1 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SIDDIPET.
Present : Smt. K. Sai Rama Devi, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet FAC : I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.
Friday, the 11th day of April, 2025.
O.S.No. 16 of 2018
Between :-
1. Smt. Alde Balamma, W/o Late A.Biraiah, Aged about: 70 years, Occ : House wife, Jala village, Singaram post, Rajapet mandal, Yadadri district, Telangana State - 508 105.
2. Smt. Sayilla Kondamma, W/o. late Sayilla Pentaiah, aged about : 90 years, Occ : House wife
3. Sayilla Laxmaiah, S/o. late Sayilla Pentaiah,aged about : 57 years, Occ : Business
4. Sayilla Balamallu, S/o. late Sayilla Pentaiah, aged about : 49 years, Occ : Business, (Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are R/o. H.No. 2-48, Jala village, Singaram post, Rajapet mandal, Yadadri district, Telangana State - 508 105).
5. Smt. Sayilla Sivavva @ Shivamma, W/o. late Sayilla Pullaiah, aged about : 65 years, Occ : House wife
6. Sayilla Kanakaiah, S/o. late Sayilla Pullaiah, aged about : 39 years, Occ : Business, (Plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6 are R/o. H.No. 7-19, Jala village, Singaram post, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri district, Telangana State - 508 105.
...Plaintiffs
AND 2 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
1. Smt. Thurkapally Laxmi, W/o T.Mallaiah, D/o. Late Sayilla Pullaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ : House wife, R/o Mulugu village & mandal, Siddipet district, Telangana State - 502279.
2. Pentaparthi Santhosh Reddy, S/o P.Padma Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No. 5-35, APSB colony, Mutrajpally, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet district, Telangana State - 502278.
3. Kadapalla Yadhava Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-20, Mulugu village & mandal, Siddipet district, Telangana State - 502279.
4. Dande Kista Reddy, S/o D.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 6-83, Mulugu village & mandal, Siddipet district, Telangana State - 502279.
5. Dande Mallaiah @ Malla Reddy, S/o D.Balaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. 4-95,Mulugu village & mandal, Siddipet district, Telangana State - 502279.
6. Dande Narsa Reddy, S/o D.Venkaiah @ D.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 75 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. 6-75, Mulugu village & mandal, Siddipet district, Telangana State - 502279.
7. Dande Venkat Reddy, S/o D.Ram Reddy, Aged about :49 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. Mulugu village & mandal, Siddipet district, Telangana State - 502279.
8. Dande Balamma, D/o D.Laxma Reddy, Aged about : 75years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o. 5-20, Mulugu village & mandal, Siddipet district, Telangana State - 502279.
…Defendants
This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 04.04.2025 and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Raghupathi Reddy and Sri N.Kumar Yadav, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and Sri M.Venkateshwar Rao and Sri G.Kaliprasad, Advocates for the Defendant Nos. 2, 4 to 8 while Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 remained exparte, having heard the arguments of both sides and upon perusal of material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration on this day, this Court delivered the following :- -: J U D G M E N T :-
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying for judgment and decree declaring them and defendant No. 1 as the absolute owners and title holders 3 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet of the suit schedule property, they being the legal heirs of late Smt. Narsavva and late Sri. Pentaiah and late Sri. Pullaiah, who are daughter and sons of late
Sri. Sayilla Mallaiah Dangari @ Sayilla Mallaiah @ Sayilla Malliga @ Malluga
Sayilla Danugari @ Mallaiah Sayilla Dangari, the original pattadar and title holder of the suit schedule property; and also to direct defendant Nos. 2 to 8 and the person/s claiming through or under them, to handover the vacant and physical possession of the suit schedule property to them; and further to grant a decree of perpetual injunction against defendant Nos. 2 to 8, their heirs, legal representatives, agents, power of attorney holders, executors, workmen, servants, administrators, henchmen, and persons claiming on their behalf etc., duly restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment in and over the suit schedule property; and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief averments, as pleaded by the plaintiffs, in the plaint are as follows:
The common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 by name late
Sri. Sayilla Mallaiah Dangari @ Sayilla Mallaiah @ Sayilla Malliga @ Malluga
Sayilla Danugari @ Mallaiah Sayilla Dangari, R/o. Mulugu village, was the lawful absolute owner, titleholder and pattadar of the land bearing Sy. No. 645, admeasuring Ac. 9-34 gts., situated at Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district, comprised within one block, and was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The land comprised in Sy. No. 645 is presently corresponding to several survey numbers i.e., Sy. No. 645/A, admeasuring Ac.
1-20 gts.; Sy. No. 645/A/1, admeasuring Ac. 1-20 gts.; Sy. No. 645/AA, 4 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet admeasuring Acs. 2-00 gts.; Sy. No. 645/E, admeasuring Ac. 0-11 gts.; Sy.
No. 645/E/1, admeasuring Ac. 0-20 gts.; Sy. No. 645/E/2, admeasuring Ac. 0- 31 gts.; Sy. No. 645/EE, admeasuring Ac. 1-20 gts.; Sy. No. 645/U, admeasuring Ac. 1-21 gts.; Sy. No. 645/UU, admeasuring Ac. 1-21 gts.; total admeasuring Acs. 9-34 gts., situated at Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property).
3.Sri. Sayilla Mallaiah Dangari, died intestate in the year 1952 leaving behind him, his wife, namely Smt. S.Papamma and one son namely
S.Lasmaiah @ S.Laxmaiah as his legal heirs and successors-in-interest, and both of them became the joint absolute owners of the suit schedule property.
S. Laxmaiah, was married to Smt. Mallavva, and through her, he got one daughter, namely Smt. A. Narsavva and two sons namely S. Pentaiah and
S.Pullaiah. He performed the marriages of his children by residing in Mulugu village, while his second son along with his wife, was residing in Alwal.
4.While the matter stood thus, in the year 1953, some unknown persons hatched a plan to kill the entire family of Sayilla Laxmaiah and in furtherance of their plan, laced poison in the mutton curry prepared by his wife on the eve of
Holi festival, and when it was eaten by the family members, S.Laxmaiah died on the spot, his mother Smt. Papamma died while undergoing treatment at
Thegulla village, while his wife, son and daughter-in-law, were saved. Fearing for their lives, they left their village and did not return, and on the request of
Smt. A. Narsavva, her brothers S.Pentaiah and S.Pullaiah, went to her village 5 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet i.e., Jala village, and started eking out their livelihood by cultivating the land given by her.
5.About eleven years prior to the filing of the suit, Smt. A. Narsavva, died intestate leaving behind her, her sole daughter, namely Smt. D. Balamma i.e., plaintiff No. 1 as her legal heir, representative and successor-in-interest;
S. Pentaiah died intestate on 10.08.1980 leaving behind him, his wife namely
Smt. S.Kondamma and two sons namely S.Laxmaiah and S.Balamallu i.e., plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 as his legal heirs, representatives and successor-in- interest; and S.Pullaiah died intestate about 23 years back, leaving behind him, his wife, namely Smt. S. Shivavva, one son S.Kanakaiah and one daughter i.e., plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6 and defendant No. 1 as his legal heirs, representatives and successor-in-interest.
6.The family pedigree of late Sayilla Mallaiah, as reflected in the plaint, is reproduced, and the same is as follows:
SAYILLA MALLAIAH @ SAYILLA MALLAIAH DANGARI @ MALLUGA
SAYILLA DANUGARI @ MALLAIAH SAYILLA DANGARI @ SAYILLA
MALLIGA
{Note : W = wife, S = son, D = daughter} | | Papamma (W) (died)Laxmaiah (S) (Died) ___________________________________|_______________ | | | | Mallamma (W) (died) Narsavva (D) (died) Pentaiah (S) (died) Pullaiah (S) (died) | | | Balamma (D) ________________________ _______________________ | | | | | | Kondamma Laxmaiah Balamallu Sivavva Kanakaiah Laxmi
(W) (S) (S) (W) (S) (D)
6 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
7.The plaintiffs further stated that as they were living in Jala village, they did not cultivate the suit schedule property, and that neither they nor defendant
No. 1 nor their ancestors could approach the revenue authorities to verify the entries made in the revenue records or to inform them about their acquisition of lawful ownership rights in and over the suit schedule property. Later, having decided to cultivate the suit schedule property, they returned to their village and obtained certified copies of the pahanies of the suit schedule property for the years 1954-55, 1964-65, 1970-71, 1973-74, 1980-81, 1990-91, 1994-95, 2004-05 and 2010-11. On 01.11.2017, their relative after looking into the pahanies, explained to them that the entries in the revenue records were tampered, that the name of Sayilla Laxmaiah was deleted from the revenue records and the names of some fictitious and unconcerned persons were incorporated, and that presently, the names of defendant Nos. 2 to 8 were recorded as pattadars in the revenue records, and that based on such fabricated entries, defendant Nos. 2 to 8 were claiming the suit schedule property without any manner of right, title and possession in and over the suit schedule property.
8.The plaintiffs further pleaded that the suit schedule property is ancestral
Hindu undivided family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, and as such, plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to get her mother's 1/3rd share, plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to get 1/3rd share of late S.Pentaiah and plaintiff Nos. 5, 6 and defendant No. 1 are entitled to get 1/3rd share of late S.Pullaiah, in the suit schedule property. As the plaintiffs are not on talking terms with Smt.
7 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
Turkapally Laxmi, they arrayed her as defendant No. 1, and that earlier they requested defendant No.1 to join them in filing application before the
Tahsildar, Mulugu Mandal, for rectification of the wrong entries in the revenue records, but she did not join them. Therefore, on 15.11.2017, they approached the Tahsildar, Mulugu mandal, Siddipet district, by way of representation requesting him to delete the wrong, illegal, false and fraudulent fabricated entries made in the revenue records and to restore their names and that of defendant No. 1 in the revenue records and also the names of their ancestors in the old revenue record and to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds to them and defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit schedule property, but the Tahsildar, Mulugu Mandal, did not take action on the said representation.
9.The plaintiffs further pleaded that soon after filing the representation, plaintiff No. 2 suffered ill-health, and hence, they could not go to the suit schedule property to start the agricultural works, but after plaintiff No.2 recovered, they went to the suit schedule property on 16.02.2018 and tried to commence agricultural works, but the henchmen and associates of defendant
Nos. 2 to 8 did not allow them saying that they were instructed by defendant
Nos. 2 to 8 not to allow anyone into the suit schedule property, and threatened them with dire consequences. That defendant Nos. 2 to 8 denied their title and possession and that of defendant No. 1 and misrepresented in the village that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. Immediately, they reported the matter to the police concerned, but no 8 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet action was taken by them saying that the matter is civil in nature. Therefore, left with no other option, they approached this Court to protect their lawful title and to get back the possession of the suit schedule property from defendant
Nos. 2 to 8. Hence, according to the plaintiffs, it is just and necessary to declare them and defendant No. 1 as absolute owners and title holders of the suit schedule property, being the legal heirs of one daughter i.e., late Smt.
Narsavva and two sons i.e., late Pentaiah and late Pullaiah, legal heirs of late
Sayilla Mallaiah Dangari @ Sayilla Mallaiah @ Sayilla Malliga @ Malliga
Sayilla Danugari @ Mallaiah Sayilla Dangari, the original owner and pattadar of the suit schedule property.
10.Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex parte.
11.Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 filed common written statement, denying the case set up by the plaintiffs and submitted that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with true facts. They contended that the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, namely Sayilla Mallaiah @
Dangari Mallaiah, died in the year 1952. He was not the owner, titleholder, pattadar and exclusive possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule property and they were out of possession of the suit schedule property since 66 years, and since the last 66 years, their forefathers and after them, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient.
9 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
12.They further contended that defendant No.2 is the owner and possessor of land in Sy. No. 645/A to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts. and he got the same along with other survey numbers from his grandfather Kadapala Yadava Reddy through registered gift settlement deed document No. 6701/2012, dated 07.11.2012. Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. The name of defendant No.2 was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass book and title deed was also issued to him by the revenue authorities and he is cultivating the lands. The grandfather of defendant No. 2 got the land in Sy. No. 645/A to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts. in the family partition held amongst his brothers. The Mandal Revenue Officer, also issued mutation proceedings No. ROR/1271/1997, dated 15.09.1997 and in pursuance thereof, the revenue authorities have also issued pattadar pass book and title deed to his grandfather for the land in Sy. No. 645/A and other lands.
13.They further contended that defendant No. 4 is the owner and possessor of land in Sy. No. 645/AA to an extent of Acs. 2-00 gts. and that his brother namely Dande Narsareddy, purchased the same from Sailla Pentaiah, father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4. Defendant No. 4 got the said land in the family partition amongst his family members, and pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued by the revenue authorities in his name.
14.Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 further contended that originally, one
Dande Nagaiah, S/o. Bhagaiah had four sons, namely Dande Balaiah, Dande
Bhagaiah, Dande Muthaiah and Dande Venkaiah; and they were the owners 10 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet and possessors of the land in Sy. No. 645, situated at Mulugu village and mandal. Dande Balaiah, is the owner and possessor of land in Sy. No. 645/E in an extent of Ac. 1-22 gts., Dande Bhagaiah, is the owner and possessor of land in Sy. No. 645/EE in an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts., Dande Muthaiah, is the owner and possessor of land in Sy. No. 645/UU in an extent of Ac. 1-21 gts.
and Dande Venkaiah, is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy. No.
645/UU in an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts., and their names also reflected as pattadar in the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55.
15.Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 further contended that originally, the father of defendant No. 5, namely Dande Balaiah was the pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 645/E to an extent of Ac. 1-22 gts. After the death of said
Balaiah, the land was mutated in the names of his two sons, namely Dande
Mallaiah, defendant No. 5 herein and Dande Nagi Reddy, equally i.e., Ac. 0-31 gts. each. Defendant No. 5 sold the land of Ac. 0-20 gts. to Dande Narsa
Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy, defendant No. 6 herein, under simple sale deed and the same was validated under ROR Act through Section 13-B certificate bearing No. B/5071/2005, dated 28-03-2007. Thus, defendant No. 5 is having land to an extent of Ac. 0-11 guntas and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said land.
16.They further contended that defendant No. 6 is the owner and possessor of lands in Sy. No. 645/U in an extent of Ac. 1-21 guntas and Sy. No. 645/E1 in an extent of Ac. 0-20 gts. Originally, the father of defendant No. 6, namely
Dande Venkaiah, was the pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 645/U 11 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts. After the death of said Venkaiah, the land was mutated in the name of defendant No. 6. Defendant No. 6 also purchased the land in Sy. No. 645/E1 in an extent of Ac. 0-20 gts. from defendant No. 5 under simple sale deed and the same was validated under ROR Act and the revenue authorities also issued 13-B certificate No. B/5071/2005 in favour of defendant No. 6. Thus, defendant No. 6 is the owner and possessor of the lands in Sy. Nos. 645/U and Sy.No. 645/E1 total admeasuring Acs. 2-01 gts.
and pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued in his name by the revenue authorities.
17.Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 further contended that defendant No. 7 is the owner and possessor of the lands in Sy. No. 645/EE in an extent of Ac. 1- 20 gts. and Sy. No. 645/E2 in an extent of Ac. 0-31 gts. Originally, the grandfather of defendant No. 7 by name Dande Bagaiah, was the pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 645/EE to an extent of Ac. 1-22 gts. After the death of Dande Bagaiah, the land was mutated in the name of the father of defendant No. 7, namely Dande Ramaiah, who executed a registered gift settlement deed No. 585/2015, dated 25.01.2015 for the land in Sy. No.
645/EE in an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts. in favour of defendant No. 7. Further, defendant No. 7 purchased the land in Sy. No. 645/E2 in an extent of Ac. 0-31 gts. from Dande Mallamma W/o. Nagireddy, vide registered sale deed No.
3365/2014, dated 24.06.2014. The vendor of defendant No. 7 got the said land after the death of her husband Dande Nagaiah S/o. Balaiah. The said
Nagaiah got the land from his father Dande Balaiah S/o. Nagaiah, who was 12 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet the pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy.No. 645/E to an extent of Ac. 1- 22 gts. Thus, defendant No. 7 is the owner and possessor of the lands in Sy.
Nos. 645/EE and 645/E2 total admeasuring Acs. 2-11 gts., and he was also issued pattadar pass book and title deed for the said lands by the revenue authorities.
18.Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 further contended that defendant No. 8 is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 645/U in an extent of Ac. 1-21 gts. Originally, the father of defendant No. 8, by name Dande Muthaiah S/o.
Nagaiah, was the pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 645/U in an extent of Ac.1-21 guntas. After the death of Dande Muthaiah, the said land was mutated in the name of his wife, namely Dande Ramavva, and after her death, the land was mutated in the name of defendant No. 8 and the revenue authorities also issued him pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said land.
19.They further contended that the plaintiffs with a view to harass them have created a false story and filed the suit dishonestly. The suit is vexatious and frivolous one, and hence is liable to be dismissed with exemplary and compensatory costs. The plaintiffs have misrepresented the facts. The documents filed by the defendants substantiate their contention that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs do not have any claim over the suit schedule land. Therefore, they prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary and compensatory costs.
13 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
20.Based on the pleadings of the plaintiffs and the defendants and the documents filed, this Court framed following issues for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration in
respect of the suit schedule property as prayed
for?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant
physical possession of the suit schedule property
as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual
injunction against the defendants over the suit
schedule property as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
21.To prove their case, plaintiffs got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A10. On the other hand, to prove their case, defendants got examined Dws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.B1 to B32.
22.The law is well-established that in a suit for declaration of title, burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their case, which means, that the plaintiffs must demonstrate their ownership or right to the property. The plaintiffs need to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants.
Issue No.1:
23.The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property is ancestral
Hindu undivided family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and that originally, Sayilla Mallaiah, was the original owner and pattadar of the land in an extent of Acs.9-34 guntas in Sy. No. 645, Mulugu village and Mandal, 14 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
Siddipet, and that after his death in the year 1952, his wife, namely Sayilla
Papamma and his son Sayilla Laxmaiah, succeeded to the property. Sayilla
Laxmaiah, was married to Mallavva, and through her, he had one daughter and two sons, namely Sayilla Narsavva, Sayilla Pentaiah and Sayilla Pullaiah, and after the death Sayilla Laxmaiah, his children succeeded to the suit schedule property. After the death of Sayilla Narsavva, Sayilla Pentaiah and
Sayilla Pullaiah, plaintiff No.1, who is the daughter of Narsavva, plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 who are the daughter and two sons of Sayilla Pentaiah and plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6, and defendant No.1, who are the daughter, son and daughter of Sayilla
Pullaiah, have succeeded to the suit schedule property, and as such, they and defendant No.1 are entitled to be declared as absolute owners and titleholders of the suit schedule property.
24.Plaintiff No.4, filed affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination as P.W.1. He deposed in the same lines, as pleaded by the plaintiffs in the suit. In his evidence, Exs. A1 to A10 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the sethwar in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.9-24 guntas in Sy. No.645 of
Mulugu village, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Mulugu Mandal, while Exs. A2 to A10 are the certified copies of the pahanies for the years 1964-65, 1970-71, 1973-74, 1980-81, 1990-91, 1994-95, 2000-2001, 2004-2005 and 2010-2011.
P.W.1 deposed that as these documents reflected the name of Sayilla
Mallaiah as the owner of the land in an extent of Acs.9-34 guntas in Sy.
No.645, situated at Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district, and as defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 disputed their title and ownership to the suit 15 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet schedule property, they filed the present suit and that they filed the suit after confirming the entries in the revenue records in pattedar and possessor columns. However, P.W.1 in his evidence admitted that Sayilla Mallaiah and his grandfather Sayilla Laxmaiah, died prior to the year 1954. When Sayilla
Mallaiah and Sayilla Laxmaiah died prior to the year 1954, it is not known, how basing on the entries of their names in the revenue records, which pertain for the period from 1964-65 to 2010-2011, the plaintiffs could file the present suit claiming ownership of the suit schedule property. Though P.W.1 denied that the land in Sy. No.645 is sub-divided, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that the name of Karnala Radhamma is recorded in the khasra pahani in respect of the land in Sy. No.645/A and that he has knowledge with regard to issuance of new pass books after verification of the record maintained by the Government of Telangana.
25.Plaintiff No.6, who got examined as P.W.2 also filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He deposed that since 1954 his parents were residing in Jala village. Though he claimed that the plaintiffs should be declared as owners of the suit schedule property, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that in the pahanies filed by them under Exs.A3 to A10, the names of defendant Nos. 2 to 8 are reflected in respect of the land in Sy. No.645, and he does not know since when they are cultivating the land and he does not have any idea as to from whom defendant Nos. 2 to 8 got the said land and he does not know as to who tampered the revenue records with regard to the entries in respect of the land in Sy. No. 645.
16 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
26.P.W.3 who is the son of plaintiff No.1 deposed that the plaintiffs filed the suit in respect of the land in Sy. No.645. He stated that he knows defendant
No.3 and does not know the other defendants in the suit and that he does not know the boundaries of the suit schedule property and the alienations made in respect of the land covered by Sy. No.645. He stated that he is aged 65 years and visited the suit schedule property about 10 years back and that he does not know when his grandfather Sayilla Laxmiah died.
27.The foundation of the suit laid by the plaintiffs, as noticed from their pleadings and evidence, is based on the entries of the names of Sayilla
Mallaiah in the revenue records i.e. pahanies marked as Exs.A2 to A10. The law is well settled that entries in the revenue records does not confer title. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Das vs. Collector – (1996) 5 SCC 618, held
that mutation entries in the revenue records does not confer any title to the property, and that it is only an entry for collection of the land revenue from the person in possession and that title to the property should be on the basis of the title they acquired to the land and not by mutation entries. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Vikram Singh Junior High School vs. District Magistrate (Fin & Rev) – (2002) 9 SCC 509 held that entry in the revenue record must have legal basis and one cannot claim any title over the land merely on the basis of wrong entry which continued in his favour through negligence or failure of the Revenue Officer or the Consolidation Officer to correct the record.
17 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
28.In D. Sudhakar Reddy vs. Joint Collector – 2021 (1) ALD 238 (TS), the Hon’ble Telangana High Court held that unless and until the entries are supported by mutation proceedings, mere change of name in the revenue records will not affect the ownership, title or right of the original pattedar and the entries should be deemed to be as non-est in the eye of law, void ab initio and one without jurisdiction.
29.Coming to the case on hand, the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs themselves show that Sayilla Mallaiah and his son Sayilla Laxmaiah, who are said to be owners of the land in an extent of Acs. 9-34 guntas in Sy. No.645,
Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district, died prior to 1954, and after their death, their progeny started living in Jala village, and it is for the first time, the plaintiffs filed the present suit in the year 2018 to declare them and defendant
No.1 as the absolute owner and titleholders of the suit schedule property, basing on recordings of the name of Sayilla Mallaiah, in the revenue records, even long after his death. The plaintiffs except basing on the entries in the revenue records, the name of a dead person, have not filed any material to show that they after the death of Sayilla Mallaiah and Sayilla Laxmaiah, in the years 1952 and 1953 respectively, their forefathers and after their death, they succeeded to the suit schedule property as their legal hiers, and there was no alienations of the said property made after the death of the original owners, and as such, are entitled to declaration that they are the absolute owners and title holders of the suit schedule property.
18 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
30.On the other hand, defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 to prove their case that
Sayilla Mallaiah, is not the owner of the suit schedule property and that the land in Sy. No.645, was divided into several sub-divisions with different extents of land in the year 1954 after the death of Sayilla Malliah and Sayilla Laxmaiah and that they are the owners of their respective sub-divided property, examined themselves as D.Ws. 1 to 6.
31.Defendant No.2 who got examined as D.W.1 that he got the land to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No.645/A, situated in Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district, from his grandfather Kadapala Yadava Reddy, who executed Ex.B12-gift settlement deed vide Document No. 6701/2012, dated 07.11.2012 and that Ex.B13 is the original mutation proceedings bearing
No.B/2997/2012, dated 26.03.3013, issued by the Tahsildar, Mulugu Mandal, in his favour, and that Ex.B14 is the pahani for the year 2017-2018 and Ex.B15 is the original pattadar pass book issued in his name; that his grandfather got the said land in the family partition between himself and his brother and that
Ex.B11 is the original pattadar pass book issued in the name of his grandfather Kadapala Yadava Reddy. He stated that one Karnala Radha, is one of the pattadar of the land in Sy. No.645, who sold the land to his ancestors. The land in Sy. No.645, as evident from Ex.B1-certified copy of pahani for the year 1954-55 shows that the land was divided into seven sub- divisions with different extents. Exs.B2 to B10 are pahanies for the year 1962- 1963, 1977-1978, Form No.1 of ROR for the year 1979-1980, Form No.1 ROR for the year 1989-1990, pahanies for the years 1985-1986, 1990-1991, 1994- 19 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet 1995, 2006-2007, 2011-2012 respectively, show that the land was divided into sub-divisions with different extents. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex.B1-khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, the name of Sayilla Laxmaiah, is shown in pattadar column in respect of the land in Sy. Nos.645/A, 645/AA, 645/E, 645/EE, 645/U and 645/UU and that the name of Karnala Radha is appearing in possession column in respect of the land in Sy. No.645/A. He denied the suggestion that neither Karnala Radhamma nor his grandfather had any right in the suit schedule property.
32.D.W.2 who is the son of defendant No.4 deposed that his father was the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Acs.2-00 in Sy. No.645/AA, situated at Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet District. That his father’s brother Dande Narsa Reddy, purchased the said land under Ex.B16-original registered sale deed No.11/1972, dated 07.01.1972 from Sayilla Pentaiah, father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4; that his father got the said land in the family partition effected among his family members and that his father was issued
Ex.B17-original pattadar pass book and that his name was also entered in the pattadar and possessor columns in the pahani patrika as evident from Ex.B18.
Since the date of purchase, his forefathers and his father, have been in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Acs.2-00 in Sy.
No.645/AA, situated at Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet District, and that the plaintiffs have no land in Sy. No.645. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Sayilla Mallaiah did not sell the land to an extent of Acs.
20 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet 2-00 in Sy. No.645/AA to Dande Narsareddy and that he does not know whether Sayilla Mallaiah was the owner of the land in Sy. No.645.
33.Defendant No.5 examined himself as D.W.3. He filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He deposed that one Dande Nagaiah had four sons, namely Dande Balaiah, Dande Bhagaiah, Dande Muthaiah and Dande
Venkaiah, and that they were the owners of the land in Sy. No.645, situated at
Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district. Dande Balaiah is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-22 guntas in Sy. No.645/E, Dande Bhagaiah is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No. 645/EE, Dande
Muthaiah is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-21 guntas in Sy.
No.645/U and Dande Venkaiah is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No.645/UU, and their names also reflected in the pattedar column in Ex.B1-khasra pahani for the year 1954-55. He further deposed that his father was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.1-22 guntas in Sy.
No.645/E, and after his death, the land was mutated equally to an extent of
Ac.0-31 guntas each in the name of himself and his brother Dande Nagireddy, and that he sold an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas to Dande Narsareddy, under simple sale deed, and the same was validated under R.O.R. Act through
Section 13-B certificate bearing No. B/5071/2021, dated 28.03.2007, and that after selling the land to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas, he is having land to an extent of Ac.0-11 guntas, and that he was issued Ex.B19-pattadar pass book and title deed and that his name was also entered in the revenue records in respect of his extent of Ac.0-11 guntas of land, and that he is in possession 21 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet and enjoyment of the said land as absolute owner. He stated that one Karnala
Radha was one of the pattedar of the land in Sy. No.645 who sold her land to his ancestors. He denied the suggestion that his father was not the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.1-22 guntas in Sy. No. 645/E and that Sayilla
Mallaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule land.
34.Defendant No.6, who got examined as D.W.4 filed affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination. He deposed that he is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.1-21 guntas in Sy. No.645/U and an extent of Ac.0-21 guntas of land in Sy. No.645/E1, situated at Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district, and that he succeeded to the land in an extent of Ac.1-21 guntas of land after the death of his father Dande Venkaiah, who was the absolute owner thereof, while he purchased land to an extent of Ac.0-21 guntas in Sy. No.645/E1 from defendant No.5 under simple sale deed which was validated under R.O.R. Act and that the revenue officials also issued Section 13-B certificate No.
B/5071/2005 in his favour, and that Ex.B20 is the original pattadar pass book issued in his favour, Ex.B21 is the certified copy of 1-B (ROR), Exs. B22 and
B23 are the certified copies of pahanies for the year 2017-2018 and Ex.B24 is the original Section 13-B certificate dated 28.03.2007. In his cross- examination he stated that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and that his father got an extent of Ac.1-21 guntas towards his share in the family partition. He denied the suggestion that Sayilla Mallaiah was the original pattedar of the suit schedule property and after his demise and his successors, the plaintiffs became its owners.
22 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
35.Defendant No.7, who got examined as D.W.5 filed his chief evidence affidavit. He deposed that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No.645/EE and an extent of Ac.0-31 guntas of land in sy. No.645/E2, situated at Mulugu village and mandal,
Siddipet district. He stated that originally his grandfather by name Dande
Bagaiah, was the pattadar of the land in an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.
No.645/EE, and after his death, his father Dande Ramaiah succeeded to the said land, and that his father executed Ex.B25-registered gift settlement deed bearing No.585/2015, dated 24.01.2015 in his favour, while he purchased land in an extent of Ac.0-31 guntas in Sy. No.645/E2 from Dande Mallamma under
Ex.B26-registered sale deed bearing No.3365/2014, dated 24.06.2014 and that Ex.B27 is the original pattadar passbook of Dande Ramaiah, Ex.B29 is the pahani for the year 2017-2018 and Ex.B30 is the pahani for the year 2017- 2018, and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. He denied the suggestion that Sayilla Mallaiah and after his death Sayilla
Laxmaiah were the original owners of the suit schedule property.
36.Defendant No. 8 who got examined as D.W.6 filed her chief evidence affidavit. She deposed that she is the owner of the land in an extent of
Ac.1-21 guntas in Sy. No.645/U, situated at Mulugu village and mandal,
Siddipet district, and that originally, his father Dande Muthaiah was the pattedar and possessor of the said land and that after his death, the said land was mutated in the name of her mother Dande Ramavva, and after her death, she succeeded to the said property and that she was issued Ex.B31-original 23 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet pattadar pass book by the revenue authorities and that Ex.B32 is the pahani for the year 2017-2018. She denied the suggestion that Sayilla Mallaiah and after his death Sayilla Laxmaiah were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property.
37.Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 examined one Chinnanagari Yadava
Reddy, who owns land towards the southern side of their land as D.W.7. He deposed that originally Dande Balaiah was the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.1-22 guntas, Dande Bagaiah was the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas, Dande Muthaiah was the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-21 guntas, Dande Venkaiah was the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas, Dande Kista Reddy was the owner of the land in an extent of Acs.2-00 guntas and Pentaparthy Santosh Reddy was the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No.645, Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district, and that he owns land towards the southern side land of defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8. He stated that he does not know that one
Sayilla Mallaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule land and how the defendants acquired the suit schedule land.
38.Upon juxtaposing the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and defendant
Nos. 2 and 4 to 8, as discussed above, it is evident that Sayilla Mallaiah was the original owner of the suit schedule property comprised in Sy. No.645,
Mulugu village and mandal, Siddipet district, and after his death, Sayilla
Laxmaiah became its absolute owner, and Sayilla Mallaiah and Sayilla 24 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
Laxmaiah, died in the year 1952 and 1953. Though Sayilla Mallaiah and
Sayilla Laxmaiah died, yet their names continued to appear in the pahanies filed by the plaintiffs. The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs show that they left the village in the year 1953. The land in an extent of Ac.9-34 guntas comprised in Sy. No.645, as evident from the documents filed by defendant
Nos. 2 and 4 to 8, came to be divided into several sub-divisions in the year 1954 comprising different extents of land, namely an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No.645/A, Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy. No. 645/A/1, Acs.2-00 guntas in Sy.
No.645/AA, Ac.0-11 guntas in Sy. No.645/E, Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.
No.645/E/1, Ac.0-31 guntas, Sy. No.645/E/2, Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.
No.645/EE, Ac.1-21 guntas in Sy. No.645/U, Ac.1-21 guntas in Sy. No.
645/UU. Post 1954, the names of Karnala Radha, Dande Bagaiah, Dande
Muthaiah and Dande Venkaiah, were shown in the possession column in respect of the land in Sy. Nos. 645/A, 645/E, 645/U and 645/UU as evident from Ex.A1-khasra pahani for the year 1954-55. By virtue of purchase and succession, as noticed above, defendant Nos. 2 to 8 and prior to them, their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the year 1954. Though the land in Sy. No.645 stood sub-divided, still the names of Sayilla Mallaiah and Sayilla Laxmaiah, came to appear in the revenue records even after their death in the years 1952 and 1953, and taking advantage of the appearance of the names of Sayilla Mallaiah and Sayilla
Laxmaiah, in the revenue records, the plaintiffs, as admitted to by them, filed the present suit for declaration of their title to the suit schedule property. The 25 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet plaintiffs except on the strength of the entries in the revenue records of the names of their ancestors, did not file any material to show that post 1952 and 1953, after the death of Sayilla Mallaiah and Sayilla Laxmaiah, they and prior to them, their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and on the contrary, their evidence shows that their ancestors left the village after the year 1953 and neither their ancestors nor they were in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time after the year 1953. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by defendant Nos. 2 and 5 to 8 shows that post-sub-division of the land in Sy. No.645 into several sub-divisions, prior to them, their ancestors were in possession of the suit schedule property either by way of purchase or succession of the suit schedule property from their ancestors. Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 are in possession of the suit schedule property comprised in several sub-divided survey numbers based on valid documents and pattadar pass books and title deeds. The plaintiffs except pleading that the defendants and their vendors and their ancestors got the names of the ancestors of the plaintiffs deleted and got their names incorporated in the revenue records behind their back and without notice to them, did not adduce any evidence to show as to when the names of the vendors and ancestors of the plaintiffs were deleted from the revenue records and as to when the names of the defendants came to be incorporated in the revenue records, without their knowledge and notice to them. In the absence of any positive evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to show that they and defendant No.1, being the legal heirs of Sayilla Mallaiah 26 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet and Sayilla Laxmaiah, were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, after their death in the years 1952 and 1953, this Court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled to be declared as absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of defendant
Nos. 2 to 8 and against the plaintiffs.
Issue Nos. 2 and 3:
39.This Court on issue No.1 held that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit schedule property. As the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the owners of the suit schedule property, it has to be looked into whether they are entitled to maintain the suit for recovery of the suit schedule property from the defendant. The plaintiffs admitted that they were not in possession of the suit schedule property since 1953 as their ancestors left to Jala village for eking out their livelihood. Though P.W.1 stated that he filed the suit for recovery of the land in an extent of Acs.9-34 guntas, in his cross-examination, he admitted that except defendant No.1, all other defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property, and that he cannot give the boundaries of the lands specifically that has to be recovered from the defendants. He also admitted that he does not know the plea taken by defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 in the written statement filed by them in the suit. P.W.2 stated that he cannot say the extent of land in possession of Dande Balaiah, Dande Bagaiah, Dande
Muthaiah and Dande Venkaiah and also cannot say the extent of land in possession of Karnala Radha, in Sy. No.645. He stated that he did not visit the 27 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet land in Sy. No.645 and that he visited the land for the first time on 06.02.2018 and he does not know what type of crops are raised in the said land. P.W.3 in his evidence admitted that he does not have any idea about the boundaries of the suit schedule property and that seven members are cultivating the land in
Sy. No.645 and that he cannot say their names. He stated that he is aged 65 years and visited the suit schedule property when he was aged 10 years, He cannot say the extent of land in possession of defendant Nos. 1 to 8. P.W.3 does not know anything about the suit schedule property. The evidence adduced by defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 clearly show that based on valid documents marked by them in evidence, namely sale deeds, gift deeds, pattadar pass books and title deeds and mutation proceedings, they are in possession of the land, and prior to them, their ancestors and vendors were in possession of the land since the year 1953 uninterruptedly. The plaintiffs on the one hand are seeking the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants and on the other hand are seeking the relief of perpetual injunction. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs are directly running in conflict with each other. As the plaintiffs failed to establish title to the suit schedule property, that they were dispossessed by the defendants at any point of time since the year 1953, and they not being in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8.
28 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
Accordingly, issue Nos.2 and 3 are answered in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.4:
40.In the result, the suit is DISMISSED with costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Grade-I) directly on the Computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of April, 2025.
Sd/-
Prl.District Judge, Siddipet, FAC I Addl.Dist.Judge,Siddipet.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFFS SIDE DEFENDANTS SIDE
PW1Sayilla Balamallu (plaintiff DW1 Pentaparthi Santhosh No.4)Reddy (defendant No.2)
PW2Sayilla Kanakaiah (plaintiff DW2 Dande Laxma Reddy (son No.6)of defendant No.4)
PW3Adle Parvathalu (son of DW3 Dande Mallaiah @ Malla plaintiff No.1)Reddy (defendant No.5) --DW4 Dande Narsa Reddy (defendant No.6) --DW5 Dande Venkat Reddy (defendant No.7) –-DW6 Dande Balamma (defendant No.8) 29 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet ––DW7 Ch.Yadava Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFFS SIDE
Ex.A1Certified copy of Sethwar of land in Sy.No.645, to an extent of Ac.9-24 guntas
Ex.A2Certified copy of pahani for the year 1964-1965.
Ex.A3Certified copy of pahani for the year 1970-1971.
Ex.A4Certified copy of pahani for the year 1973-1974.
Ex.A5Certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-1981.
Ex.A6Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-1991.
Ex.A7Certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-1995.
Ex.A8Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-2001.
Ex.A9Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005.
Ex.A10Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011.
DEFENDANTS SIDE
Ex.B1Certified copy of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-1955.
Ex.B2Certified copy of pahani for the year 1962-1963.
Ex.B3Certified copy of pahani for the year 1977-1978.
Ex.B4Certified copy of Form No.1 of ROR for the year 1979-1980.
Ex.B5Certified copy of Form No.1 of ROR for the year 1989-1990.
30 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
Ex.B6Certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-1986.
Ex.B7Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-1991.
Ex.B8Certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-1995.
Ex.B9Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007.
Ex.B10Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-2012.
Ex.B11Original Pattedar passbook of K. Yadava Reddy (Grandfather of defendant No.2)
Ex.B12Certified copy of Registered Gift Settlement Deed document No.6701/2012 dated 07.11.2012.
Ex.B13Original Mutation Proceedings No.B/2997/2012 dated 26.03.2013 issued by Tahsildar, Mulugu.
Ex.B14Meeseva copy of pahani for the year 2017-2018.
Ex.B15Original Pattedar Passbook of defendant No.2
Ex.B16Original Registered sale deed document No.11/1972 in Urdu along with English Translation.
Ex.B17Original Pattadar passbook of defendant No.4.
Ex.B18Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017-2018 of defendant No.4.
Ex.B19Original pattdar passbook of defendant No.5.
Ex.B20Original Pattadar passbook of defendant No.6.
Ex.B21Certified copy of 1-B (ROR) of defendant No.6.
Ex.B22Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017-2018 of defendant No.6 in respect of Sy.No.645/E/1.
31 O.S.No. 16 of 2018 I ADJ Court, Siddipet
Ex.B23 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017-2018 of defendant No.6 in respect of Sy.No.645/EE.
Ex.B24Original 13-B certificate dated 28.03.2007 issued by the Tahsildar, Mulugu.
Ex.B25 Attested copy of Registered gift settlement deed No.585/2015
dated 24.01.2015.
Ex.B26Certified copy of registered sale deed document No.3365/2014
dated 24.06.2014.
Ex.B27Original Pattadar Passbook of Dande Ram Reddy.
Ex.B28Original pattadar passbook of defendant No.7.
Ex.B29Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017-2018 of defendant No.7 in respect of Sy.No.645/E/2.
Ex.B30Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017-2018 of defendant No.7 in respect of Sy.No.645/EE.
Ex.B31Original Pattadar passbook of defendant No.8
Ex.B32Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017-2018 of defendant No.8 in respect of Sy.No.645/U.
Sd/-
Prl. District Judge, Siddipet, FAC I Addl.Dist.Judge,Siddipet.