1 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE
Friday, the Eighteenth(18th) day of August, 2023
Present: K.P.Balaji,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Nellore.
O.S.No.607/2012
1. Chittamuru Sarathkumar Reddy(died)
2. Chittamuru Ravikumar Reddy
3. Penubolu Dhanija Reddy(died) (The word died added as per orders in I.A.No.649/2019 dt 30.01.2020)
4. Magunta Sasikala
5. Alluru Usharani
6. Nallari Sailaja
7. Chittamuru Geetha
8. Chittamuru Susrutha
9. Chittamuru Asrutha Late a minor by her next friend Chittamuru Susrutha, but now having attained majority, Chittamuru Asrutha, (Amended as per Orders in I.A.No.134/2018 dated 05.03.2018) (plaintiffs 8 and 9 were added as L.Rs of deceased 1st plaintiff as per orders in I.A.No.405/2014 dated 04.08.2014)
10. Penubolu Hari Babu
11. Penubolu Meghana Reddy
12. Penubolu Rajeev Reddy.
(plaintiffs 10 to 13 were added as L.Rs of deceased 3rd plaintiff as per Orders in I.A.No.649/2019 dt 30.01.2020) … Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Panta Ramalinga Reddy
2. Panta Rushitha… Defendants
This suit coming on 28.06.2023, 18.07.2023 and 09.08.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Srinivasulu Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and of
Sri Sd. Umar Shareef, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
Originally plaintiffs 1 to 7 filed the suit against the defendants 1 and 2 for declaring their title over the plaint schedule land, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc., from in any way interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and consequential 2 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 relief of grant of mandatory injunction of plaint schedule land danger to their property, for declaration that the registered settlement deed dated 25.05.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the plaint ‘B’ schedule land vide document bearing No.1330/2010 in the office of S.R.O, Muthukur as null and void, non est and not binding on them and for costs.
2.During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs 8 and 9 were added as per order in I.A.No.405 of 2014 dated 04.08.2014.
3.Plaintiffs 10 to 13 were added as Legal representatives of deceased 3rd plaintiff as per order in I.A.No.649 of 2019 dt. 30.01.2020.
4.During the pendency of the suit the 9th plaintiff attained majority and she was declared as a major as per order in I.A.No.134 of 2018 dated 05.03.2028.
5.The averments in the amended plaint are as follows:- The 1st defendant is the adopted son of Venkata Reddy and the 2nd defendant is the daughter of the first defendant. The plaintiffs are sons and daughters of Ch. Venkateswara Reddy and late Padmavathamma. The said Venkateswara Reddy got plaint ‘A’ schedule land under ‘H’ schedule of the registered partition deed dated 29.08.1957. One Chittamuru
Balarami Reddy is the elder brother of Ch. Venkateswara Reddy. The said
Balaramireddy is one of the parties to the above said partition deed. Since 1957, the said Venkateswara Reddy had been in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land. After the death of the said Venkateswara Reddy in the year 2002, his wife
Padmavathamma and his children, i.e., the plaintiffs herein, succeeded to the said property as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The said Padmavathamma died intestate on 27.05.2012 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. Thus, the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the plaint ‘A’ schedule lands. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 2nd plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said land from the revenue department as he is looking after the same and cultivating the lands.
3 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
The first defendant is the natural son of Balaramireddy. The first defendant was given in adoption to one Panta Venku Reddy. The said Venku Reddy was the maternal grandfather of the defendant. They recently came to know that the first defendant created a registered settlement deed dated 25.05.2010 bearing document
No.1330/2010 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Muthukur, in favour of his daughter, the 2nd defendant herein in respect of Ac.3.70 cents in two bits which are described in the plaint ‘B’ schedule. The said property was described as the ancestral property of the first defendant in the said settlement deed. The said property is not the ancestral property of the first defendant in view of the registered partition deed dated 29.08.1957 and plaint ‘A’ schedule property was not allotted to the share of Balaramaiah. The 1st defendant created the said registered settlement deed without right or title or possession over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The plaint ‘B’ schedule property which is part of plaint ‘A’ schedule is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the 2nd plaintiff is looking after the same. Thus, the said registered settlement deed dated 25.05.2010 is null and void, non est and not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants filed caveat petitions with false averments. The plaintiffs sent a reply on 28.09.2012 to the defendants giving the above said mentioned details and requested them to cancel the settlement deed dated 25.05.2010 within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Though the defendants received the said notice they failed to comply with the same.
On the other hand, the 2nd defendant being a resident of Anikepalli village which is very near to plaint ‘B’ schedule property obstructed the 2nd plaintiff from cultivating the said land on 25.11.2012 and the matter is pacified at the intervention of elders. But the 1st defendant has been proclaiming that he will case obstruction to the plaintiffs from cultivating the land. The agricultural season has already started for cultivating plaint ‘A’ schedule land. The defendants are rich and powerful people in the village and they are backed by unruly elements. The plaintiffs being residents of Gudur Town and Mandal which is far away from the plaint schedule land, they apprehend breach of peace and danger to property and hence it is just and necessary that the defendants and their men 4 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 be restrained by means of permanent injunction. The defendants also tampered No.3 adangal by creating the settlement deed dated 25.05.2010. Col. No.12 in No.3 adangal issued by Village Revenue Officer of Sarvepalli Bit V village was kept blank in respect of the names by writing only the surname ‘Panta’ and the words ‘Ramalinga Reddy’ were introduced by the defendant in col.No.12 of the No.3 Adangal extract.
During the pendency of the suit, the 3rd plaintiff died intestate on 24.10.2019 leaving behind her husband, married daughter and son, who are plaintiffs 10 to 12 herein, as her legal heirs and her estate devolved on them. Hence the suit.
6.The defendants filed written statement contending as follows:- All the allegations made in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true are denied as false and they are invented for the purpose of the suit. The relationship mentioned in para 3 of the plaint and about the Registered Partition deed
dated 26.8.1957 are correct. It is true Ch. Venkateswara Reddy got plaint ‘A’ schedule
mentioned property herein which is shown as ‘H’ schedule in the above said Registered partition deed. It is true one Balarami Reddy is the elder brother of Ch. Venkateswara
Reddy and he is also a party to the above said partition deed. But the other allegations that Ch.Venkateswara Reddy had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property till his death and that subsequently after the death of his wife
Padmavathamma, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, having succeeded to the property by virtue of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. It is true the 1st defendant is the natural son of Balaramireddy and adopted son of Panta
Venkureddy who is the maternal grandfather of the 1st defendant. The families of Panta and Chittamuri was a composite family. The members of the said composite family, viz., Ch. Venkateswara Reddy, Balarami Reddy, Panta Venkureddy and others were enjoying jointly the properties of their respective families. The members of the said composite family i.e., the father of the plaintiffs viz., Ch. Venkateswara Reddy, Seshu
Reddy and his two brothers got divided the properties of composite family which includes the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.1957. In the said partition the father of the plaintiffs, Venkateswara Reddy, was allotted the plaint 5 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 ‘A’ schedule property, which is shown as ‘H’ schedule in the partition deed. The properties shown in ‘I’ schedule of the partition deed were kept joint. Since then
Ch.Venkateswara Reddy was in possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property situate in
Pottempadu village. Subsequently the members of the composite family shown in the partition deed got divided the plaint schedule properties shown in the partition deed orally in which the adopted father of the first defendant got lands in S.Nos.510, 511, 512 which is in an extent of Ac.15.01 of Penubarti village. Since then Panta Venkureddy was in possession of the said extent along with the properties got by him under a registered partition deed. Thereafter in the year 1975 the parties to the partition deed have submitted their respective declarations to the Land Ceiling authorities after the commencement of the Land Reforms Act.
While so, the father of the plaintiffs thought and felt it inconvenient to cultivate the plaint schedule land. He himself proposed to the adopted father of the first defendant for exchange of the lands and accordingly in the year 1976 the adopted father of the first defendant and father of the plaintiffs mutually exchanged their respective lands of
Ac.3.70 cents of land. P.Venku Reddy gave his Ac.3.70 cents in S.Nos.510, 511, 512 of Penubally village to the father of Ch.Venkateswara Reddy in exchange of plaint ‘B’ schedule property which is in an extent of Ac.3.70 cents in Pottempalem village. Since then Venku Reddy and Venkateswara Reddy were in absolute possession and enjoyment of their exchanged lands. Panta Venku Reddy had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘B’ schedule mentioned property along with other property which is adjacent to the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, parties to the partition deed and other villages uninterruptedly, openly without any objection from Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and plaintiffs.
While so, in the year 1985 Ch.Venkateswara Reddy intended to sell the land which he got in exchange in S.Nos.510, 511, 512 and purchasers demanded to show the document evidencing the exchange of the lands and in this connection the 1st defendant and Venkateswara Reddy got executed inter se an unregistered agreement named as Exchange deed evidencing past exchange of lands on 20.07.1985. The 6 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 original of the said document was taken by Ch. Venkateswara Reddy and only Xerox copy of the said document was given to the first defendant. Thereafter,
Ch.Venkateswara Reddy, sold the land in S.Nos.510, 511 and 512 which he got from
P.Venku Reddy in exchange under a registered sale deed of the year 1989. P.Venku
Reddy acquired the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right raising wet crops and he was the absolute owner of the same. Subsequently the first defendant succeeded to the same and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same like his adopted father. While so, out of love and affection the 1st defendant bequeathed the plaint ‘B’ schedule mentioned property to the 2nd defendant under a registered settlement deed dated 25.05.2010. Since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father were in possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule mentioned property since 1976.
They never cultivated the plaint ‘B’ schedule property either personally or through anyone. The receipts filed by the plaintiffs are fabricated on blank cist receipts with the connivance of the erstwhile village officers for the purpose of the suit. The pattadar pass books filed by the plaintiffs were obtained in collusion of the revenue officials after issuing legal notice to them against the entries in the revenue records. They reserve their right to initiate appropriate steps for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds.
It is false to state that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs filed the suit purposefully after the death of Ch.Venkateswara
Reddy and his wife. They have no right to challenge the exchange of plaint ‘B’ schedule property as their father never questioned the right and possession of the adopted father of the first defendant and the first defendant.
The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. They have no right to ask for declaration of their title and cancellation of settlement deed. The suit is filed after 36 years of exchange of plaint ‘B’ schedule property to the father of the first defendant.
The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property is false. The adopted 7 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 father of the first defendant acquired right and possession over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property by exchange of lands. The plaintiffs are residing far away from plaint ‘B’ schedule property. Thus, the defendants have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property like Panta Venkureddy uninterruptedly without any objection. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father objected the possession of plaint ‘B’ schedule property either by P.Venku Reddy during his life time or subsequently. In any event this defendant acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession. There is no cause of action for the suit and the one alleged in the plaint is not true and correct. Hence the suit may be dismissed with costs.
7.Based on the above pleadings, the following Issues were settled for the trial of the suit.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title over plaint schedule land?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with plaintiffs’ possession over plaint ‘A’ schedule land?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the registered settlement deed dated 25.05.2010 bearing document No.1330/2010 executed by D1 in favour of D2 in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?
5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
6. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?
8.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.34 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to
B.21 were marked.
9.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs made the following submissions :- The plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of one Ch. Venkateswara
Reddy and Padmavathamma. The above said Chinta Venkateswara Reddy got the plaint ‘A’ schedule property under ‘H’ schedule of the registered partition deed dt.29.8.1957. One Ch.Balaramireddy is the elder brother of the said Ch.Venkateswara 8 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
Reddy. The said Balaramireddy is also one of the parties to the above said partition deed of the year 1957. Since the date of partition,Ch. Venkateswara Reddy had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After his death in the year 2002 his wife Padmavathamma and his children, i.e., the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same having succeeded to the said property as per the provisions of
Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiffs’ mother, Padmavathamma, also died on 27.05.2012 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. Thus, the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the plaint schedule lands and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 2nd plaintiff also obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in his name in respect of the said land as he has been looking after the same.
The 1st defendant is the natural son of Balarami Reddy and he was given in adoption to one Panta Venku Reddy. The said Venku Reddy is the maternal grandfather of the first defendant. The plaintiffs came to know prior to the filing of the suit that the 1st defendant created a registered settlement deed on 25.05.2010 in favour of his daughter, the 2nd defendant, in respect of Ac.3.70 cents in two bits which are shown in the plaint ‘B’ schedule. The said property was shown as ancestral property of the first defendant in the said settlement deed. But it is not the ancestral property of the first defendant in view of the Registered Partition deed dt.29.08.1957 and the plaint schedule property was not allotted to the share of Balarami Reddy. The 1st defendant created the said registered settlement deed without having any right, title or possession over the plaint “B” schedule property, which his part of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The plaint ‘A’ schedule property has been in possession of the plaintiffs and the 2nd plaintiff is looking after the same. Thus, the Registered Settlement deed dated 29.8.1957 is null and void, non est and not binding on the plaintiffs. To the caveat petitions filed by the defendants they sent a reply on 28.09.2012 and requested them to cancel the settlement deed within 10 days from the date of receipt of the reply. Without doing so, the first defendant, on behalf of the 2nd defendant, being a resident of Anikepalli which is situate very near to plaint ‘B’ schedule property, obstructed the 2nd plaintiff from 9 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 cultivating the land on 25.11.2012 which was pacified at the intervention of elders. The defendants are powerful persons in the village and they are backed by unruly elements.
The defendants in their pleadings and evidence admit about the partition deed.
They have pleaded exchange of the properties between Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and
Balarami Reddy which they failed to prove. The evidence of the defendants with regard to the alleged exchange of the properties between Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and
Balarami Reddy is contradictory. Any exchange of immovable property worth more than
Rs.100/- has to be by a registered document under Sec.17 of the Registration Act. The defendants failed to prove that the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is the ancestral property of the first defendant. There is also no evidence to show that there was partition of the composite family as stated in the written statement. No evidence is forthcoming to show that the lands in S.Nos. 510, 511 and 512 in an extent of Ac.15.01 was allotted to the adoptive father of the first defendant in the alleged oral partition that took place between the composite family members. The alleged exchange deed dated 20.07.1985 being unregistered cannot be taken into consideration nor does it confer any right or title either on the adoptive father of the 1st defendant or the firsts defendant. There is no evidence to show that P.Venku Reddy acquired the land situate in S.Nos.510 to 512.
The defendants failed to prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from 1976 onwards. The suit is filed for declaration of the plaintiffs’ right and title over the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs and therefore it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants contended that they also perfected their title over adverse possession. While in one breath they contend that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and in another breath contend that they perfected their right over the same by adverse possession, which cannot be permitted, as they are mutually exclusive. When the defendants contend that they perfected their title by adverse possession, they admit that they are not the owners and that someone else is the owner. The No.3 adangal extract appended to the settlement deed which has been issued by the Village Revenue Officer cannot be taken into consideration and he has no authority to issue such adangal. It is also a fabricated 10 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 one brought into existence by the first defendant to suite his convenience. When the executant of a document containing a recital of boundary upon which reliance is placed is himself a witness in the case, the recital can be let into evidence under Sec.157 of the
Evidence Act, as a former statement corroborating the deposition. It may be true that both the plaintiffs and defendants did not file any documents to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property as on the date of filing of the suit. The defendants failed to prove as to how P.Venku Reddy acquired the property. It is not in dispute that the plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of Ch.Venkateswara Reddy in the partition of the year 1957 and the plaintiffs succeeded to the same after the death of their parents. In that view of the matter, the principle that possession follows applies and the said principle can be applied to any property, not merely to a vacant site, but also to agricultural lands. The entries in revenue records do not confer any title nor are they conclusive of title. The person asserting title has to prove the same independently of such entries. The learned counsel after taking this court through the evidences of the witnesses and the documentary evidence brought on record would contend that since the plaintiffs were able to prove that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property, they are entitled to a decree as prayed for. In support of his contention, the learned counsel would place reliance on the decisions in K.Narayanaswamy Pillai v. Smt. Kannammal [S.A.No. 872 of 2005 dt.3.6.2014 – Mad HC], Balwant Singh and another v. Daulat Singh,1Baleswhwar
Tewari (died) by LRs v. Sheo Jatan Tiwary and others,2Sajana Granites v.
Manduva Srinivasa Ra and others,3Krishnaji Shrinivas Jalvadi v. Madhusa
Appansa Ladaba,4Chairman, District Board v. Jagatpat Singh Durga, Principal,5
Thiruvanchan Sankaran v. Kunjipillai Amma Gouri Amma,6D.Sudhakar Reddy v.
Joint Collector7 and M.A.Amiappa Nainar (died) v. N.Annamalai Chettiar.8 1AIR 1997 SC 2719 2AIR 1997 SC 2089 32002(1) ALT 466 (DB) 4AIR 1934 Bom 207 (FB) 5AIR 1941 Cal 676 6AIR 1970 Ker 310 7 W.P.No. 14761 of 2008 dt. 1.9.2020 (Telengana High Court) 8AIR 1972 Mad 154 11 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
10.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants made the following submissions :- The relationship between the parties is admitted. The plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned property, which is shown as ‘H’ Schedule in the Registered
Partition deed dated 26.08.1957 was allotted to Ch.Venkateswara Reddy. One
Ch.Balarami Reddy is the elder brother of Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and he is also one of the parties to the above said partition deed. The 1st defendant is the natural son of
Ch.Balarami Reddy. He went in adoption to Ch.Venku Reddy, who is his maternal grandfather. The families of Panta and Chittamuru was a composite family. The members of the said two families were jointly enjoying the properties of their respective families. The members of the said composite family i.e., father of the plaintiffs by name
Ch. Venkateswara Reddy, Seshu Reddy and his two brothers, got divided the properties of the composite family including the plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned property under a
Registered Partition deed dated 29.08.1957. The properties shown in ‘I’ schedule of the above said partition deed was kept joint. Since the date of partition, Ch.Venkateswara
Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned property.
Subsequently the members of the composite family got partitioned the schedule properties shown in the partition deed orally in which the adoptive father of the first defendant got lands in S.Nos.510, 511 and 512 in an extent of Ac.15.01 cents in
Penubarthi village. Since his adoptive father was in possession of the said land along with the properties got by him in the partition deed of the year 1957. Thereafter in the year 1975 the parties to the partition deed also submitted their respective declarations to the Land Ceiling authorities after the commencement of Land Reforms Act.
As the father of the plaintiffs thought it inconvenient to cultivate the plaint schedule land he proposed to the adoptive father of the first defendant for exchange of the lands and accordingly they exchanged their respective lands of Ac. 3.70 cents of land. His adoptive father gave his land of Ac.3.70 cents of land situate in S.Nos. 510, 511 and 512 of Penuballi village to the father of Ch. Venkateswara Reddy in exchange of the plaint ‘B’ schedule mentioned property which is in an extent of Ac. 3.70 cents in
Pottempalem village. Since then P.Venku Reddy and Ch. Venkateswara Reddy had 12 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 been in possession and enjoyment of the lands exchanged by them. The adoptive father of the first defendant, P.Venku Reddy, had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘B’ schedule mentioned property along with other properties which is adjacent to the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, parties to the partition deed and other villagers uninterruptedly, openly without any objection either from
Ch. Venkateswara Reddy or the plaintiffs.
In the year 1985, Ch.Venkateswara Reddy, intended to sell the land which he got under exchange in S.Nos.510 to 512 and purchasers demanded to show the document evidencing exchange of lands and in that connection the first defendant and
Venkateswara Reddy got executed an unregistered exchange deed evidencing exchange of lands on 20.07.1985. The father of the plaintiffs took the original of the said exchange deed and a copy of it was given to the first defendant. Thereafter, the father of the plaintiffs, sold the land of Ac. 3.70 cents in S.Nos. 510, 511 and 512 in the year 1989.
The adoptive father of the first defendant, P.Venku Reddy, had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property in his own right raising wet crops and he is the absolute owner of the same. Subsequently, the first defendant succeeded to the property and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same as its absolute owner, like his adoptive father. Out of love and affection, he bequeathed the plaint ‘B’ schedule property to the 2nd defendant, to his daughter and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as its absolute owner. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father were in possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule mentioned property from 1976 onwards. They never cultivated the said property either personally or through others. The pattadar pass books filed by the plaintiffs were obtained by them in collusion with the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs filed the suit after the death of their parents. They have no right to challenge the exchange of plaint ‘B’ schedule mentioned property as their father never questioned the same. The suit is filed 36 years after exchange of the properties between the father of the plaintiffs and Venku Reddy.
Therefore, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiffs are residing far away 13 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 from the plaint schedule property. In any event the plaintiffs acquired title to the plaint schedule property by way of adverse possession also.
The plaintiffs failed to prove that they are in possession or enjoyment of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property on the date of filing of the suit. Hence they are not entitled to the relief of permanent or mandatory injunction as prayed for.
In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
D.Rami Reddy (died) per LRs v. TTD, rep., by its Executive Officer and another.9
11.Issue No. 3 :-
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that by oversight and mistake the relief of mandatory injunction has been incorporated at the end of the prayer seeking the relief of permanent injunction and that they are not pressing the said relief. The said submission is placed on record. Recording the said submission the suit as regards the relief of mandatory injunction is dismissed as not pressed.
12.Issue No. 5 :- It is one of the contentions of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation as it was filed 36 years after the exchange of lands between the adoptive father of the 1st defendant and Ch.Venkateswara Reddy, the father of the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the defendants in their written statement that as the father of the plaintiff felt it inconvenient to cultivate the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, proposed to the adoptive father of the 1st defendant for exchange of the lands between them, accordingly they mutually exchanged their respective lands of Ac.3.70 cents of land in which while the land of Ac.3.70 cents in S.No. 510, 511 and 512 belonging to
P.Venku Reddy was given to the plaintiff’s father, the plaint ‘B’ schedule property was given to P.Venku Reddy and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
It is also their contention that when Ch.Venkateswara Reddy wanted to sell the land got by him in exchange, the purchasers insisted for a document showing such exchange 92012(4) ALT 16 (DB) 14 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 upon which both of them (Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and P.Venku Reddy) entered into an Unregistered exchange deed on 20.07.1985 and thereafter the plaintiffs’ father sold away the lands in S.Nos.510, 511 and 512 under a registered sale deed in the year 1989. Thus, according to the defendants P.Venku Reddy acquired the plaint ‘B’ schedule property in exchange and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and after his death the first defendant and thereafter the 2nd defendant have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is their further contention that they have also perfected their right and title over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property by adverse possession also.
13.The defendants in their written statement admitted that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property herein which is the ‘H’ schedule property in the partition deed,
Ex.A.1, fell to the share of Ch.Venkateswara Reddy, the father of the plaintiffs and that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also their admitted case that the ‘I’ schedule property in the partition deed was kept joint for both the families.
Though it is stated by the defendants in their written statement that there was oral partition of the said properties by the parties to the partition deed, the written statement is silent as to when such partition took place. At another stage in the written statement it was stated that after the Land Reforms Act came into force in the year 1976 the parties to the partition deed also filed their declarations. It means, according to them, the partition took place even prior to 1976.
14.D.W.1 in his evidence stated that he does not know when the properties under ‘I’ schedule of Ex.A1 partition deed were partitioned. He volunteered that as per convenience the ‘I’ schedule properties were partitioned. According to him, in the said partition P.Venku Reddy got Ac.2.77 cents in S.Nos.510 to 512 of Penubarthi village covered under ‘I’ schedule. He does not know the extents and survey numbers that were allotted to the share of Panta Sankar Reddy, Ch. Seshu Reddy, Ch. Sundararami
Reddy, Ch. Ramakrishna Reddy, Ch. Balarami Reddy and Ch. Venkateswara Reddy of
Penubarthi village. He does not know the extent of land allotted to the shares of above mentioned persons in respect of property situate in Anikepalli and Panchedu. While in 15 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 one breath he states that Venu Reddy got Ac.12.50 cents in Anikepalli village and
Ac.7.80 cents in Panchedu village, in another breath he volunteered that the above extents are in respect of ‘A’ schedule in Ex.A.1 and not in respect of ‘I’ schedule. D.W.1 further stated in his evidence that his natural father, Balarami Reddy sold Ac.1.30 cents under Ex.A.30 document on 23.7.2003 in which he signed as one of the attestors and that in the said sale deed it is recited that the property covered is the ancestral property of Balarami Reddy. He further admitted that there is no reference to the oral partition of ‘I’ schedule properties of Ex.A.1 by Panta and Chittamuru families. He stated that in the year 1957 he was aged about 14 or 15 years. He further admitted that in Ex.B.19 and
B.20, sale deeds executed by Ch.Venkateswara Reddy, father of plaintiffs, and others, there is no recital about any exchange of the land in the year 1976 between
Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and Panta Venku Reddy and that it is recited therein that the properties covered under the sale deeds are ancestral properties. He also admitted that there is no reference to the unregistered exchange deed dt. 20.7.1985 said to have been executed between Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and Panta Venku Reddy in Ex.B.19.
15. In Gottumukkala Sundara Narasarajuv.Pinnamaraju Venkata
Narasimharaju 10it was held that the period of limitation for institution of a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession or other relief of permanent injunction based on title is governed by Article 65 and that, therefore, the period of limitation is twelve years from the time when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs.
16.In Ramnagina Rai v. Deo Kumar Rai11 it was held as follows:- “At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the defendants have not produced any document to show that they are the owners of the suit property by purchasing the same or by acquiring the same by any mode of transfer. Also, there is nothing on record to show that the property in question is the ancestral property of the defendants. However, alternative case of the defendants that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property and had permitted the defendants' ancestor and thereafter, the defendants to be in possession of the property. In other words, the defendants do admit that the plaintiffs are the owners of the 10 2016(3) ALD 724 11 LAWS (SC) 2018 8 117 16 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 property. But the sole contention of the contesting defendants is that they have perfected the title by adverse possession, and that the suit to claim possession of the suit property is beyond the period of limitation. The plaintiffs do admit that the defendants are in permissive possession of the property, but claim that khatian changed in the name of defendants was without notice to the plaintiffs and the same cannot be relied upon. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have not perfected the title by virtue of adverse possession.
Since the contesting defendants have raised a plea of adverse possession, the burden is on them to prove affirmatively that the bar of limitation prescribed under Article 65 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, viz., 12 years, is applicable in the matter to file a suit for possession of immovable property based on title. The limitation of 12 years begins when the possession of the defendants would become adverse to that of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to file a suit for possession within 12 years from when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs. Article 65 presupposes that the limitation starts only if the defendants prove the factum of adverse possession affirmatively from a particular time. Adverse possession means a hostile assertion, i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. The person who bases his title on adverse possession must show, by clear and unequivocal evidence, that the possession was hostile to the real owner and it amounted to the denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts alleged by the person constitute adverse possession, regard must be given to the animus of the person doing such acts, which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. It is needless to observe that where the possession can be referred to a lawful title, it would not be considered to be adverse, the reason being that the person whose possession can be drawn to a lawful title, will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. Simply put, one who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of the other's title, make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation.”
17.In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India 12 it was held as follows:- "11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession 12 (2004) 10 SCC 779 17 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period.
(See: S.M.Karim v. Bibi Sakinal, 1964 6 SCR 780, Parsinni v. Sukhi, 1993 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka, 1997 AIR(SC) 2930).
Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus posited to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.
12. …..In P Periasami v. P Periathambi, [(1995) 6 SCC 523], this Court ruled that - "Whenever the plea of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is that someone else was the owner of the property." The pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced.”
In the case on hand, while in one breath the defendants contend that the plaint schedule property belongs to them as it was got by P.Venku Reddy in exchange between him and Ch.Venkateswara Reddy in the year 1976, in another breath they contend that they also perfected their right and title over the property by adverse possession also, which cannot go together being mutually exclusive.
18. D.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that the copy of adangal annexed to Ex.B.4 settlement deed was issued by the Village Revenue Officer of
Sarvepalli Bit 5 and that Col.No.15 is left blank with regard to nature of possession in adangal. D.W.1 further admitted that in Ex.B.15 application made by him to the District
Collector on 05.03.2016 they did not mention about the pendency of the suit and it is mentioned therein that they got the property from ancestral and that there is no 18 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 reference to exchange of lands between Ch. Venkateswara Reddy and P.Venku Reddy under unregistered Exchange deed dated 20.07.1985. He admitted that Ex.B.15, No.3
Adangal, is not in respect of the plaint schedule property and it relates to his other lands. He further admits that Ex.B.16 relates to S.No. 271 for Fasali 1426 and that the columns relating to pattadar, enjoydar and nature of enjoyment are kept blank and that his name does not reflect in Ex.B.16 as owner.
19. Thus, the defendants failed to prove any of the ingredients of ‘adverse possession’ nor are they entitled to take such a plea as it is their case that P.Venku
Reddy got the property by means of an exchange between him and Ch.Venkateswara
Reddy, father of the plaintiffs. Of course, they also failed to prove that P.Venku Reddy got the property in the exchange between him and Ch.Venkateswara Reddy, father of the plaintiffs.
20. When once it is found that the defendants have failed to prove the plea of adverse possession raised by them, the question of the suit being barred by limitation does not arise. Hence it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. This Issue is accordingly answered against the defendants.
21.Issue Nos. 1,2 and 4 :- As all these Issues are inter connected, they are taken up together for consideration.
22.The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right and title over the plaint schedule property and other reliefs. Therefore, the burden is on them to prove their case irrespective of whether the defendants prove their case or not or even if the defendants fail to prove their title over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have to stand or fall on the strength of their own case and they cannot depend upon the weakness in the case of the defendants.
23.In Y.Narayana Raju v. Saraswathula Kameswaramma 13 it was held that the plaintiff has to stand or fall on the merits of her own case, while considering the merits of the plaintiff’s case the court need not shut its eyes to the demerits of 13 LAWS(APH) 2013 3 57 19 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
the defendant’s case though the court cannot pass a decree in favour of the
plaintiff solely on the demerits of the defendant’s case.
24.There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties to the suit.
The plaintiffs are the children of one Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and Padmavathamma. It is not also disputed that in the partition that took place between Ch.Venkateswara
Reddy and others on 29.08.1957 the plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned property fell to the share of Ch.Venkateswara Reddy under Ex.A.1. It is also not disputed both the parents of the plaintiffs died intestate leaving the plaintiffs as their legal heirs. It is also not disputed that the ‘I’ schedule mentioned properties in the above said partition deed, was kept joint between the two families of Panta and Chittamuru.
25.P.W.1 is 2nd plaintiff in the suit and in his chief examination affidavit he reiterated the very same facts stated in the plaint. Ex.A.1 is the registration extract of the Registered Partition deed dated 29.08.1957 between Ch.Venkateswara Reddy and others. Exs.A.2 to A.18 are the cist receipts standing in the name of Ch.Venkateswara
Reddy. Ex.A.19 is the pattadar pass book standing in the name of the 2nd plaintiff. It was suggested to P.W.1 that after partition the properties that fell to the share of Panta family were sold by him to R.Venkateswarlu and others of Tirupati, without the knowledge of others, which is not the case of the defendants in their written statement.
It is not disputed that the 1st defendant is the natural son of Ch. Balarami Reddy and he went in adoption to one Panta Venku Reddy, maternal grandfather of the first defendant. P.W.1 is admittedly a resident of Guntur and his brother has been living in
Magunta Lay out, Nellore. He feigns ignorance about the declarations submitted by the members of the composite family with regard to the lands held by them. The plaint schedule properties are situate in S.Nos.270 and 271 of Pottempadu (Sarvapelli Bit 5).
He admitted that he along with Ch.Padmavathamma and Sarath Kumar Reddy sold an extent of Ac.3.00 situate in S.Nos.351, 349/1, 352, 353, 425/2-2 in the year 2006.
There was lot of cross examination with regard to various extents of the lands owned or possessed by the family in different villages with which we may not be much concerned.
In this case, we are concerned with the land in S.Nos. 270 and 271 in an extent of 20 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
Ac.3.70 cents. It is his evidence that the original title deeds under which his father purchased about Ac.230 were in their custody as his father purchased the lands in the names of third parties to avoid land ceiling complication and that subsequently the lands were transferred in the names of third parties. He does not know up to which period both the families lived together as joint family and he does not know the extent of the land that fell to the share of his father in Penubarthi village. It is elicited through him that there is no document with regard to the exchange of lands and in the next breath he stated that there is no exchange of lands. It was suggested to him that the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land since 1989, when the exchange of the lands took place. This suggestion runs counter to the contention raised in the written statement wherein it was stated that the said exchange took place in the year 1985. He does not know how cist receipts were issued in the name of P.Venku Reddy, adoptive father of the first defendant. He admits that the survey number of the suit schedule property is not mentioned in Exs.A.2 to A.18. He volunteered that patta number was mentioned. It was suggested to him that Exs.A.2 to
A.18 do not pertain to the plaint schedule property. But the defendants themselves admitted in their pleadings that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs in the partition under Ex.A.1 and that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till the exchange between P.Venku Reddy and
Ch.Venkateswara Reddy. He feigns ignorance about the enquiry conducted with regard to issuance of Exs.A.19 and A.20 and about the report of the Tahsildar stating that they were not issued by their office. He also feigns ignorance about recording of statements by the Village Revenue Officer and submission of report by him to the Mandal Revenue
Officer and Joint Collector. He does not know whether the Tahsildar submitted report stating that the plaint schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of defendants. It is his evidence that in view of the pendency of the suit no Adangals were issued in his favour.
26.It is elicited through him that ‘I’ schedule mentioned properties in the partition deed were not partitioned till 19.09.2018(date of deposition). It is also his 21 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 evidence that ‘I’ schedule properties are situate in Anikepalli, Penubarthi and Panchedu villages. He does not know the extents of the lands situate in the said villages. He feigns ignorance whether the ‘I’ schedule properties in Penubarthi village were sold by his father and other family members in the year 1976 itself. He also feigns ignorance whether his father executed Registered Sale deeds in the year 1989 by stating that he received entire consideration in the year 1976 itself and delivered possession. Though he feigns ignorance, a perusal of Exs.B.19 and B.20 shows that his father sold away the properties in the year 1989 by stating that he received consideration in the year 1976 itself. He does not know whether after partition the parties are cultivating the lands as per their convenience. It was suggested to him that in the year 1976 itself there was exchange of lands in view of that exchange defendants took the land of Penubarthi village for which also there is no evidence. He also feigned ignorance whether the father of the 1st defendant showed the suit schedule property in his declaration or not.
He does not know whether his father did not file any objections for the declaration given by the father of the first defendant.
27.P.W.2 is a third party witness. He claims to be owning Ac. 1.40 cents in
S.No. 282/A, Ac. 1.61 cebnts in S.No. 290 and Ac. 1.59 cents in S.No. 291 of Sarvepalli
Bit V village (Pottempadu village). It is stated in his affidavit that his wife, K.Suparna is owning and possessing Ac.3.90 cents in S.Nos.271/1, 268/A and 269/A of Sarvepalli
Bit-V village and the same is adjoining east of plaint ‘A’ schedule and his land of Ac.1.4 cents in S.No.282/A is situate adjoining west of his wife’s land of Ac.3.90 cents. He further stated that his son, K.Hitesh Reddy is owning and possessing Ac.6.50 cents in
S.Nos.270/A, 268/A, 283 and 284-A of Sarvepalli Bit V (Pottempadu village) and the same is adjoining west and north of plaint ‘A’ schedule lands. The above statements of
P.W.2 in his chief affidavit tally with the boundaries mentioned for the plaint schedule property in the plaint. He further stated that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising paddy crops. He further stated that the defendants have no manner of right or title over the plaint schedule property. In the cross- examination he stated that his 22 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 family migrated to Nellore from Anikepalli about 10 years back. He volunteered that he has lands and house in the village and he used to frequent the village. It is asserted in the cross examination that his family owns lands on the norther, eastern and western sides of the plaint schedule property. According to him, his family purchased agricultural lands from G.Prabhkar and others. Exs.A.25 to A.29 the copies of the sale deeds standing in his name and in the names of other family members were marked through him. It was suggested to him that he purchased the suit schedule property pending litigation as part of his business for lesser value. It was not even suggested to him that the plaintiffs are not the owners and that the defendants are the owners of the property and that they are in possession of the same. The statements made by P.W.2 in his chief examination affidavit about the possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs remained unchallenged and unrebutted.
28.P.W.3 is another third party witness who owns his lands in S.Nos.267 and 266 adjacent north of Kolagatta Hitesh reddy son of P.W.2. It is his contention that the land of K.Hitesh Reddy is situate adjacent north of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. It is also his evidence that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising paddy crops therein. He claims to have purchased Ac.2.00 of land from Chittamuru Sesha Reddy, brother of the first defendant. It was suggested to him that the first defendant protested at the time of his purchase. He volunteered that since the first defendant was given in adoption, he has no share and protest does not arise. It was also suggested to him that without the knowledge and consent of the first defendant he purchased the property from Sesha Reddy. He stated that he purchased the property in the year 2009 and no civil suit is filed for the last 10 years. It was suggested to him that the first defendant is having share in joint family properties and his own brother has no right to sell the share of the first defendant. Here again the statement of P.W.3 in his chief affidavit that the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule property remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Thus, even though P.Ws. 1 to 3 were cross examined at length nothing useful to the defendants could be elicited from them.
23 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
29.As against the above evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1, his wife as D.W.2 and D.Ws 3 and 4 are independent witnesses. D.W 1 in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the very same facts stated by him in the written statement. Exs.B.1 to B.21 were marked through D.W.1.
Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of the partition deed dated 29.08.1957, Exs.B.2, B.3, B.6,
B.8, B.17 are the cist receipts. Ex.B.4 is the registered settlement deed dated 25.05.2010 executed by D1 in favour of D2 in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property.
Ex.B.5 is the No.3 adangal extract for fasli 1420 standing in the name of the 2nd defendant. Ex.B.10 is the attested copy of the enjoyment certificate in the name of the first defendant. Ex.B.11 is the attested copy of the enjoyment sketch issued by the
Mandal Surveyor. Ex.B.14 is the report of the R.I submitted to the Tahsildar. Ex.B.15 is the certified copy of 1-B extract in the name of the defendants obtained under Right to
Information Act.
30.He admitted that Chittamuru family and Panta family constituted a composite family. He admitted about Ex.B.1 = Ex.A.1. Quite curiously, though in the written statement as well as in the chief examination affidavit, he admitted that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs in the partition that took place under Ex.B1 in which it is shown as ‘H’ schedule, in the cross examination he feigns ignorance about the same. It is clear that he is not speaking the truth on this aspect. It is his evidence that he was given in adoption to Panta Venku Reddy under registered adoption deed dated 27.02.1975 and that the said P.Venku Reddy is his maternal grandfather. He also admitted that ‘I’ schedule properties mentioned in the partition deed were kept joint between the two families. He stated that he does not know when the properties under ‘I’ schedule were partitioned, there is no document to show the said partition and that as per the convenience ‘I’ schedule properties were partitioned. According to him, P.Venku Reddy got Ac.2.77 cents in S.Nos. 510, 511 and 512 of Penubarthi village covered under ‘I’ schedule and he does not know the extents and survey numbers that were allotted to the share of P.Shankar Reddy, Seshu Reddy,
Ch. Sesha Reddy, Ch. Sundararamireddy, Ch.Ramakrishna Reddy, Ch. Balarami 24 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
Reddy and Ch. Venkateswarlu Reddy of Penubarthi village. He does not know the extent of land allotted to the shares of above persons in respect of the lands situate in
Anikepalli and Panchedu villages. He volunteered that Venku Reddy got Ac.12.50 cents in Anikepalli village and Ac.7.80 cents in Panchedu village. He volunteered that the above said lands are in respect of ‘A’ schedule land in Ex.A.1 and not in respect of ‘I’ schedule. He admitted that in the written statement he did not state that his adoptive father got Ac.14.77 cents in Anikepalli village in the alleged oral partition. He admits that his natural father, Balarami Reddy, sold lands under Exs.A.30 in S.No.503/3 which forms part of ‘I’ schedule property. He admits that he signed as one of the attestors in
Ex.B.3 sale deed. He further admits that there is no recital about any oral partition of ‘I’ schedule properties of Ex.A.1 by Panta and Chittamuru families.
31.He further admits that Exs.B.19 and B.20 sale deeds were jointly executed by Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy and his brother, Ramakrishna Reddy and Ch.Ramanamma w/o Ch. Sesha Reddy in respect of properties situate in Penubarthi village. He further admits that there is no reference to any exchange of the year 1976 in the said sale deeds. He further admits that in the said sale deeds it is mentioned that the lands mentioned therein are their ancestral properties. He admits that he does not have any pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the plaint schedule property though pattadar pass book and title deed have been issued to him in respect of Ac. 6.25 cents of land in S.No.275/B1. He admits that the Adangal annexed to Ex.B.4 was issued by
Village Revenue Officer of Sarvepalli. He admits that Col.No.15 is left blank with regard to nature of possession in adangal. He further admits that in Ex.B.12 application submitted to the District Collector on 05.03.2016 he mentioned that the property is his ancestral property and there is no reference to exchange of lands between his adoptive father and Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy dated 20.07.1985. He admits that Ex.B.15, does not relate to the plaint schedule property and that Ex.B.16 relates to S.No. 271 for
Fasali 1426. He admits that in Ex.B.16 the columns relating to pattadar, enjoydar and nature of enjoyment are left blank. He admits that his name is not reflected in Ex.B.16.
He does not know whether in Ex.B.5 the pattadar name and details of crop and khata 25 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 number were kept blank. He does not know whether in column No.15 the nature of possession is shown as registered sale deed. He further states that the plaint schedule property is situate in S.No. 270 and 271 and patta number for S.No. 270 is 140 and 136 for S.No. 271. He admits that in Ex.B.17 cist receipt the patta number is shown as 490.
Thus, it is clear that Ex.B.17 does not pertain to the plaint schedule property. He further admits that in Ex.B.18 the columns relating to khata number, pattadar are kept blank and in column No.15 it is mentioned RSD which means registered sale deed. Exs.A.31 to A.33 were marked in the cross examination of D.W.1. He admits that P.W.2’s, wife and son are owning lands towards east, west and north of plaint schedule property. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule property.
32.D.W.1 further admits that in the injunction application he remained exparte. He stated that he gave instructions for preparation of counter filed by the 2nd defendant, his daughter. He admits that in the counter filed by his daughter in
I.A.No.1033/2012 it is stated that he and Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy executed registered exchange deed on 20.07.1985 relating to exchange of lands. He further admits that in
Ex.B.4 Registered Settlement deed executed by him in favour of D.2, there is no reference to exchange of lands between his adoptive father and Ch. Venkateswarlu
Reddy or about unregistered exchange deed dated 20.07.1985. He admits that in
Ex.B.4 it is mentioned that it is his ancestral property.
33.D.W.2 is the wife of D.W.1 and a third party to the suit. But her chief examination affidavit is also similar and identical to that of D.W.1, her husband. Her marriage with D.W.1 was performed on 06.03.1988 and she does not have any personal knowledge about the property transaction occurred prior to her marriage. In that view of the matter her statements in the chief examination affidavit with regard to the partition, exchange etc., cannot be taken into consideration. She does not know about the partition that took place in the year 1957. She has no personal knowledge about the alleged partition of ‘I’ schedule properties covered under Ex.A1 between
Panta and Chittamuru families. She cannot say how much extent jointly fell to the 26 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 shares of Panta family and Chittamuru family in relation to Penubarthi property covered under ‘I’ schedule of Ex.A.1. She does not know the extents of land that fell to the shares of Ch. Venkateswara Reddy and his brothers in respect of Penubarthi property.
She states that there is no partition of ‘I’ schedule property between P.Venku Reddy and his brothers. She has no personal knowledge about the alleged exchange that took place in the year 1976. She also admits that there is no reference to the alleged exchange deed dated 20.07.1985 in Exs.B.19 and B.20 or Ex.B.4 settlement deed executed by D1 in favour of D2. She feigns ignorance about the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.29. Hence the evidence of D.W.2 does not help the case of the defendants.
34.D.W.3 is a third party to the proceedings i.e., one Ch. Vinandini w/o Sesha Reddy. Her husband is the younger brother of the first defendant. She admits that in Ex.A.29 the eastern and northern boundary are shown as land belonging to Ch. Venkateswarlu Reddy. She further admits that even in the link documents the eastern and northern boundaries are shown as land belonging to Ch. Venkateswarlu
Reddy. Ex.A.34 is the certified copy of the Registered Sale deed dated 11.07.2011 executed by her husband, Sesha Reddy, in favour of K.Suvarna, wife of P.W.2. She further admits that in the said sale deed the western boundary is shown as land belonging to Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy. She does not know about the exchange of lands between Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy and Panta Venku Reddy, though she deposed about the same in her affidavit. She does not know about the properties covered under
Ex.A.1 or whether the plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned properties were allotted to
Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy or not. She does not know whether the Mandal Revenue
Officer issued pattadar pass book in favour of P.W.1 or not. When a suggestion was put to D.W.3 that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, denying the said suggestion she stated that before 4 years she was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, which is nobody’s case.
35.D.W.4 is another third party witness who is examined to speak about the alleged exchange of properties between Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy and P.Venku Reddy and about the alleged possession of the plaint schedule properties by the defendants.
27 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
He is a native of Anikepalli and the plaint schedule property is situate in Pottempadu village. He has no lands in Pottempadu village. It is not known how he is able to speak about the alleged exchange of lands and about the possession of the defendants when he is not a resident of the suit village. He does not know when Ch.Venkateswarlu
Reddy died. He cannot say the names of his children. He does not know whether
P.Venku Reddy has any brothers or not. He is not related either to Panta or Chittamuru families. He states that the above said families own lands in Penubarthi, Anikepalli and
Pottempadu villages but he cannot say the extents. He was born in the year 1978 and he came to know about the partition of the year 1957 through elders. He states that the ‘I’ schedule mentioned properties of the partition deed are situate in Penubathi and
Pottempadu villages, which is not correct. He further states that he came to know that the ‘I’ schedule properties were partitioned in the year 1985 between Ch.Venkateswara
Reddy and Venku Reddy, which is again not correct. He does not know the extents of lands got by each of the sharers in the said partition. According to him, the said partition has been reduced into writing but according to D.W.1 it was oral. He does not know whether Venku Reddy obtained any pattadar pass book with regard to the property got towards his share in the partition in Penubarthi village or not. In the year 1985 he was less than 10 years. He does not know when the exchange took place between Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy and Venku Reddy and he did not sign on the exchange agreement. He stated that he has no personal knowledge about the exchange deed dated 20.07.1985. He does not know whether P.Venku Reddy was in possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property or not. He does not remember when the first defendant executed the settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. He admits that P.Ws. 2 and 3 own lands adjacent east, west and north of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
36.Thus, the defendants having admitted that the plaint ‘A’ schedule mentioned property was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs in the partition that took place under Ex.A.1, failed to prove that there was exchange of the same between
P.Venku Reddy and Ch.Venkaeswarlu Reddy in the year 1976 or 1985 and that since 28 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. When there is no legally acceptable evidence brought on record with regard to the alleged exchange of lands between P.Venku Reddy and Ch.Venkateswarlu Reddy, the question of the 1st defendant acquiring any right or title or possession over the plaint schedule property does not arise. On the other hand, the plaintiffs having succeeded to the plaint ‘A’ schedule property after the death of their parents, become the absolute owners thereof to the exclusion of all other persons. When the 1st defendant himself has no right or title over the plaint schedule property, he cannot convey any better title to the 2nd defendant under Ex.B.4 settlement deed and it is a void, non est document not binding on the plaintiffs and it has to be declared as such. When once it is found that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule mentioned property, even though they did not file any document to prove their possession on the date of filing of the suit, in view of the provisions contained in Sec.110 of the Evidence Act and following the principle that possession follows title, it must be held that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing of the suit. Consequently they are also entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. As a necessary corollary it must be held that the Registered Settlelment deed, Ex.B4, has to be declared as null and void, non est in law and not binding on the plaintiffs.
37.Coming to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, in K.Narayanaswamy Pillai’s case (supra) of the Madras High court, it was held that the agreement of exchange is not valid in law since it is not registered. It was further held that in view of Sec.118 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act r/w Sec.17(1)
(b) of the Registration Act, exchange of immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- must be only by way of a registered document.
38.In the case on hand also, though it was stated that an unregistered exchange deed was executed between the parties, it was not brought on record.
39.In Balwant Singh’s case (supra) it was held that entries in revenue records do not convey or extinguish any title.
29 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
40.To the same effect is another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bleshwar Tewari.
41.In Sajana Granites (supra) of our Hon’ble High Court it was held that entries in revenue records do not confer any title nor are they conclusive of title and that title cannot be declared based on such entries.
42.In Krishnaji Shrinivas Jalvadi’s case (supra) of the Bombay High Court, it was held that where there is no evidence as to who was in possession, the presumption is that the owner was in possession.
43.In Jagatpat Singh Dugar (supra) of the Calcutta High Court, it was held that if there are two persons in a field, each asserting that the field is his, and each doing some act in the assertion of the right of possession, and if the question is, which of these two is in actual possession, the person who has title is in actual possession and the other person is trespasser.
44.The decision in D.Rami Reddy’s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants has no application to the facts of the present case as it arose under Sec. 3(7) and 14 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion in
Ryotwari) Act, 1956.
45.In view of the above discussion and the legal position noticed above, all these Issues are accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
46.Issue No. 6 :- In view of the findings on the above Issues, it is held on this
Issue that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for.
IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs (a) declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule mentioned properties; (b) granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties; (c) it is further declared that the Registered
Settlemlent deed dated 25.05.2010 executed by D1 in favour of D2 in respect of plaint 30 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023 ‘B’ schedule property vide document No.1330/2010 on the file of
Sub Registrar, Muthukur, is null and void, non est and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit as regards the relief of mandatory injunction is dismissed. The office is directed to communicate a copy of the decree to the concerned Sub-Registrar’s Office, Muthukur, for making necessary entries in their books with regard to document No.1330/2010
dated 25.05.2010.
Prepared, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of August, 2023.
SD/- K.P.BALAJI
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NELLORE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs:
P.W.1: Chittamuru Ravi Kumar Reddy P.W.2: Kolagatla Sridhar Reddy P.W.3: Koduru Pradeep Kumar Reddy
For Defendants :- D.W.1:Panta Ramalinga Reddy D.W.2: PantaSupriya D.W.3: Chittamuru Vinandini D.W.4: Chemudugunta Srinivasulu
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A-1:Registration copy of Partition deed dated 29.08.1957 executed by Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy and others(original misplaced and not traced).
Ex.A-2: Cist receipt dated 26.08.1977 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-3: Cist receipt dated 22.03.1979 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-4: Cist receipt dated 18.06.1978 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-5:Cist receipt dated 16.03.1980 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-6:Cist receipt dated 27.03.1982 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
31 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
Ex.A-7:Cist receipt dated 07.04.1982 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-8: Cist receipt dt.24.05.1984 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-9:Cist receipt dated 20.04.1983 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-10:Cist receipt dated 14.06.1984 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-11:Cist receipt dated 26.03.1986 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-12:Cist receipt dated 16.04.1987 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-13: Cist receipt dated 05.05.1988 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-14: Cist receipt dated 19.03.1990 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-15: Cist receipt dated 14.09.1991 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-16:Cist receipt dated 21.05.1992 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-17:Cist receipt dated 23.04.1998 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-18:Cist receipt dated 06.07.2000 issued in favour of Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy.
Ex.A-19: Pattadar pass book issued in favour of Ch.Ravi Kumar Reddy issued by Tahsildar, Muthukur Mandal dated 28.08.2012.
Ex.A-20:Loan title issued in favour of Ch.Ravi Kumar Reddy issued by Tahsildar, Muthukur Mandal dated 28.08.2012.
Ex.A-21:Registration copy of Settlement deed dated 25.05.2010 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant bearing doc.No.1330/20010 of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Muthukur.
Ex.A-22:Office copy of Registered notice dt.28.09.2012 issued to the defendants.
Ex.A-23:Postal acknowledgement signed by 2nd defendant.
Ex.A-24: Postal acknowledgement signed by 1st defendant.
Ex.A-25: True copy of original sale deed dt.24.06.2004 executed by Sarvepalli Krishnaiah and others in favour of K.Sridhar Reddy.
32 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
Ex.A-26: True copy of original Sale deed dated 21.05.2012 executed by K.Venku Reddy in favour of K.Sridhar Reddy.
Ex.A-27:True copy of original sale deed dt.29.03.2016 executed by Ch.Sesha Reddy in favour of K. Sridhar Reddy.
Ex.A-28:True copy of original sale deed dated 19.06.2004 executed by Gummadi Prabhakar and Gummadi Naresh in favour of minor son of K.Sridhar Reddy by name Kolagatla Hithesh Reddy
Ex.A-29:True copy of original sale deed dt.25.01.2017 executed by Ch.Vinandini in favour of K.Suparna, wife of K.Sridhar Reddy.
Ex.A-30: Certified copy of Sale deed dated 23.07.2003 executed by Chittamuru Balarami Reddy/my natural father in favour of Varikela Subba Rao(Marked through cross-examination of D.W.1).
Ex.A-31:Registration Extract of sale deed dated 22.09.2000 executed by Kolagatla Srinivasulu in favour of K.Padmaja(Marked through cross- examination of D.W.1).
Ex.A-32:Registration extract of Registered Sale Deed dated 31.05.2002 executed by Kolagatla Padmaja in favour of Gummadi Rathnamma(Marked through cross-examination of D.W.1).
Ex.A-33:Registration extract of sale deed dt.21.06.2004 executed by Gummadi Rathnamma in favour of Chittamuru Vinandini(Marked through cross- examination of D.W.1).
Ex.A-34:Registered Settlement Deed dated 11.07.2011 executed by Chittamuru Sesha Reddy in favour of Kolagatla Suparna (Marked through cross-examination of D.W.1)
For Defendants :-
Ex.B-1:Certified copy of Registered Partition deed dt.29.08.1957 between Panta Venku Reddy and others.
Ex.B-2: Cist receipt dt.23.05.2010 standing in the name of 1st defendant.
Ex.B-3: Cist receipt dt.15.04.2011 standing in the name of 1st defendant.
Ex.B-4: Registered Settlement Deed dt.25.05.2010 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant.
Ex.B-5:No.3 Adangal for the fasali 1420 in the name of 2nd defendant.
Ex.B-6:Cist receipt dt. 07.09.2012 standing in the name of 2nd defendant.
Ex.B-7:Memo of notice filed by 1st respondent/1st defendant dated 25.03.2013 to submit original unregistered Exchange deed dt.28.05.1985 in the possession of plaintiffs.
33 O.S.No.607/2012 dated 18.08.2023
Ex.B-8: Cist receipt dt.02.06.2010 standing in the name of 1st defendant issued by the Village Revenue Office, Sarvepalli Bit-5.
Ex.B-9:Attested copy of a letter obtained under Right to Information Act from Chennaiah, the Tahsildar, Muthukuru, SPSR Nellore District addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore vide RCB.No.483/2016 along with the requisition of the 1st defendant.
Ex.B-10:Attested copy of Enjoyment Certificate in the name of 1st defendant. obtained under Right to Information Act.
Ex.B-11:Attested copy of Enjoyment sketch submitted by the Mandal Surveyor , Muthukuru in Survey Nos.270 and 271 of Sarvepalli Bit-5 village obtained under Right to Information Act.
Ex.B-12:Attested copy of a Memo dt.25.06.2016 in RCB.B.483/2016 issued by the Tahsildar, Muthukuru to the Village Revenue Officer, Sarvepalli Bit- 5 Village, Muthukuru and Mandal Revenue Inspector-2, Muthukuru obtained under Right to Information Act. .
Ex.B-13: Attested copy of Statement of surrounding ryoths of the plaint schedule property submitted by the Sarpanch, Anikepalli Village panchayat obtained under Right to Information Act.
Ex.B-14: Attested copy of Report of R.I submitted to the Tahsildar, Muthukuru obtained under Right to Information Act.
Ex.B-15: Attested copy of 1-B(ROR) extract of the suit survey numbers in the name of the defendants obtained under Right to Information Act.
Ex.B-16:Attested copy of Pattadar Adangal in the name of the 1st defendant.
Ex.B-17:Original cist receipts dt.29.3.1976 and 6.4.1989 respectively standing in the names of Panta Venku Reddy and Panta Ramalinga Reddy(2 in number)
Ex.B-18:Copy of No.3 Adangal for the fasali 1420 in the name of defendants.
Ex.B-19: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.5103/1989 dt.22.09.1989 executed by Chittamuru Ramakrishna Reddy, Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy, Chittamuru Ramanamma in favour of Kolagatla Rajagopal Reddy.
Ex.B-20:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.5104/1989 dt.22.09.1989 executed by Chittamuru Ramakrisha Reddy, Chittamuru Venkateswara Reddy, Chittamuru, Ramanamma in favour of Kolagatla Surendra Reddy.
Ex.B-21:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.1875/2006
dated 27.10.2006 executed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and their
mother/Ch.Padmavathamma in favour of Ranangi Sridevi.
ID/- K.P.BALAJI
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NELLORE.
34