-3:Cc of pahani for the year 1995-96 Ex.B-4:Cc of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.B-5:Cc of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.B-6:Cc of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.B-7:Cc of pahani for the year 2009-10 Ex.B-8:Cc of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.B-9:Receipt of Revenue Sadassu dt. 21-02-2012 Ex.B-10:Application for submission before Tahsildar dt23-02-12 Ex.B-11:Copy of caveat petition sent by plaintiffs Ex.B-12:Cc of 1-B of Thoolla Veeraiah Ex.B-13:Cc of proceedings No. B/1021/1998 Ex.B-14:Cc of proceedings No. B/102/1998 Ex.B-15:Cc of FIR in CC No. 1004/2013 Ex.B-16:Cc of charge sheet in CC No. 2014/2013 Ex.B-17:Cc of pahani for the year 2011 Ex.B-18:Cc of pahani for the year 2012 Ex.B-19:Cc of pahani for the year 2013 Ex.B-20:Cc of pahani for the year 2014
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT