1 of 26
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL.
PRESENT : SMT. POOJA KANDUKURI
Principal Junior Civil Judge cum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Warangal.
Dated, this the 27 th day of February, 2026.
O.S. No.2762 of 2022
(Old No.1654 of 2012)
Between:
Ravula Ravinder, S/o.Late Gattaiah, aged 44 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-197, Kakkiralapally village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District. …. Plaintiff.
A N D
1.Ravula Rama Devi, W/o.Ramnarayana, age:38 yrs, Occ:Household, R/o.Kakkiralapally Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District,
2.Dandu Saraiah, S/o.Sammaiah, age:35 yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kakkiralapally Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District,
3.Dandu Raju, S/o.Sammaiah, age:30 yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kakkiralapally Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District,
4.The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District,
5.Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal,
6.The State of A.P. through District Collector, Warangal.…. Defendants.
This suit has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Ch.
Swamynathan, Advocate, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri.Y. Shyam Sun- der Reddy, Advocate, Leaned Counsel for defendant no.1 to 3; Learned AGP, Advo- cate for defendant no.4 to 6. The matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-
2 of 26
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit is filed by the sole plaintiff against defendant no. 1 to 6 to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit scheduled “A” and “B” properties and to declare the revenue entries made by the defendant no. 4 and 5 in favour of defendant no. 1 to 3 as null and void and to rectify the entries and mutate the name of the plaintiff in the record of rights maintained by the defendant no. 4 and 5 in respect of suit scheduled “A” and “B” properties.
2. Case of the plaintiff: That plaintiff has filed the present suit in respect of suit scheduled “A” property and suit scheduled “B”property. Suit scheduled “A” property is agricultural land in Sy. No.654/D, extent Ac.2-13 guntas and Suit scheduled “B” property is agricultural land in Sy. No.659/B extent Ac.1-06 guntas, both situated in Kakkirallapally Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District.
3. Plaintiff contends that he purchased the suit scheduled “A” property i.e., land in Sy.
No.654/D, originally to an extent Ac.3-20 guntas, vide Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.77/1991, dated:- 13-2-1991 from the owner and pattedar by name
Bogelli Sathaiah and since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession of the said property and his name was entered in the revenue records. However, the extent of land was wrongly mentioned in the revenue records as Ac.2-10 guntas instead of
Ac.3-20 guntas. That out the entire extent Ac.3-20 guntas purchased by the plaintiff, he gifted an extent Ac.1-07 guntas in favour of his daughter R. Jyothsna vide
Registered Gift Settlement deed bearing document No.1713/2011, dated:- 16-11-2011 along with other lands in other survey numbers. After gifting part of suit scheduled
3 of 26
“A” property to his daughter, he is in peaceful possession of Ac.2-13 guntas of land, but as mentioned above, in the Revenue records, his name is mutated only to an extent of Ac.2-10 guntas and the same needs to be rectified.
4. In respect of suit scheduled “B” property, the plaintiff claims that he purchased the land in Sy. No.659/A, extent Ac.2-06 guntas vide Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1016/1990, dated:- 05-12-1990 from the owner and pattedar by name
Dandu Buchaiah. That in fact the plaintiff purchased the land in Sy.No.659/B, but due to inadvertence the survey number was mentioned as 659/A. But, on the application made by the plaintiff, the revenue authorities mutated the name of the plaintiff in the Revenue records in respect of Sy.No.659/B to an extent of Ac 2-06 gts. That the plaintiff also purchased another Ac 0-15 guntas of land and in
Sy.No.659/B from Dandu Buchaiah vide Simple Sale Deed and the total land purchased by him in Sy.no.659/B is Ac.2-21 guntas, but in the revenue records his name was mutated to an extent of only Ac.2-06 guntas. That from the year 2007-08 the extent held by the plaintiff in respect of Sy No.659/B was reduced to Ac.1-03 guntas. That out his entire land in Sy.No.659/B the plaintiff executed Registered Gift settlement deed in favour of his daughter in respect of Ac.1-00 gunta of land vide
Registered Gift Deed bearing document No.1832/2011, dated:- 16-11-2011 and the remaining extent which is in possession and ownership of the plaintiff is Ac.1-06 guntas. But in the revenue records an extent of only Ac.1-03 guntas is shown and this needs to be rectified.
4 of 26
5. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that in respect of the suit scheduled “A” property the defendant no.1 to 3 managed the defendant no.4 authorities and got their names mutated in respect of Ac.2-10 guntas of land without having any valid right or possession over the same. That the plaintiff never sold any inch of land to defendant no.1 to 3 in Sy. No.654/D and their names were entered into the revenue records only by influencing the defendant no.4 authorities. That the plaintiff made several applications to the defendant no. 4 authorities to rectify the entries wrongly made in respect of suit scheduled “A” as well as suit scheduled “B” properties. That the plaintiff also approached the District Legal Services Authority vide CLSA
No.1438/2012, dated:- 27-6-2012 against defendant no.4 and 5 with a prayer to rectify the entries made in respect of suit scheduled “A” and “B” properties, but the defendant no.4 and 5 did not appear before the DLSA to answer the claim of the plaintiff. That the defendant no.4 failed to entertain the legitimate application of the plaintiff for rectification of revenue entries. That upon the influence of the husband of defendant no.1 who is a close friend of the Village Revenue Officer by name
Gandi Venkata Ramana Reddy, the Revenue authorities have reduced the land held by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff lost the original Registered sale deed under which he purchased the suit scheduled “B” property and hence, he is filing certified copy.
That the defendant no.1 to 3 created false fictitious document and got mutated their names in the revenue records in respect of suit scheduled “A” and “B” properties.
And hence, this suit.
6. Case of the defendants: Defendant no. 1 to 3 filed joint written statement. They denied the absolute right and title of the plaintiff over the suit scheduled “A”
5 of 26
property. It is their contention that the father of the plaintiff who is also the father in law of defendant no.1 by name Ravula Gattaiah had purchased Ac.1-00 of land in Sy.
No.654/D vide Simple Sale Deed dated:- 25-2-1989 from T. Somaiah and thereafter he purchased Ac.3-20 guntas in Sy.No.654/D in the name of husband of defendant no.1, Ram Narayana vide Simple Sale Deed dated:- 8-3-1990 from the erstwhile owner Kanjarla Yellaiah, Kanjarla Yakaiah and Kanjarla Narsaiah. That the entire sale consideration was paid in the name of Ram Narayana and vacant possession was delivered to him and in this manner the father of plaintiff purchased total land of
Ac.4-20 guntas in Sy. No.654/D. Therefore the suit scheduled “A” property is joint family property and not the exclusive property of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the
Registered Sale Deed was executed in the name of the plaintiff only for the sake of convenience. That after death of the father of plaintiff Ravula Gattaiah, the plaintiff and his brother Ram Narayana i.e., husband of defendant no.1 partitioned the land in
Sy. No.654/D equally and each of them got Ac.2-10 guntas of land and basing on the said partition, their names were mutated in the pahanies and only as such, the name of the plaintiff was mutated to an extent of Ac. 2-10 guntas of land. That the defendant no.4 did not commit any error in mutating the names in the revenue records.
7. In respect of suit scheduled “B” property, the defendants contend that the father of the plaintiff Ravula Gattaiah purchased land in Sy. No.659/B, extent Ac.1-38 guntas from Pitla Sarangapani through simple Sale Deed dated:- 18-5-1988. Thereafter,
Ravula Gattaiah also purchased another 8 guntas of land in Sy. No.659/B from the same vendor Pitla Sarangapani in May 1998 through a Simple Sale Deed. That in
6 of 26
total father of plaintiff Gattaiah purchased Ac.2-06 guntas of land in Sy. No.659/B.
Only to avoid legal complications, the father of plaintiff Gattaiah got executed
Registered Sale Deed dated:- 05-12-1990, in the name of the plaintiff by the original pattedar Dandu Buchaiah for the reason that the plaintiff is his elder son and at that time, the husband of defendant no.1 was a minor. Even though the suit scheduled “B” property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff, it was still a joint family property and after death of Ravula Gattaiah it was liable to be partitioned and hence, the said land was partitioned between plaintiff and his brother I.e, husband of defendant no. 1. That in accordance with the partition, an extent of Ac.1-03 guntas was mutated in the name of the plaintiff and Ac.1-03 guntas was mutated in the name of the husband of the defendant no. 1 by name of Ram Narayana. That thereafter,
Ramnarayana settled his land extent Ac 1-03 gts in favour of his wife i.e., defendant no. 1 and as such her name was entered into the revenue records. And after conducting enquiry, pattedar pass book and tile deed were also issued in her favour.
8. The defendants further contend that the original Registered Sale Deed pertaining to suit scheduled “B” property which was purchased by father of the plaintiff in the name of plaintiff is not lost and it was in fact handed over to the defendant no.1 at the time of partition and that the document is in the custody of defendant no.1 till date.
They further contend that partition deed dated:- 15-4-1999 was executed between the plaintiff and the husband of defendant no.1 and the suit scheduled “A” and “B" properties and the land in Sy. No.654/D and 659/B were equally divided between the plaintiff and his brother Ramnarayana.
7 of 26
9. That the defendant no.2 and 3 are the great grand children of Dandu Buchaiah, who had executed the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. That the defendant no.2 is owner of land to an extent of Ac.1-04 guntas and defendant no.3 is owner of land to an extent Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy. No.659/B along with other lands and they obtained pattedar pass book and tile deed in their favour. That plaintiff is owner only to an extent of Ac.2-10 guntas in Sy. No. 654/D and Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy. No.659/B including the land gifted to his daughter in the said two survey numbers. That the entries reflected in the pahanies are true and they were never manipulated by the
Revenue Authorities. That the plaintiff has filed a false claim in the DLSA even after knowing that DLSA has no jurisdiction in the matter and ultimately his claim was dismissed. That the plaintiff mentioned wrong extents and wrong boundaries only to usurp the land of defendant no.1. That the plaintiff has come to court with unclean hands and he is not entitled to any relief as sought for and prayed to dismiss the suit.
10. The defendant no.4 to 6 are the official witnesses and their written statement is in consonance with each other. The defendant no.4 filed written statement which was adopted by defendant no.5 and 6. It is the contention of defendant no.4 to 6 that the plaintiff is in fact not the owner of Ac.3-20 guntas of land in Sy. No.654/D as claimed by him and the registered sale deed under which he is claiming his right i.e., document bearing No.77/1991, dated:- 13-12-1991 is a created, fabricated and forged document. That the vendor of the plaintiff under the said document does not have any inch of land in Sy. No.654/D and hence, the plaintiff cannot get any right in the said land. That originally one Kandula Yellaiah was the owner and possessor of the said land in Sy. No.654/D and the husband of defendant no.1 by name Ram Narayana
8 of 26
purchased the land in Sy. No.654/D through agreement of sale deed dated:- 13-4- 1990, along with delivery and possession and since then, Ram Narayana is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. That thereafter, partition took place between the plaintiff and Ramnarayana and partition deed dated:- 15-4-1991 was executed in which land in Sy. No.654/D was divided equally between the brothers and each of them got Ac.2-10 guntas of land and hence, the names of the brothers were mutated in respect of Ac.2-10 guntas each in the revenue records.
11. In respect of Sy.No.659/A (659/B) also the defendant no.4 to 6 deny the right of the plaintiff. They contend that the vendor of the plaintiff by name Dandu Buchaiah who executed Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1016/1990, dated:- 5-12-1990 in favour of the plaintiff does not have any right or title in Sy.no.659/B and hence, no right can be accumulated by the plaintiff under the said document from Dandu
Buchaiah. That originally one Sarangapani was the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.659/B. That father of plaintiff Ravula Gattaiah purchased
Ac.1-20 guntas of land on 18-5-1998 and Ac 0-26 guntas on a later date in
Sy.No.659/B and delivery of possession was handed over to Gattaiah and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. That as stated above, in the partition deed which was executed on 15-4-1999, the land in Sy. No.659/B was also equally partitioned between the plaintiff and his brother and each of them got Ac.1-03 guntas of land respectively and hence, their names were mutated accordingly in the revenue records in respect of Ac.1-03 guntas each. That the revenue authorities did not make any mistake in mutating the names of the pattedars in the revenue records or in issuing the pattedar pass books and tile deeds. That there is no cause of action for the
9 of 26
plaintiff to file the suit. The dates, events, etc., mentioned in the cause of action paragraph are only created for the purpose of the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.
12. Upon hearing both the sides, the following issues were framed for trial.
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?
ii. To what relief?
13. In support of the case of the plaintiff, 3 witnesses were examined Pw-1 to Pw-3. Pw- 1 is the plaintiff. Pw-2 is one Md. Afzal, who is a third party. Pw-3 is Kanjarala
Narsaiah, who is involved in some of the transactions pertaining to the case. Eight (8) documents were marked. Ex A1 is the market value certificate of the suit scheduled property. Ex A2 and A3 are the pattedar passbook and title deed of the plaintiff. Ex.
A4 is the registered sale deed document bearing registration no. 1016 of 1990 dated:- 05-12-1990 under which the plaintiff purchased the suit scheduled “A” property in
Sy. No. 654/B from Dandu Buchaiah. Ex. A5 is the registered sale deed document bearing registration no.77/1991 dated:- 13-02-1991 under which the plaintiff purchased the suit scheduled “B” property in Sy. No. 654/D from Bogelli Sattaiah.
Ex A6 are the pattedar pahanies in respect of Sy No. 659/B i.e., Suit scheduled “B” property from 1987 to 2009. Ex A7 are the pattedar pahanies pertaining to 2009-2010 of both, Suit scheduled “A” and “B” property i.e., Sy No. 654/D and Sy No. 659/B.
Ex A8 is the memo dated:- 29-07-2011 issued to the plaintiff by the revenue officials asking him to pay the requisite fee for issuance of pattedar passbooks.
10 of 26
14. In support of the case of the defendants they got examined three witnesses Dw-1 to
Dw-3. Dw-1 is the husband of the defendant no. 1. Dw-2 is the defendant no. 3. Dw- 3 is Pitla Sarangapani, who is one of the attestors under Ex A4 registered sale deed.
They got marked 14 documents Ex B1 to B14. Ex B1 is the unregistered partition deed dated:- 15-04-1999 showing the partition of lands between the plaintiff, husband of defendant no. 1 and they mother Yellamma. Ex B2 to B9 are the pahanies from the year 2000 to 2009 in respect of suit scheduled “A” property Sy No. 654/D.
Ex B10 and B11 are the pahanies of Sy No. 654/D, 695/B for the fasli 1422, Ex B12 and B13 are the pahanies of Sy No. 654/D, 695/B for the year 2017. Ex B14 is the form 1-B namuna.
15. Plaintiff Evidence: The chief examination affidavit of PW1 is the same as that of the plaint. In cross-examination, he was asked the reason for filing the present case and he said that he filed the case because defendant forged the passbook. He said that he purchased land in Sy No. 654/D extent Ac 3-20 gts from Bogelli Sattaiah in the year 1991 when he was 22 years old. He said that he does not know from where his vendor Bogelli Sattaiah purchased the said property and he did not file the title deed of his vendor. He said that he did not enter into any agreement of sale with his vendor
before executing Ex A5 registered sale deed and there is no mention in Ex A5 sale
deedastohowhisvendorobtainedhisproperty.
He said that he verified the Pahanies for the year 1980 to 1990 before purchasing the said property and that the Pahanies showed the name of Bogelli Sataiah in the
Pattedar column. He admitted that the name of Kanjarla Eddi Yellaiah is reflecting in
11 of 26
the possessor column in respect of survey number 654/ D. He said that he does not know why the name of Kanjarla Eddi Yellaiah is shown as the possessor.
16. He said that in the suit he is claiming Ac 1 -10 guntas of land in Sy No. 654/D. He said that out of total extent of Ac 3-20 guntas in Sy No 654/D, he gifted Ac 1-07 guntas to his daughter and the remaining land with him is Ac 2-13 guntas. He said that he filed a document to show that he has the remaining Ac 2-13 guntas. But he admitted that in Ex. A2 and A3 pahanies, the extent of land is shown as Ac 2-10 guntas in his name and Ac 2-10 guntas in the name of his brother Ramnarayana. He admitted that his daughter's name is not shown in the revenue records. He was asked whether his name was ever entered in the Pahani and whether pattedar passbook was ever issued in respect of total extent of Ac 3-20 guntas. The witness did not answer for this question but he said that his daughter's name was entered in respect of Ac 1- 07 guntas and his name was entered in respect of Ac 2-10 guntas. He said that before gifting the land to his daughter, he did not have any document in respect of Ac 3-20 guntas. He admitted that his father purchased Ac 1-00 of land in Sy No. 654/D from
T. Somaiah, but he denied that his father purchased Ac 3-20 guntas from Kanjarla
Yellaiah, Kanjarla Yakaiah and Kanjarla Narsaiah in the name of his brother Ram
Narayana. He was given suggestion about the partition between himself and his brother, and the mutation of the revenue entries in accordance with the partition, but he denied the suggestions.
17. In respect of suit scheduled “B” property i.e., survey number 659/B, the witness was given suggestion that the land in the said survey number to an extent of Ac.2-06 gts
12 of 26
was purchased by his father through simple sale dated:- 18-05-1988 in his name and that it was partition equally between himself and his brother and that his brother gifted his share to his wife, i.e., defendant no. 1 and he denied it. He admitted that the name of defendant no. 1 is entered into the revenue records in respect of Ac.1-03 gts of land. But he denied that it was entered into the records in the year 2004 itself.
However, he was confronted with the relevant Pahani and he admitted that name of defendant no. 1 was entered into the reveune record in the year 2004 itself in respect of Ac 1-03 gts of land and he further admitted that he has filed this present suit in the year 2012 i.e., after eight years. He denied that the name of defendent no. 1 is continuing in the records since 2004. He was given suggestion that the original sale deed in respect of Ex A4 pertaining to Sy No. 659/B is not lost and that it is in the custody of defendant no. 1 as he is the owner and he denied the suggestion. He denied that the defendant no. 1 is in possession of Ac 1-03 gts of land in Sy No.
659/B till date.
18. Witness PW2 is one Md. Afzal, who is a third-party to the suit. He gave evidence that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land extent Ac. 3-20 guntas in Sy No. 654/D and Ac 2-21 gts in Sy No. 659/B having purchased the same through registered sale deeds and the plaintiff also obtained pattedar passbook and title deeds in his favour and he used to pay the land revenue. He gave evidence that he knows about these facts personally, and hence he is deposing about it.
19. In cross examination, he was given suggestion that Ravula Gattaiah is the father of
PW1 and Ram Narayana is the husband of defendant no. 1 and he admitted it. He
13 of 26
said that he knows the properties held by Ravula Gattaiah. He said that apart from the suit scheduled properties, he does not know the other properties of Ravula Gattaiah.
He admitted that the plaintiff and his brother partitioned their lands and the suit scheduled properties are their joint family properties. He was asked about the unregistered partition deed dated 15–4–1999 and he pleaded ignorance about this fact. Even though he was confronted with the document, he said that he does not know about it. He was asked whether he is a witness to the registered sale deeds executed in favor of the plaintiff and he said that he is not a witness to them.
20. Witness PW3 is Kanjarla Narsaiah. He gave evidence that plaintiff is the owner of suit scheduled “A” and “B” properties. And that he is the attesting witness no. 2 in the registered sale bearing document no. 77 of 1991 dated:- 13-02-1991 i.e., Ex A5.
He gave evidence that plaintiff was also issued pattedar passbook and title deeds in his favour and he is paying the land revenue. In cross-examination, he was asked why the plaintiff filed the suit and against whom he filed it and he said that the plaintiff filed the present suit against Mangali Kommalu for the sake of land. He said he does not know the boundaries of scheduled property or the survey number of the land of the plaintiff. He said that Ravula Gattaiah is the father of the plaintiff and Ram
Narayana is the brother of the plaintiff. He was given suggestion that he is not a witness to the registered document Ex A4 and he denied this suggestion. He was asked about the partition between the plaintiff and his brother Ram Narayana and he pleaded ignorance about the partition. He said he does not know whether
Ramanarayana possesses pattedar passbook with regard to the suit scheduled property or not.
14 of 26
21. Defendant Evidence: The husband of defendant no.1 and who is the brother of plaintiff filed his chief-examination affidavit as DW1. His chief-examination is in lines of the written statement of the defendants and he raised rival claim over the suit scheduled “A” and “B” properties. In his cross-examination, he said that he did not file the unregistered sale deed under which his father purchased Ac.1-00 in
Sy.No.654/D and the unregistered sale deed under which he purchased Ac.3-20 gts from Kanjarla Yellaiah, Kanjarla Yakaiah and Kanjarla Narsaiah. He said that he also did not file any document to show that he is in possession of suit scheduled “A” property. He said that in the year 1990 when he contends to have purchased the land from Kanjarla Yellaiah, he was 17 years old and he was a student. He admitted that
Odela Sattaiah who is the vendor of the plaintiff was the pattedar of suit schedule “A” property. He said that there is no documentary evidence to show that his father had purchased the suit scheduled “A” property and he also said that the name of his father was never mutated in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.654/D, neither was pattedar passbook issued in the name of his father. He said that he gifted land in survey No.654/D to the defendant no.1 through an unregistered Gift Deed.
22. He further said that in the Ex.B1 unregistered partition deed there is no acknowledgment showing that the document was submitted to Revenue authorities for the purpose of mutation and he also said that no mutation proceedings were issued in respect of Ex.B1 partition deed. He was asked why his wife i.e., defendant no.1 did not come to the court to give evidence and he said that she was suffering with ill health. But he also said that he did not file any document to show that she is
15 of 26
suffering with ill-health. He was given suggestion that his wife is healthy and can give evidence, but they are voluntarily avoiding to produce her in the court and he denied this suggestion. Even with regard to suit schedule “B” property, he admitted that he did not file any document to show that his father or himself had purchased the said property.
23.He was given suggestions denying the signature of plaintiff on Ex.B1 partition deed.
He was asked to compare the signature of plaintiff on the said partition deed and on the plaint and asked whether they both are different, but he said that both are same.
He was asked whether he can file any other document to show what the signature of plaintiff looks like and he said that he can file the said document, but the witness did not file any document till date. The witness was asked what are the legal complications which his father wanted to avoid and for which reason the suit scheduled properties were registered in the name of the plaintiff and the witness did not answer this question and he said that he does not know the meaning of legal complications. He said that he did not file any document to show that Kanjarla
Yellaiah from whom he claimed to purchase suit scheduled “A” property was ever the owner of the said property. He was asked whether the defendant no. 2 and 3 who are the great grand children of Dandu Buchaiah did not give him any affidavit stating that the sale deed executed by Buchaiah in favour of the plaintiff i.e., Ex.A5 is false document and he said that they did not give him any such affidavit and he admitted that they also did not say that the sale deed was executed without consideration. He said that he did not file any document to prove that his wife raised crops in the suit scheduled properties to show that she is in possession.
16 of 26
24.Witness DW2 is Dandu Raju who is the great grand son of Dandu Buchaiah, who is said to be the vendor of the plaintiff in respect of suit scheduled “B” property. He gave evidence that Dandu Buchaiah was the owner of Ac. 4-12 gts in Sy.No.659/B and he had no sons and he had only one daughter. That daughter of Dandu Buchaiah had two sons Dandu Sarangapani and Dandu Sammaiah. That father of the plaintiff had purchased Ac.2-06 gts in Sy.No.659/B from Dandu @ Pitla Sarangapani, who is his paternal uncle. That as the name of Pitla @ Dandu Sarangapani was not reflecting in the revenue records and as the name of Dandu Buchaiah was reflecting in the revenue records, the father of the plaintiff got executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff from Dandu Buchaiah with regard to suit scheduled “B” property. But however the said property is joint family property of the plaintiff and his brother and that the plaintiff and his brother had also partitioned the land and each of them got Ac.1-03 guntas in the said partition. That the entries reflected in revenue records with respect to the suit scheduled property are true and correct.
25.In cross-examination he was asked whether his paternal uncle Sarangapani was recorded as the pattedar in respect of Sy.No.659 and he said that he is recorded as
Pattedar, but he said that he does not know whether passbook was issued in favour of
Sarangapani. He said that he did not see the revenue records and did not file any revenue record containing the name of Dandu Sarangapani. He said that he did not see the document under which Dandu Saranpani is said to have sold the land Ac.2-06 gts in Sy.No.659/B to the father of the plaintiff. He was asked whether the name of daughter of Dandu Buchaiah by name Rajamma or the name of her sons Sarangapani and Sammaiah was entered into the revenue records in respect of land in
17 of 26
Sy.No.659/B and he did not answer it. He said that pattedar passbook was not issued in favour of either of grand sons Buchaiah i.e., Sarangapani or Sammaiah. He said that he did not witness the sale transaction between Dandu Sarangapani and the father of plaintiff Ravula Gattaiah and that he also did not sign as a witness in the partition document or any other document with regard to the suit scheduled property.
He said that as on the date of partition he was 10 years old. He gave evidence about execution of simple sale deed by his uncle in favour of father of the plaintiff, but he said that he did not file the said document.
26. Witness DW3 is Dandu Sarangapani. He gave evidence that his grand father Dandu
Buchaiah was the owner of Ac.4-12 guntas in Sy.No.659/A and B from which he acquired Ac.2-06 gts and his brother late Dandu Sammaiah acquired Ac.2-06 gts. He said that he sold Ac.2-06 gts to Ravula Gattaiah i.e., father of plaintiff and as the patta stands in the name of Dandu Buchaiah, Dandu Buchaiah had thereafter executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and it was done on the request of his father Ravula Gattaiah. He said that he was one of the attestors to the
Registered Sale Deed. That the property in suit scheduled “B” is a joint family property of the plaintiff and his brother and that they have partitioned the land equally and got Ac.1-03 gts each.
27. In cross-examination, he said that the entire land in Sy.No.659 stands in the name of his grandfather Dandu Buchaiah. He said that about 20 years ago he used to have pattedar passbook in his name but at present he does not have it. He was asked whether he can file the pattedar passbook before the court and he said he cannot file
18 of 26
it. He admitted that in his chief-examination he did not mention about having pattedar passbook in his favour. The witness was also asked whether he can file any document to show that either himself or his brother Sammaiah had land in Sy.No.659 and he did not give any answer for this. He said that he sold land to Ravula
Gattaiah, but he does not remember the survey number in which he sold the land. He said that he did not sign as a witness in any document with regard to Sy.No.659, but thereafter when he was asked again he said that himself and Ravula Janardhan both signed as witnesses, but in unstamped Sale deed, for which there was no sale consideration. He said that he is not a witness to the partition deed Ex.B1.
Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as
prayed for?
28. There are two properties involved in this case. Suit scheduled “A” property i.e,. Ac 2- 13 gts in Sy No. 654/D and Suit scheduled “B” property Ac 1-06 gts in Sy No. “B” property. The plaintiff seeks for declaration of title with regard to both the properties.
I shall discuss each survey number separately. For the sake of convenience, I shall first dwell into Suit scheduled “B” property and then come to Suit scheduled “A” property.
29. Suit Scheduled “B” property: The plaintiff seeks for declaration as owner of Ac 1- 06 guntas of land in Sy No. 659/B. As per the claim of the plaintiff, he purchased Ac 2-06 guntas from Dandu Buchaiah through registered sale deed bearing document no.
1016 of 1990 dated:- 12-05-1990 and thereafter, gifted Ac 1-00 to his daughter
Jyotsna through a registered gift deed bearing document no. 1832 of 2011 dated:- 16-
19 of 26
11-2011. Ex A4 is the document under which the plaintiff purchased the said land extent Ac 2-06 guntas. The plaintiff also contends to have purchased another Ac 0-15 gunts of land in the said Survey number from the same vendor Dandu Buchaiah, but through an unregistered simple sale deed. As per section 17 of the Registration Act, any document which confers title upon immovable property worth more than Rs.
100/- shall be compulsorily registered. And any transaction taking place through an unregistered document is not a valid transaction and no right will confer onto the vendor by virtue of such un-registered sale deed. As the second sale in respect of Ac 0-15 guntas of land is made through an un-registered sale deed, no right can pass to the plaintiff under such sale deed and moreover, the plaintiff himself has not sought for declaration with regard to said Ac 0-15 guntas of land.
30. The defendant no. 1 raises a rival claim over the land extent Ac 2-06 gts in Sy No.
659/B. The husband of the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff are own brothers. As per the defendant’s case, the said property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff
Ravula Gattaiah from Pitla Sarangapani through two separate unregistered simple sale deeds, one for Ac 1-38 gts and the other for Ac 0-08 gts. Pitla Sarangapani who is the grand son of Dandu Buchaiah and the alleged vendor of Ravula Gattaiah I.e, father of plaintiff was examined as Dw-3 and he gave evidence about the said sale.
Dw-2 is the nephew of Pitla Sarangapani and great grand son of Dandu Buchaiah and he also gave evidence about the sale. By examining these two witnesses, the defendant tried to prove the sale of suit scheduled property to the father of the plaintiff Ravula Gattaiah and to prove the right of the husband of defendant no. 1.
However, from the cross examination of these two witnesses, more importantly that
20 of 26
of Pitla Sarangapani, it is clear that Dandu Buchaiah was the owner of the land in Sy
No. 659/B and he did not execute any document in favour of any of his legal heirs in respect of the said land in Sy. No.659/B during his life time and it is also elicited that
Dandu Buchaiah executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
31. The defendants claim that father of plaintiff, Ravula Gattaiah got his title from Pitla
Sarangapani. But Pitla Sarangapani himself admitted that the pattedar Dandu
Buchaiah did not execute any document in his name or in the name of his mother, who is the only daughter and only child of Dandu Buchaiah in respect of the said land. He also admitted that their names were also never mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said land. “Nemo dat quod non habet”. No one can pass more right or title than what they have. When there is no document existing in favour of Pitla Sarangapani in respect of the said land and when his name is also not reflecting in the revenue records, and when the original pattedar Dandu Buchaiah is alive and he did not transfer any right in the land to anyone, Pitla Sarangapani cannot execute any document in favour of any person in respect of land in Sy no. 659/B during lifetime of Dandu Buchaiah. And any document executed by him will have no sanctity. Moreover, Pitla Sarangapani is said to have sold the land to Ravula Gattaiah through an unregistered sale deed and as held above, an unregistered sale deed cannot confer any title to the purchaser. Hence, even if the father of the plaintiff had purchased the suit scheduled “B” property from Pitla Sarangapani, no right passes on to him for the reason that his vendor does not have title and also for the reason that the sale is through an unregistered sale deed and hit by section 17 of the Registration
Act.
21 of 26
32. The defendants also contend that it was the father of the plaintiff who got executed the registered sale deed Ex B4 in favour of the plaintiff though the original owner
Dandu Buchaiah for the sake of convenience and to avoid legal complications and hence, it is a joint family property. This plea of the defendants is barred under the
Benami Transaction Act. Once the sale deed is executed in the name of the plaintiff, the property belongs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff becomes the absolute owner; irrespective of the fact as to who had purchased the property in the name of the plaintiff. Once the ingredients of a sale are existing, it is presumed that the vendee mentioned in the sale deed acquires title in the property.
33. Learned counsel for the defendants no. 4 to 6 who are the Government officials contend that the vendor from whom the plaintiffs purchased the property do not have any right to sell it. That as such, the plaintiff does not get any right under the said document. However, the defendant no. 1 to 3 in their written statement stated that
Dandu Buchaiah is the original pattedar of the land. Further, the legal heirs of Dandu
Buchaiah admitted the right of Dandu Buchaiah. The bunch of pahanies filed by the plaintiff i.e., Ex A6 show the name of the Dandu Buchaiah as the pattedar. In view of all these circumstances, Dandu Buchaiah who is the vendor of plaintiff has valid right and title to execute Ex A4 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and it is a valid document and the contention of the defendant no. 4 to 6 that the plaintiff does not get any right out of Ex A4 sale deed cannot be accepted and it is rejected.
22 of 26
34. Partition Deed Ex B1: The defendants rely on the unregistered partition deed Ex B1.
They contend that the partition deed clearly shows that land in suit survey number “A” and “B” i.e., 654/D and 659/B was partitioned between the plaintiff and his brother Ram Narayana and each of them was allotted Ac 2-10 guntas in Sy No.
654/D and Ac 1-03 guntas in Sy No. 695/B. Even though the document Ex B1 was marked, it is an unregistered deed. And hence, it is inadmissible in evidence under section 17 of the Registration Act for want of Registration. As contended by the learned counsel for the defendants, the revenue entries made in resepct of both suit scheduled “A” and “B” survey numbers are in accordance with the said partition deed Ex B1 i.e., Ac 2-10 gts in the name of the plaintiff and Ac 2-10 guntas in the name of the husband of defendant no. 1 Ram Narayana in respect of Sy no. 654/D and Ac 1-03 gts in the name of the plaintiff and Ac 1-03 guntas in the name of the husband of defendant no. 1 Ram Narayana and later, in the name of the defendant no.
1 in respect of Sy no.659/B. However, neither the said partition deed nor the revenue entries confers any title on the defendants in respect of the suit scheduled land. Only when there is absolutely no document in respect of either parties, the revenue entries will be considered for reference. For the mere fact that the name of the defendants are entered in the revenue records, the right of the plaintiff, which he acquired through a registered sale deed and from the original and rightful owner cannot be denied to him.
35. Learned counsel for the defendant also argued that the plaintiff witness Pw-2 himself admitted that partition of lands have taken place between the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant no. 1 and in view of this admission by Pw-2, the partition
23 of 26
deed gains weight and it is proved that the suit scheduled properties are joint family properties. The alleged partition deed is based on title said to have been acquired by the father of the plaintiff in respect of the suit scheduled “A” and “B” properties.
With regard to suit scheduled “B” property, I had discussed elaborately that the father of the plaintiff did not acquire any title in the said property. And when the father of the plaintiff did not have any title, the question of partitioning the lands does not arise. Again, the principal “Nemo dat quod non habet” comes into play. The partition deed is hit by several defects. First is that it is an unregistered document and hence, not admissible in evidence. Second is that the document was executed without any right in the suit scheduled property. And finally that the document itself is an inadmissible document. Hence, this document is altogether rejected.
36. The registered sale deed Ex A4 proves that the plaintiff had purchased the suit scheduled “B” property for valid sale consideration and the said document confers valid title on the plaintiff in respect of Suit Scheduled “B” property. The defendants did not produce any document against the valid title of the plaintiff nor could they rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the owner of the Suit Scheduled “B” Property i.e., Agricultural land in Sy. No.659/B extent Ac.1-06 guntas, situated at Kakkirallapally Village, Wardhannapet Mandal,
Warangal District. And consequently, the revenue entries shall also be rectified accordingly.
37. Suit Scheduled “A” property: The plaintiff claims that he purchased the suit scheduled “A” property under registered sale deed Ex A5 document from Bogelli
24 of 26
Sattaiah. The defendants claim that this property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff in the name of brother of the plaintiff, Ram Narayana from Kajarla Yellaiah,
Kanjarla Yakaiah and Kanjarla Narsaiah. But they did not file the said sale document.
And Kanjarla Narsaiah from whom Ram Narayana is said to have purchased the property was examined as Pw-3 and he gave evidence in support of the plaintiff and said that plaintiff had purchased the land from Bogelli Sataiah. The defendants had asked several questions to the plaintiff with regard to the title of Bogelli Sataiah and whether the plaintiff filed any document to show the title of Bogelli Sataiah. But,
Dw-1, who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff categorically admitted that
Bogelli Sataiah is the original pattedar of Suit Scheduled “A” property. And the pahanies filed by the defendants also show that Bogelli Sattaiah was the pattedar.
When the defendants themselves accepted that Bogelli Sattaiah was the pattedar of the said land, the question of again proving the right or title of Bogelli Sattaiah does not arise. The evidence produced by the plaintiff clinchingly establishes that the plaintiff purchased the suit scheduled “A” property rightfully from the original pattedar Bogelli Sattaiah. The defendants even though raised rival contentions, did not file any document to prove their right or title over the suit scheduled “A” property except the in admissible document Ex B1 unregistered partition deed. The validity of the said document Ex B1 unregistered partition deed was already discussed above. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the owner of the
Suit Scheduled “A” Property i.e., Agricultural land in Sy. No.654/D, extent Ac.2-13 guntas situated at Kakkirallapally Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District.
And consequently, the revenue entries shall also be rectified accordingly.
25 of 26
Issue no. 2: To what relief?
38. As the issue no. 1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and as it is held that they are the owners of the suit scheduled property “A” and “B”, the suit is liable to be decreed. As the plaintiff has sought for rectification of revenue entries, the name of the plaintiff shall be recorded in the revenue records for Sy No. 654/D as follows. To an extent of Ac 3-20 gts in Sy No. 654/D from the year 1991. In view of the gift deed executed to his daughter in the year 2011 vide Registered Gift Deed bearing document no.1713 of 2011 dated:- 16-11-2011 to record extent of Ac 2-13 guntas in from the year 2011. In respect of Sy No. 659/B, to record the name of the plaintiff to an extent of Ac 2-06 gts from the year 1990. In view of the gift deed executed to his daughter in the year 2011 vide Registered Gift Deed bearing document no. 1832 of 2011 dated:- 16-11-2011 to record extent of Ac 1-06 guntas in from the year 2011.
39. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed. Plaintiff is declared as the absolute owner and possessor of Suit Scheduled “A” and “B” properties i.e., Agricultural land in Sy.
No.654/D, extent Ac.2-13 guntas and Agricultural land in Sy. No.659/B extent Ac.1- 06 guntas, situated at Kakkirallapally Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal
District. The defendant no. 4 and 5 are directed to rectify the revenue entries in respect of suit scheduled “A” and “B” properties as mentioned above. In the circumstances of the suit, no costs are ordered.
Typed by me in my Personal Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of February, 2026.
Principal Junior Civil Judge cum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.
26 of 26
:: Appendix of Evidence ::
Witnesses Examined
Plaintiff : Defendant:
PW1 – R. Ravinder,DW1 – R. Ram Narayana, PW2 – Md. Afzal,DW2 – D. Raju PW3 – K. Narsaiah, DW3 – Dandu @ Pittala Sarangapani
Exhibits Marked
Plaintiff :
Ex.A1 : Original market value certificate, dated:- 30-10-2012 (2 sheets) Ex.A2 : Original title deed vide patta No.444, dated:- 6-2-2002, Ex.A3 : Original pattedar pass book vide patta No.444, dated:- 6-2-2002, Ex.A4 : CC of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1016/1990, dated:- 5-12-1990, Ex.A5 : CC of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.77/1991, dated:- 13-2-1991, Ex.A6 : Original pahanies for the years 1987-88 to 2008-2009 (19 sheets), Ex.A7 : Original pahanies for the year, 2009-10 (4 sheets), Ex.A8 : Original memo No.A7/305/2011, dated:- 29-7-2011.
Defendant :
Ex.B1 : Original partition deed dated:- 15-4-1999 Ex.B2 : Original pattedar pass book of defendant no.1, dated:- 6-4-2004, Ex.B3 : original pahani patrika for the year 2000-01 Ex.B4 : original pahani patrika for the year 2001-02 Ex.B5 : original pahani patrika for the year 2003-04 Ex.B6 : original pahani patrika for the year 2005-05 Ex.B7 : original pahani patrika for the year 2006-07 Ex.B8 : original pahani patrika for the year 2007-08 Ex.B9 : original pahani patrika for the year 2008-09 Ex.B10 : Mee-seva pahani for the year 1422 Fasli, dated:- 20-12-2012 Ex.B11 : Mee-seva pahani for the year 1422 Fasli, dated:- 12-12-2012 Ex.B12 : Mee-seva pahani for the year 2017 Fasli, dated:- 5-8-2018 Ex.B13 : Mee-seva pahani for the year 2017 Fasli, dated:- 5-8-2018 Ex.B14 : Mee-seva 1-B ROR, dated:-5-8-2018
sd/-
Principal Junior Civil Judge cum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.