1
OS No.1 of 2001
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANTHANI
PRESENT: K.SURI KRISHNA,
Senior Civil Judge,
Peddapalli. FAC Senior Civil Judge, Manthani.
Friday, the 14th day of February, 2020
O.S. NO.1 OF 2001
Between:
1. Mohd.Abdul Hakeem Ansari, S/o Mohd.Abdul Kareem, Aged 40 years, R/o Kamanpur village & Mandal, Rep.by GPA holder Sri T.Prabhakar Rao S/o Ramkishan Rao, Aged 34 years, Occu: Agriculture R/o Kamanpur village.
2. Siripurapu Rama Krishna, S/o Ramchandra Rao, Aged 40 years, Occu: Agriculture R/o Narcharam, Hyderabad. (Impleaded as per Orders in I.A.No.182/2007 dt.5.3.2008).
3. Burugupalli Ramchander Rao S/o Nagaraju, Aged 41 years, Occu: Agriculture R/o Bharathnagar, Siddipet, Medak District. (Impleaded as per Orders in I.A.No.183/2007 dt.5.3.2008).
…...Plaintiffs
// A n d //
The Singareni Collieries Ltd, Godavarikhani, Dist.Karimnagar.
.....Defendant
This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 13.12.2019 in the presence of Sri M.Mallesham and Smt.S.V.Rama Devi, Advocates for Plaintiffs, and Sri S.Chandra Shekar, Advocate for defendant, and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff No.1 through his General Power of Attorney/Sri T.Prabhakar Rao against the defendant for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff No.1 is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule
2
OS No.1 of 2001
land to an extent Ac.5000 gts situated at Jallipalli village of Kamanpur
Mandal. The suit land is a part of a big Sy.No.33 measuring 541 acres situated at Jallipalli village of Kamanpur Mandal. Out of Ac.54100 in
Sy.No.33, about 303 acres of land towards South was owned and possessed by one Smt.Rabia Begum, who sold the Ac.5000 of suit land to the plaintiff No.1 for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,500/ and delivered the possession of the same to the plaintiff No.1 agreeing to execute a
Registered Sale Deed on demand. The said agreement of sale is filed in
C.C.No.P/1285/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli.
3.The plaintiff No.1 has been in possession of the suit land right from 17.06.1970. He paid land revenue for the suit land until the Government abolished the land revenue for the dry lands. His possession is duly recorded in the pahani patrikas of Jallipalli village. In the year 1978, the
Revenue authorities issued a Pass Book in favour of the plaintiff No.1 under the provisions of A.P.Record of Rights Act, 1972, recording the plaintiff No.1 as owner of the suit land. As such the plaintiff No.1 has perfected his title to the suit land from 1970 onwards.
4.The plaintiff No.1 has filed a declaration u/s.8 of A.P Land Reforms
Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli vide CC No.P/2136/75 in which he declared the suit land is held by him. The vendor of the plaintiff No.1 by name Rabia Begum also filed declaration u/s.8 of Land
Reforms Act vide CC No.P/1285/75 in which she declared that she has sold the suit land to the plaintiff No.1. Later, the Appellate Tribunal passed an order dt.23.2.1982 in LRA No.4 of 1981, excluded the suit land from the holding of said Smt.Rabia Begum as having been sold to the plaintiff No.1 under agreement of sale dt.17.6.1970. Later, the said
3
OS No.1 of 2001
agreement of sale was validated on 11.6.2001 by an order of the
Recording Authority (Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamanpur) in file
No.J.P/4/89. Accordingly, the 13B and 13C Certificates have been issued by the said Authority.
5.Later, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamanpur passed an order regularizing the unregistered sale deed executed by the GPA of plaintiff
No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.2 by issuing 13B and 13C Certificates in favour of plaintiff No.2. Apart from that the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Kamanpur also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff No.2.
6.Subsequently, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamanpur also passed an order regularizing the unregistered sale deed executed by the GPA of plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.3 by issuing 13B and 13C
Certificates in favour of plaintiff No.3. Apart from that the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Kamanpur also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff No.3.
7.The defendant carries the mining operations for the purpose of excavating the coal from the land, and about 76 acres of land out of
Sy.No.33 was previously acquired by the Government for the defendant company by paying compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/ per acre.
However, since the defendant was trying to encroach upon the extent of plaintiff’s' land for the purpose of their mining work, the plaintiffs objected the same, as there are no proceedings of whatsoever in nature for the purpose of acquisition, as mandatory required under the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed writ petition vide
W.P.No.4602 of 1987 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P and
4
OS No.1 of 2001
obtained interim directions in WPMP No.6117 of 1987 dt.15.4.1987, not to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit land.
Subsequently, the defendant filed counter in the said writ petition stating that they acquired the land under agreement dt.02.06.1975 from one
Kaleelulla Qureshi. The said alleged agreement of the defendant is totally false and incorrect and Sri Khaleelulla Qureshi had no saleable interest or transferable right to effect any valid agreement on 02.6.1975.
The said agreement is also hit by the provisions of Sec.17 of A.P Land
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural) Holding Act, since the same is subsequent to 1.1.1975. Therefore, prima facie the agreement is totally vitiated and misconceived.
8.The plaintiffs further submitted that the defendant filed an application during the pendency of the Ceiling proceedings in CC
No.1285/75 on 26.4.1978 requesting the tribunal to confirm their sales under the agreement and to grant exemption. Thereupon, the primary tribunal issued summons on 22.11.1978 and fixed the hearing on 02.12.1978. The said notices were served on the defendant. After hearing both the parties, the primary tribunal rejected the claim of the defendant as per the orders dt.13.5.1979 holding that the alleged sale is violative of the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, since the same was subsequent to 111975. The defendant did not persue any further remedy and the said orders have become final, conclusive and binding.
Therefore, no merits in the claim of the defendant. Even today the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The plaintiffs No.2 & 3 having purchased the said land from the vendor long back and are in possession and enjoyment, which have been duly recognized by the Revenue and Land Ceiling Authorities
5
OS No.1 of 2001
and issuance of pass books under the Records of Right Act confirms to the title and absolute right in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant has no right, title to interfere with plaintiff’s’s possession and the plaintiffs
No.2 & 3 are entitled to continue the possession and enjoyment in his own right, title and interest. Thus, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are entitled for declaration and injunction.
9.The defendant filed his written statement on 08.12.1988 denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the plaintiff No.1 did not purchase the suit land from Rabia Begum and Rabia Begum did not deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff No.1 and she did not execute any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff No.1 had at no point of time was in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff No.1 manipulated the pahani patrikas and other records to show that he is in possession of the suit land. The suit land is part and parcel of the land Sy.No.33 measuring 618 acres 24 guntas and an area of Ac.539.10 gts originally belongs to one Azizulla
Qureshi and by virtue of the decree passed by the SubCourt, Karimnagar in O.S.No.2 of 1970, Khaleelulla Qureshi became the owner of an area of
Ac.236.06 gts and Smt.Rabia Begum became the owner of an area of 303.24 gts. An area of Ac.7914 gts out of Sy.No.33 belongs to one
Pattabi Rama Rao and others. The defendant company acquired the said land measuring Ac.7914 guntas belonging to one Pattabhi Rama Rao and others, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The possession of the said land was also delivered to the defendant company.
10.The defendant further contended that the suit land is part and parcel of the land measuring 303.24 gts owned by Smt.Rabia Begum. The
6
OS No.1 of 2001
defendant company was also purchasing the land under direct negotiations for carrying out mining operations and for other purposes.
The said Rabia Begum sold the said land at the rate of Rs.450/ per acre and 15% solatium that is Rs.517.50 ps per acre to the extent of one standard holding and for the remaining area of the land it was agreed that the said Rabia begum should be paid a compensation at the rate of
Rs.190.00 per acre. Thus, the defendant company paid an amount of
Rs.1680/ to the said Rabia Begum as an advance and the said Rabia
Begum had handed over the vacant possession of the land measuring 303.24 gts in Sy.No.33. It was agreed that the balance amount should be paid before the Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed and had executed an agreement on 2.6.1975 in favour of the defendant company and the said agreement was also attested by Notary. The said agreement of sale was submitted to the Government in Industries
Department and the same is not traced out and will be filed as soon as it is traced out. Thus, the defendant company has been in possession of the said land bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 303.24 gts inclusive of the suit land.
11.The defendant further averred that the defendant company also purchased an area of Ac.23606 guntas out of Sy.No.33 from Khaleelulla
Qureshi on 02.6.1975 on the same terms. Thus, the defendant company has been in possession of the extent of 539 acres 10 guntas out of
Sy.No.33 from 02.6.1975. The defendant company verified the possession of the said Rabia Begum to the extent of her land and agreed to purchase the said land from the said Rabia Begum. Since 02.06.1975 the defendant company has been in actual and physical possession of the entire extent covered by the two agreement of sales, purchased from
7
OS No.1 of 2001
Rabia begum and Khaleelulla Qureshi. The said Rabia Begum falsely prevailed over the plaintiff No.1 to show the suit land by filing a declaration and the said declaration by the plaintiff No.1 was got filed by the said Rabia Begum so that the said land which is already included in the holding of the plaintiff No.1 will be automatically excluded from the holding of the said Rabia Begum. This method was invented by the said
Rabia Begum to escape from the provisions of ceiling Laws, as the said
Rabia Begum is holding huge extent of lands. Therefore, the allegation that the plaintiff No.1 filed the declaration and the suit land is included in his holding will not make difference when the plaintiff was not at all in possession of the suit land as on the date of filing of the declaration. The vendor of the plaintiff No.1 was not at all the owner of the suit land as on the date when the alleged agreement of sale dated 17.6.1970 was purported to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff No.1 cannot get any title by virtue of the said agreement of sale allegedly executed by the said Rabia Begum.
12. The defendant further averred that the defendant company has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.30324 guntas including the suit land from the date of purchase i.e., 02.6.1975. The defendant company has been paying land revenue in respect of total extent of land measuring
Ac.61824 guntas in Sy.No.33. The defendant company immediately after purchasing the said land started open cast project in an area Ac.400 acres in Sy.No.33. An area of Ac.5600 out of Sy.No.33 is used for workshop and for drag line area. More than 100 acres out of Sy.No.33 used for dumping earth etc., The suit land as claimed by the plaintiff is already used by the defendant company. The defendant company has constructed some buildings and also formed roads in Sy.No.33. The
8
OS No.1 of 2001
defendant contended that in the alleged agreement of sale dt.17.6.1970 boundaries of the suit land are not mentioned. The plaintiff gave imaginary boundaries in the plaint schedule. The relief of declaration of title cannot be granted since the plaintiff never acquired the title relying on agreement of sale. As the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land as on the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.
13.On 12.07.2005 additional written statement filed on behalf of the defendant by stating that the plaintiff during the pendency of the above suit, filed I.A.No.139/2002 in O.S.No.1/2001 u/o.7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC to receive the forms 13B and 13C issued by the M.R.O, Kamanpur as the said M.R.O validated the agreement of sale dt.17.6.1970 on 11.6.2001.
The defendant filed appeal before the Appellate authority under the A.P
Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971. After hearing the argument, the Appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant vide order dated.17.2.2005. The defendant filed Revision
before the District Collector, Karimnagar and the same is pending for
disposal. He further submitted that as GPA holder of plaintiff is not entitled to file any application before the M.R.O, Kamanpur for issue of pattadar pass books and the Pass books in form 13B and 13C issued by
M.R.O, Kamanpur are not valid. Finally, prayed to dismiss the suit.
14.The defendant filed another additional written statement on 31.01.2011 denying the execution of GPA in favour of the GPA holder Sri
T.Prabhakar Rao and contended that the plaintiff No.1 is hereby called upon to appear before this Court to prove his identity, bondafides and the factum of his having initiated the litigation, the proceedings as also the
9
OS No.1 of 2001
execution of the alleged GPA. Further, the said GPA would require compulsory registration and stamp duty. Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 got themselves impleaded before this Court on the strength of the alleged regularization of the sale deeds said to have been executed by the GPA holder of the plaintiff No.1/Sri T.Prabhakar Rao in their favour to the extent of Ac.2500 gts each forming part of Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village.
The suit was originally filed in November, 1987. The Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 filed applications in the year 2007 to implead themselves in the suit and they sought to come on record on the strength of the alleged sale deeds.
The invocation of the provisions of ROR Act in getting the sale deeds regularized is nothing but gross misuse of the process of law and fraud played as all the parties to the transaction were in collusion and brought about fradulent document. More over, the recitals in the documents dt.24.5.1987 did not show that they are sale deeds. These are only agreements. The question of regularization is not contemplated as per the provisions of ROR Act. The plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are liable to be non suited on this ground alone and the suit is liable to be dismissed for the fraud played by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and their GPA holder in collusion.
15.The defendant contended that as per the plaint averments as well as I.As filed by the plaintiff No.1 through his GPA holder as on the date of presentation of the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiff No.1 is in possession of the property as on the date of the suit. However, it is clear that as per the plaintiff’s own allegations (without admission on the part of this defendant) that the plaintiff No.1 had already parted his right, title and interest in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 as such the assertion that he is in possession of the property is nothing but false to his knowledge and a fraud played by him
10
OS No.1 of 2001
before this Court. Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are also aware of the proceedings of
the suit, nonetheless they have entered into a collusive and speculative transaction with the GPA holder of the plaintiff No.1, fabricated and created the document. The defendant contended that the plaintiff No.1 is having already parted with his right, title and interest on his own admission as on the date of the suit could not have filed a suit in
November, 1987. Therefore, it is clear that admittedly he had no manner of right, title and interest as on the date of presentation of the suit. He is not entitled for declaration of his right on strength of the plaint. As admittedly, he has no interest in the property as on the date of the suit and subsequent thereto. In so far as the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are concerned, they never asserted their rights till 2007 while this defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owner and title holder right from 1975. The claim of the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 is barred by limitation. Admittedly, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 had no cause of action in the year 1987. If it is their case, that their cause of action had arisen in 2007, they would have to agitate their rights by way of an independent suit and they could not have joined the suit as plaintiffs.
Further, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 have independent, separate and distinct cause of action as against this defendant and therefore, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 even otherwise, could not have joined together in the suit and their claims are based on separate cause of actions. The suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
16.The defendant further averred that the entire Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village was acquired by the defendant for mining and other ancillary operations in RG area and it comprise of six awards and two agreements of sales. Originally, the defendant requisitioned for an extent of
11
OS No.1 of 2001
Ac.944.23 gts including the landing in Sy.No.33 to an extent of Ac.619.04 gts on 1.5.1973. D.N was passed vide G.O Rt.No.18 dt.3.1.1975 and published in A.P Gazette No.16 dt.10.1.1975 for an extent of Ac.942.06 gts including land in Sy.No.33. At the time of Sec.6 declaration, it was noticed that out of the land in Sy.No.33, land to an extent of Ac.383.09 ½ gts, was affected by Land Ceiling Act and therefore, this was kept under
Ceiling Act and processed the case and the Land Ceiling Act came into effect on 1.6.1975. Consequently the alleged sales are void as any transaction after 1.6.1975 is null and void if the pattadar is covered by
Ceiling Act. The defendant further contended that the Sy.No.33 is covered by mining operations of OCP1 and the lands were required urgently. By virtue of G.O.Ms No.456 dt.1.4.1975 u/s.231 (4) exemption of lands as required for acquisition for which 4 (1) notification was issued on 1.1.1975. In view of urgency, the Singareni Collieries entered into an agreement with pattadars Sri Khaleelullah Qureshi and Smt.Rabia Begum on 2.6.1975 by paying valuable consideration and an agreement was also entered into. On 26.4.1978, the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), Peddapalli declared Sri Khaleelullah Qureshi has to surrender 31.28 gts as this was found to be as his excess holding which is calculated to Ac.0.63 standard holdings. This defendant company filed a petition before LRT,
Karimnagar on 26.1.1979 bringing to the notice the factum of having entered into agreements paying advances and taking possession and hence sought for exemption of land from Ceiling Tribunal. In the meanwhile, LRAT passed judgment on 8.8.1979 in respect of Rabia
Begum that she was having Ac.5.0870 SH of land in excess. As per the judgments, it is clear that having extents of lands are with pattadars and the balance is declared under ceiling out of Ac.539.30 gts in Sy.No.33,
12
OS No.1 of 2001
which is hit by Ceiling Act. The pattedars filed WP Nos.3709 of 1987, 4041 of 1987 and 4602 of 1987 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P at
Hyderabad and the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the above writ petitions on 7.7.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the pattadars filed WA Nos.1386, 1387 and 1389 of 1987 which were also dismissed on 26.10.1987 confirming the Judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the writ petition.
Finally, he prayed to dismiss the suit.
17.Rejoinder filed by the plaintiff stating that the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Kamanpur after due enquiry and after following the procedure regularized the alienation of the said land by issuing 13B and 13C
Certificates. The defendant is not the vendor of the suit property and he never in possession of the property hence no notice need be given to the defendant by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamanpur. The Plaintiff has given a Registered General Power of Attorney authorising the GPA holder namely T.Prabhakar Rao to file plaint and engage advocate by filing vakalath and represent on his behalf.
18.Rejoinder submitted by the plaintiffs to the additional written statement filed by defendant dt.31.1.2001, which is as follows:
The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property on the file of Senior Civil
Judge, Peddapalli vide O.S.No.218/1987, subsequently on establishment
of Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Manthani, the said suit was transferred and a new number was assigned as O.S.No.1 of 2001 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Manthani. During the pendency of the suit, the
defendant filed a petition u/o.7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC praying the court to receive the documents including CC of ownership issued in the Form
13
OS No.1 of 2001
No.13B and 13C in favour of plaintiffs No.2 & 3 declaring the title of plaintiffs No.2 & 3 u/s.5A (4) of A.P Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass
Book Act, 1971 which provides that the “Alienation or Transfer is
valid from the date of issue of such Certificate and such certificate
not withstanding anything in Registration Act, 1908, be Evidence of
such alienation or Transfer as against the alienor or Transferor or
any person claiming interest under him”. Therefore, the title in the suit land passed to plaintiffs No.2 & 3 after issuing of Ownership certificate u/s.5A (4) of the Act. Later, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 were impleaded in the suit OS No.1/2001 in I.A.Nos.182 and 183/2007.
Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed C.R.Ps and the said
C.R.Ps were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court, then the defendant preferred SLP Civil No.11768/2010 and the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the same on 12.4.2010.
19.It is further averred in the rejoinder that the defendant filed L.R.A
No.39 of 1979 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar stating that the said land is to be excluded from computing the Ceiling
Area of Smt.Rabia Begum on the basis of said agreement of sale dt.2.6.1975 and the Appellate Tribunal by its order dt.8.8.1979 dismissed the appeal in L.R.A No.39/1979 which is marked as Ex.B21. On the date of alleged agreement of sale dt.2.6.1975, the computation of declaration filed by Smt.Rabia Begum was pending for determination. Further, the
Order dt.8.8.1979 by Appellate Tribunal in Ex.B21 operates as
Resjudicata and the alleged agreement of sale dt.2.6.1975 is void u/s.23 of Contract Act since the agreement is forbidden by Sec.17 (1) of A.P Land
Reforms (Ceiling on agriculture holdings) Act, 1973 on which the
14
OS No.1 of 2001
defendant solely taking shelter under the alleged agreement of sale.
Neither Rabia Begum has sold an extent of Ac.30324 gts to the defendant through the alleged agreement of sale dt.2.6.1975 nor the defendant is in the possession of the land by virtue of alleged agreement of sale. The Land Reforms Act on Agricultural Holdings has come into force on 1.6.1975 is wrong, this Act has extend to entire State of Andhra
Pradesh on 1.1.1975 and the late date of filing of declarations by Land holders was fixed as 11.4.1975. Since the Land Reforms Tribunal has accepted the sale transaction of plaintiff No.1 and excluded the same from the Land Holding of Smt.Rabia Begum. Smt.Rabia Begum did not execute the alleged agreement of sale dated 2.6.1975 in favour of the defendant and nor deliver the possession of land of Ac.30324 gts in Sy.No.33 at
Jallipalli village to the defendant. Infact, Smt.Rabia Begum has executed unregistered sale deed in Ex.A23 in favour of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of an area of Ac.5000 in Sy.No.33 and delivered the possession of the said land. Further, she filed her declaration u/s.8 of L.R.Act on 11.4.1975 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli, which was assigned as CC No.P/1285/75 and after due enquiry, the Land Reforms
Tribunal, Peddapalli approved the said sale transaction.
20.It is further averred in the rejoinder that the plaintiff No.1 executed
Registered GPA in favour of Sri T.Prabhakar Rao vide D.No.40/1987 by giving all powers including sale of land and Sec.85 of Evidence Act provides that the Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a Power of Attorney was so executed and there is no provision in the
Power of Attorney Act, 1882 limiting to Act as Power of Attorney of any person and the said GPA holder worked as Patwari of 3 to 4 villages who is educated and known figure in surrounding villages of Kamanpur
15
OS No.1 of 2001
village. The Government of A.P did not acquire the plaint schedule land of an area of Ac.5000 in Sy.No.33 by issuing Notification u/s.4 (1) of
L.A.Act and no Award was passed by L.A.O in respect of suit land and the possession of suit land was not taken u/s.16 of L.A.Act, and therefore, the defendant herein has no way concerned with the plaint schedule land.
The Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli in CC No.P/1285/75 declared that to an extent of Ac.29405 gts in Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village was fallen to the share of Smt.Rabia Begum in the partition and out of the said area she holds that an area of Ac.6000 gts and she sold away Ac.50 00 gts of land to plaintiff No.1 and remaining area of Ac.94.02 gts sold and gifted to several people long back. So, question of entering into agreement of sale dt.2.6.1975 does not arise since on 2.6.1975 the
Holding of an extent of Ac.30324 gts by Smt.Rabia Begum is contrary to the declaration filed by her on 11.4.1975. The plaintiff No.1 through his
GPA executed unregistered sale deed dt.11.5.1987 in favour of plaintiff
No.2 in respect of land Ac.2500 gts and also executed an unregistered sale deed dt.24.5.1987 in favour of plaintiff No.3 in respect of an area of
Ac.2500 in Sy.No.33. Further, the M.R.O has issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of plaintiffs No.2 & 3. Finally, prayed to decree the suit and grant injunction perpetually.
21.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.
i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and was in possession of the same on the date of the suit?
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land?
iii) Whether the plaintiff purchased the suit land under the agreement of sale as pleaded in the plaint?
16
OS No.1 of 2001
iv) Whether the defendant purchased the land bearing Sy.No.33 measuring Ac.303.24 gts at Jallipalli village under an agreement of sale as pleaded in the written statement?
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of title on the basis of suit agreement of sale?
On 06.02.1991 as per the Orders in I.A.No.447/1990, the following
additional issue is framed:
vi) Whether the agreement of sale dt.2.6.1975 set up by the defendant is valid in the light of provisions of the A.P.Land Reforms Act?
On 26.07.2005, the following additional issues are framed:
vii) Whether the certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff under R.O.R Act during the pendency of civil proceedings?
viii) Whether the pass books and title deed issued by M.R.O against the defendants without issuing any notice and the defendants are in actual possession of the suit schedule properties?
On 04.06.2007, the following additional issue is framed:
ix) Whether this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
x) To what relief?
22.In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the General Power of
Attorney of Mohd.Abdul Hakeem Ansari examined as PW1 and apart from that Pws2 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A38 are marked. On the other hand, one KVS Yajulu deposed on behalf of defendant company as DW1 and apart from him, Dws2 to 4 were examined on their behalf and Exs.B1 to B32 are marked on their behalf.
23.Heard the arguments of both sides and both counsel filed their written arguments and perused the same.
ISSUES NO.I TO III:
24.The case of the plaintiff No.1 is that he authorized one Sri
17
OS No.1 of 2001
Timmaraju Prabhakar Rao as General Power of Attorney to represent the present case on his behalf. According to the case of General Power of
Attorney of the plaintiff No.1, the plaintiff No.1 has purchased Ac.5000 acres of dry land in Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village of Kamanpur Mandal for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,500/ on 17.06.1970, on the same day the vendor of the plaintiff No.1 namely Smt.Rabia Begum executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff No.1. Subsequently, the Land
Reforms Act came into force on 24.01.1971 as such the plaintiff No.1 could not get land registered in his name duly paying balance sale consideration to the land owner. Originally the vendor of the plaintiff
No.1 Smt.Rabia Begum was the owner of Ac.30324 gts in Jallipalli village and she filed declaration u/s.8 of Land Reforms Act, 1973 on 11.4.1975
before the Land Reforms Tribunal at Peddapalli. The said Smt.Rabia
Begum sold out her entire property to different persons due to financial needs. The said Smt.Rabia Begum has also filed written statement
before Land Reforms Tribunal on 28.01.1977 requesting to delete the area
of plaintiff No.1 from her holding. The Land Reforms Tribunal at
Peddapalli after conducting enquiry duly issuing notices to all interested persons to come to a conclusion and accepted only one sale i.e., Ac.5000 acres in favour of plaintiff No.1/Md.Abdul Hakeem Ansari. The plaintiff
No.1/Md.Abdul Hakeem Ansari also filed his declaration before Land
Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli in respect of purchase of land Ac.
5000 from the said Smt.Rabia Begum in Sy.No.33 and the same was accepted by Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli. The plaintiff No.1 has purchased Ac.5000 of land from the above said Smt.Rabia Begum on 23.02.1982. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Peddapalli after determining the surplus extent from holding of declarant asked her to surrender the
18
OS No.1 of 2001
said excess area vide memo in the year 1980.
25.The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal has passed an order on 23.2.1982 duly recognizing the purchase of Ac.5000 of land by the plaintiff No.1 vide LRA No.4/1981. The revenue authorities also issued
Rythu pass book in his favour in the year 1978.
26.The defendant company started mining operations in the land at
Jallipali village in Sy.No.33 which were acquired in the Land Acquisition
Act and started interfering into the peaceful possession of plaintiff No.1.
As such the plaintiff No.1 filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High
Court vide W.P.No.6117/1987 dated 15.4.1987 and accordingly, the
Hon'ble High Court directed the defendant company not to interfere with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff No.1 over the suit schedule property. Further, the Hon'ble High Court directed the plaintiff
No.1 to approach competent Civil Court for appropriate remedy. The plaintiff No.1 also filed writ appeal in W.A.No.1386/1987 wherein the
Hon'ble High Court pleased to confirm the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court in W.P.No.6117/1987 dated 26.10.1987. In view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the plaintiff No.1 is compelled to approach this Court seeking relief of declaration and injunction against the defendant company. During the pendency of the present suit, the plaintiff No.1/Md.Abdul Hakeem Ansari sold an extent of Ac.2500 of land to plaintiff No.2 namely S.Ramakrishna for a sale consideration of
Rs.25,000/ and further he also sold away another Ac.2500 acres of land in Sy.No.33 to the plaintiff No.3 namely B.Ramchander Rao, both transactions took place under private sale deeds. Subsequently, the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamanpur after due enquiry validated the sale of
19
OS No.1 of 2001
Ac.5000 in Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village. Further, sale transactions certificates in form No.13B and 13C and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued under ROR Act on 11.6.2001 in file No.JP/04/1989.
All the above said documents were filed before this Court and the same are on record.
27.Subsequently, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 filed petitions U/O.1 Rule 10 of CPC praying the court to implead them as parties to the proceedings vide I.A.No.182/2007, after hearing both sides this Court allowed the said
I.A and accordingly, the above said two persons came on record as plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant company filed C.R.P before the Hon'ble High of A.P but after hearing both sides, the said C.R.P was dismissed by the Hon'ble High
Court. The defendant company also filed another C.R.P No.4149/2008 aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.183/2007 and the same was also dismissed on 19.2.2009 in respect of plaintiff No.3. The said defendant company again choose to file SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India and the same was also dismissed confirming the orders of the
Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
28.Thereafter, plaintiffs No.2 & 3 filed petitions to receive the documents i.e., sale validation certificates under form No.13B and 13C and also pattadar pass books and title deeds obtained from the Mandal
Revenue Office, Kamanpur for the purpose of moving their case. After examining the General Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.1 as Pw1 and
Pws2 to 4, the plaintiffs evidence was closed.
29.On the other hand, the defendant company contended that the present suit is filed by one Sri T.Prabhakar Rao purported to have filed by
20
OS No.1 of 2001
GPA of plaintiff No.1 against the defendant company for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Later, by virtue of orders dt.5.3.2008 in
I.A.No.182/2007 and I.A.No.183/2007 the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 were impleaded in the suit on the basis of agreement of sale dt.11.5.1987 and 24.5.1987 respectively written on white papers. The defendant company further contended that the present suit is liable to be dismissed in limini for two reasons. Firstly the suit barred automatically abated in respect of original plaintiff as the plaintiff No.1 did not appear and gave evidence
before the Court and purported the General Power of Attorney of plaintiff
No.1 examined as PW1 in place of plaintiff No.1. Evidently the present case was filed before the court through General Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.1 way back in the year 1987. Subsequently, this case was transferred from Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli to Senior Civil Judge,
Manthani as a new court was established at Manthani. Apparently it is clear that the GPA of plaintiff No.1 deposed the evidence as PW1 as if he is plaintiff. Since from 1987 to till date i.e., for more than 30 years, the plaintiff No.1 did not appear before this court even atleast to depose his evidence in his case. Ex.A1 is Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff
No.1 in favour of Sri T.Prabhakar Rao on 20.04.1987. According to it, he has right to act on behalf of plaintiff No.1. Accordingly, he sold out
Ac.5000 of land in favour of plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.3 through unregistered sale deeds dt.11.5.1987 and 24.5.1987 respectively. The counsel for the defendant contended that the validation of sale deeds vitiated by the fact it is not an agreement between two parties as purchasers of plaintiffs No.2 & 3 and infact, plaintiffs No.2 & 3 not at all signed on the above said unregistered agreement of sale.
21
OS No.1 of 2001
30.The disputed land is only Ac.5000 in Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village.
The GPA of plaintiff No.1 allegedly sold out the suit land to the plaintiffs
No.2 & 3 each Ac.2500. On careful observation of simple sale deeds marked under Ex.A29 and A34 which reveals that the GPA of plaintiff
No.1 sold away Ac.5000 of land to plaintiffs No.2 & 3 for valuable consideration of Rs.50,000/. The recitals of Ex.A29 and A34 reveals that the GPA of Plaintiff No.1 executed a simple sale deed in the name of the plaintiff No.2 and also in the name of plaintiff No.3 but however their signatures are missing in the above said sale deeds. To any kind of sale transaction there must be two parties duly signed the instrument required to be executed. In the present case, on plain reading of Ex.A29 and A34 it would not reveals that the GPA of plaintiff No.1 executed a simple sale deeds and plaintiffs No.2 & 3 accepted the same. Further, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 did not file any kind of document till the date of filing the suit to show their continuous possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is very difficult for the court to believe that the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are in possession of the suit schedule land. When there is no legal possession, granting of relief of perpetual injunction does not arise. As discussed above, the plaintiffs not chosen to file any kind of document to establish that the plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule land under agreement of sale. In the absence of agreement of sale establishing the real ownership of the suit schedule property could not possible.
31.Under the above said circumstances, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are not at all in possession of the suit schedule property and the documents filed by them are appears to be nominal and sham documents and therefore, could not gives any right or title to them. As such they are not entitled
22
OS No.1 of 2001
for any kind of relief as prayed in issue No.2.
ISSUE NO.IV:
32.It is an admitted fact that the suit land is part and parcel of land in
Sy.No.33 measuring Ac.61824 gts. The vendor of plaintiff No.1 was owner of Ac.30324 gts and the suit land is part and parcel of Ac.30324 gts owned by Smt.Rabia Begum, who is vendor of plaintiff No.1. The counsel for defendant company argued that the defendant company approached Smt.Rabia Begum for the sale of Ac.30324 gts to the defendant company. The said Smt.Rabia Begum agreed to sell the said land at the rate of Rs.450/ per acre and 15% solatium therein totaling to
Rs.517.50 ps per acre to the extent of one standard holding and for remaining area of land it was agreed that Smt.Rabia Begum should be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.190/ per acre. Accordingly, the defendant company also paid an amount of Rs.1680/ to the said
Smt.Rabia Begum and she handed over the vacant possession of land measuring Ac.30324 gts in Sy.No.33 to the defendant company. It was also agreed that the balance amount of consideration should be paid
before the Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed to be executed
by the said Smt.Rabia Begum in favour of defendant company.
Accordingly, the said Smt.Rabia Begum had executed an agreement of sale on 02.6.1975 in favour of defendant company and handed over the possession of land to the defendant company on 02.6.1975 itself.
33.The counsel for defendant company argued that Pw1 namely KVS
Yajulu, Retired Accounts Officer has given evidence about time and place of agreement of sale dt.2.6.1975 and handing over the possession of land to defendant company. He deposed that the defendant company is in
23
OS No.1 of 2001
continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land Ac.303 24 gts in Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village. Apart from him, three other
Officers belongs to defendant company deposed in favour of defendant company about purchase and possession of suit land by the defendant company etc., The counsel for defendant company argued that in an agreement of sale dt.17.6.1970 relied by plaintiff boundaries of suit schedule land are not mentioned. Thereafter, when the suit land stated to have been sold to impleaded plaintiffs No.2 & 3 dt.11.5.1987 and 24.5.1987. The counsel for defendant contended that the plaintiffs gave imaginary boundaries to the suit schedule land and on contrary the defendant company is in continuous possession of entire land Ac.30324 gts in Sy.No.33 from 2.6.1975.
34.On perusal of Ex.B5 i.e., agreement of sale dt.02.06.1975 betweent
Smt.Rabia Begum and defendant company. According to it, Smt.Rabia
Begum was the real owner of land to an extent of Ac.303.24 gts in
Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village and agreement of sale was executed between
Smt.Rabia Begum and defendant company wherein the said Rabia Begum agreed to sell away her land and received Rs.1680/ towards advance and agreed to receive the remaining amount at the time of registration. The said agreement of sale was executed on 02.06.1975. The said Rabia
Begum also issued a receipt in the name of defendant company on receiving Rs.1680/ as an advance for the land proposed to be sell away to the defendant company. However, the said Rabia Begum entered into an agreement with the defendant company but what are the subsequent negotiations took place between the said Rabia Begum and defendant company not known. According to the defendant company they are in possession of Ac.303.24 gts of land. According to the plaintiffs, the
24
OS No.1 of 2001
plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are alleged purchasers of land of Ac.5000 from the
GPA of plaintiff No.1. Therefore, on going through the evidence it is difficult for the court to arrive into a conclusion whether the defendant company purchased the land to an extent of Ac.303.24 gts at Jallipalli village. However, the disputed property is only Ac.5000 out of Ac.303.24 gts. As such it is not proved that the defendant company purchased
Ac.303.24 gts from Rabia Begum but however the name of defendant company continuing in certified copies of pahani marked under Exs.B27 to B31. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.V:
35.As seen from the record, the present suit was instituted before the
Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli on 24.11.1987. The plaintiffs No.2 & 3
filed impleading petitions and made as plaintiffs No.2 & 3 in the year 2008. According to Pw2 and Pw3, they purchased Ac.2500 acres each from the GPA of plaintiff No.1 and claimed right over the suit schedule property. It is strange to notice that the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 even though purchased the suit land way back in the year 1987, they came to the court in the year 2008 i.e., after lapse of nearly 21 years. The plaintiffs
No.2 & 3 did not file any document since from the date of purchase till this date to show their possession over the suit schedule property i.e.,
Ac.2500 acres each in Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village. It appears that the
GPA of plaintiff No.1, plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are colluded together in order to grab the suit schedule land from the defendant company by hook or crook. The GPA holder of plaintiff No.1 played vital role in the present case and impleaded his castemen as plaintiffs No.2 & 3 in the year 2008 and has made efforts to take over the possession of defendant company.
Ex.A1 is Registered General Power of Attorney containing the signature
25
OS No.1 of 2001
of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A2 is pahani for the year 197475 which shows the name of Azizullah Qureshi is one of the pattadars in Sy.No.33. Ex.A3 is also pahani for the year 197576 which also shows that the above said
Azizulla Qureshi is one of the pattadars in Sy.No.33.
36.In the same similar manner Ex.A4 also pahani for the year 1976 77 which shows the name of Azizullah Qureshi as pattadar and Rabia
Begum was show as possessor. But as per Ex.A6 pahani for the year 197980 the name of vendor of Rabia Begum, Azizullah Qureshi shown as pattadars and defendant company and others shown as possessors.
Since then the defendant company has been in continuous possession from the year 198081/Ex.A7, 198182/Ex.A8, 198283/Ex.A9, 1983 84/ Ex.A10. Exs.A11, A12 and A13 are sisth receipts filed by vendor of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A14 is Rythu pass book wherein the name of vendor of plaintiff No.1 mentioned in possessory column and name of husband of Rabia Begum i.e., Azizullah Qureshi mentioned in pattadar column. Part of item No.1 of Rythu pass book the name of first plaintiff mentioned in pattadar column and its extent shown as Ac.5000 acres.
Ex.A15 is judgment passed by Land Reform Appellate Tribunal wherein the appeal was partly allowed to an extent of Ac.5000 computed in holding of Md.Abdul Hakeem Ansari was deleted from holding of declarant and surplus extent held by her as on the notified date is reduced to standard holding.
37.Ex.A16 is Carbon copy of order of Hon'ble High Court wherein the respondents to the petition were directed not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment over the land bearing Sy.No.33 admeasuring Ac.5000 situated at Jallipalli village of Kamanpur Mandal.
26
OS No.1 of 2001
Ex.A17 is the Statusquo order granted by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P confirming the order of Ex.A16. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P while granting the statusquo directed the petitioners to approach the competent
Civil Court of law for the relief required by them. Ex.A18 is NamunaI without signature of issuing authority. Ex.A19 is an affidavit regarding declaration of Rabia Begum W/o Azizulla Qureshi wherein the names of plaintiff's shown as purchasers to an extent of Ac.5000 acres. Ex.A23 is agreement of sale which is in Urdu language and its translated copy shows that the Rabia Begum agreed to sell her Ac.5000 acres of land out of Sy.No.33 to plaintiff No.1 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,500/.
Further, she also received Rs.5,000/ from plaintiff No.1 as an advance and she undertaken to execute valid register sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1. This document was executed on 17.6.1970. Ex.A25 is pahani for the year 198586 which shows that the defendant company is in possession of land in Sy.No.33 belongs to different persons including the husband of Rabia Begum. Ex.A26 and A27 are 13B and 13C
Namunas which regulates the sale transactions between the plaintiff No.1 and Rabia Begum. Ex.A28 is order in appeal filed U/S.5E of A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 wherein the R.D.O, Manthani dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the M.R.O,
Kamanpur.
38.Ex.A29 is simple sale deed executed by GPA of Plaintiff No.1 dt.11.5.1987 in favour of plaintiff No.2 selling out Ac.2500 gts of land to the plaintiff No.2 for Rs.25,000/. Accordingly, sale was validated through 13B and 13C Namunas under Ex.A30 and A31. Ex.A32 and
Ex.A33 are pattadar pass book and title deed which shows that the plaintiff No.2 purchased Ac.2500 gts of land and got mutated his name
27
OS No.1 of 2001
in revenue records. Ex.A34 is another simple sale deed executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.3 selling out Ac.2500 gts of land in
Sy.No.33 for Rs.25,000/. The said sale transaction also validated under
Ex.A35 and A36. In this regard, Ex.A29 and A34 are simple sale deeds contains the signature of GPA of plaintiff No.1 but the signatures of plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are missing in Ex.A29 and A34, who are necessary parties to the sale transactions. Ex.A37 and A38 are pattadar pass book and title deed which shows that the plaintiff No.3 name was mutated in revenue records to an extent of Ac.2500 acres in Sy.No.33.
39.After going through the documents elaborately, it is clear that the plaintiff No.1 was the pattadar and possessor of suit schedule land of
Ac.5000 in Sy.No.33. At this juncture, the plaintiff No.1 has given
General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri T.Prabhakar Rao under Ex.A1 on 20.4.1987. Since then the said T.Prabhakar Rao has been managing the properties of plaintiff No.1. Further, he stepped into the shoes of plaintiff No.1 and deposed his evidence as that of plaintiff No.1. The GPA holder T.Prabhakar Rao is entitled to file cases and to manage his properties to the limited extent as permitted by the plaintiff No.1. On observing the entire case of plaintiff No.1 it is noticed that the plaintiff
No.1 who is the real owner of the property never appeared before the
Court nor deposed at the first place of his case. On the other hand, the
GPA T.Prabhakar Rao very elaborately and in depth narrated each and every issue of suit and its contents as if he is a real owner. This Court could not rely upon the simple sale deeds executed and signed by the
GPA and witnesses and those are seems to be not genuine in the eye of law. For every sale transaction the signatures of vendor, vendee and signatures of witnesses are mandatory but the documents marked under
28
OS No.1 of 2001
Ex.A29 and A34 does not contains the signatures of plaintiffs No.2 & 3 that itself shows that noninvolvement of plaintiffs No.2 & 3. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to rely upon those documents in absence of signature of vendee so also the absence of evidence of real owner/plaintiff
No.1. Further, the existence of plaintiff No.1 itself in question as GPA of plaintiff No.1 is acting on behalf of real owner since 33 years. The GPA holder is certainly required to depose the facts which are within his knowledge. His evidence shall be supposed to support the evidence of real owner. The General Power of Attorney cannot stepped into the shoes of real owner and he also failed to show whether the real owner is alive or not in absence of evidence of real owner.
40.In a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction the burden lies on the plaintiffs that they are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties as on the date of filing the suit with adverse possession. In the present case, the plaintiffs shall not depend upon the weaknesses of defendants and it is primary duty of plaintiffs to stand up on their own legs. But in view of above discussions, it appears that the
GPA of plaintiff No.1, plaintiffs No.2 & 3 colluded together in order to grab the property of plaintiff No.1.
41.The defendant company argued that the GPA of plaintiff No.1 cannot sell and give the possession of land which was not in his possession. Further, he argued that impleading of plaintiffs No.2 & 3 to the suit is illegal. The defendant company contended that the suit has to be conducted by plaintiff only during his life time and after his death the suit has to be continued by his legal representatives duly added in the suit as per law. In absence of such exercise, the suit is liable to be
29
OS No.1 of 2001
dismissed.
42.According to the case of defendant company, 1st plaintiff did not purchase the suit land from Rabia Begum on 17.6.1970 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,500/. The defendant company further alleged that the plaintiff had manipulated the pahani patrikas to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The defendant company further contended that the suit land is part and parcel of land admeasuring Ac.30324 gts owned by Smt.Rabia Becum, the defendant company purchased the above land on direct negotiations for carried out mining operations and for other purpose. The defendant company contended that the said Rabia Begum agreed to sell the land admeasuring
Ac.30324 gts out of Sy.No.33 to the defendant company. Accordingly, the said Rabia Begum sold the suit land at the rate of Rs.450/ per acre and 15% solatium i.e., Rs.517.50 ps per acre to the extent of one standard holding and for remaining area of land it was agreed that the said Rabia Begum should be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.190/ per acre. Further, the defendant company paid an amount of Rs.1680/ to the said Rabia Begum as an advance and taken over the vacant possession of Ac.30324 gts in Sy.No.33. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration should be paid before Registrar at the time of registration but however, the original agreement of sale not filed by defendant company with reason that the agreement of sale submitted to
Government in Industries Department and the same is not traced out but it will be submitted whenever it is traced out. Further, the defendant contended that the said Rabia Begum has declared in para No.1 of the said agreement that she is absolute owner, pattadar and possession and occupant of Sy.No.33 and there is no hindrance of any kind whatsoever
30
OS No.1 of 2001
against her to enter into the said agreement with the defendant company and declared that the said land is not subject to any large or any encumbrance of any kind whatsoever. Further, the defendant company contended that the para No.6 & 7 of the said agreement discloses that the said Rabia Begum had handed over the physical vacant possession of the said land to the defendant company on 2.6.1975. The defendant company also purchased Ac.236.06 gts out of Sy.No.33 from Khaleelullah
Qureshi on 2.6.1975 on the same terms. Thus, the defendant company has been in possession to the extent of Ac.53910 gts out of Sy.No.33 from 2.6.1975. The defendant company further contended that the relief of declaration of title cannot be granted since the plaintiff never acquired title relying on agreement of sale. The plaintiffs have to pursue remedy only against the vendor when the vendor has already handed over the possession of her entire property in the year 1975 to the defendant company. Agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff is obviously is a concoction as a result of collusion between the plaintiff and Rabia Begum.
The transaction which is an agreement of sale in favour of defendant company is valid by delivery of possession in the year 1975 for the purpose of coal mining operations undertaken in the national interest.
Therefore, the same is not violative of provisions of law Ceiling Act and provisions of Prohibition of Alienation Act is not applicable as land in question are never cultivated.
43.The defendant company filed copy of agreement of sale executed by
Smt.Rabia Begum in favour of defendant company marked as Ex.B5 subject to objection as per orders of Hon'ble High Court in CRP
No.461/1997 dt.9.4.1997. According to Ex.B5, the said Smt.Rabia
Begum directly entered into an agreement with defendant company and
31
OS No.1 of 2001
executed Ex.B5 by taking Rs.1680/ as an advance. The total extent of land covered under Ex.B5 is Ac.30324 gts. The said Rabia Begum who agreed to sell her landed property in Sy.No.33 also received Rs.1680/ from the defendant company as an advance. The said Rabia Begum issued a receipt duly signed by her in Urdu. One Md.Ankus and KVS
Yajulu were the witnesses to the said receipt dt.2.6.1975. The documents marked under Exs.B27 to B31 shows that the land of
Ac.53910 gts in Sy.No.33 is in the possession of defendant company for excavating coal. Further, the documents marked under Exs.B14 and
B15 are registered sale deeds of vendors executed in favour of defendant company selling out their lands for the mining purpose to the defendant company. The above said documents particularly Exs.B27 to B31 clearly shows that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.33 is in the possession of defendant company.
44.The plaintiff No.1 who appointed one T.Prabhakar Rao as his
General Power of Attorney is failed to attend before this Court to give evidence to an extent of land possessed by him. The GPA holder also appears to be suppressed the existence of plaintiff No.1 who is real owner according to him. The simple sale deeds filed by GPA of plaintiff No.1 would not confer any title to the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 as the said documents appears to have been created without signature of vendees. The plaintiff
No.1 further failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. On the other hand, the documents marked under Exs.B27 to B31 clearly and categorically shows the possession of the defendant company over Sy.No.33 of Jallipalli village.
The documents filed by plaintiffs did not come to rescue the plaintiffs due to latches and suppressions in the case of General Power of Attorney of
32
OS No.1 of 2001
plaintiff No.1. On careful consideration of both side pleadings this Court is of opinion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. When the plaintiffs fails to prove their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit, the question of declaration of title does not arise. Under the above said circumstances, this Court is of opinion that the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are not entitled for any kind of relief as sought by them and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of defendant company and against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO.VI:
45.The contention of the plaintiffs is that the alleged agreement of sale entered into by the defendant on 02.06.1975 with the above said Rabia
Begum, they contended that it is violation of Sec.17 of Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holding) Act, 1973. Therefore, the alleged agreement of sale is null and void and Sec.17 (1) of Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holding) Act, 1973 mandates that any alienation which take place from 24.01.1971 is null and void. The alleged agreement of sale entered into by defendant company with Rabia Begum on 02.06.1975 is not preceded by any declaration either by defendant or their vendor
Smt.Rabia Begum before Land Reforms Tribunal. The area covered under alleged agreement of sale dt.02.06.1975 is huge area consisting of
Ac.30324 gts. The defendant company filed copy of an agreement of sale before this Court and marked under Ex.B5. The prohibition for alienation came into force on 24.01.1971, the alleged agreement entered into by defendant with Rabia Begum was on 02.06.1975 i.e., subsequent to the date of prohibition i.e., 24.01.1971. But however this is only an
33
OS No.1 of 2001
agreement of sale and the defendant company or the plaintiffs did not furnish any kind of document showing that the defendant company purchased the entire extent of land through Registered Sale Deed.
Agreement of sale entered by defendant company and Rabia Begum is not sufficient to complete the sale transaction unless and until the sale concluded by registered sale deed. There is no document on record to say that the sale was registered between Rabia Begum and defendant company. However, the evidence on record clearly shows that the defendant company is in possession of entire land belongs to Rabia
Begum. This Court cannot imagine about the registered sale transaction between Rabia Begum and defendant company. Further, it cannot be expected whether under due process of law the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the landed property of Rabia Begum. Under the above given circumstances unless and until the sale is registered it cannot be said that Sec.17 of Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holding) Act, 1973 is violated.
46.As discussed above, as of now the defendant company is in possession and enjoyment of disputed land of Ac.5000 which includes in the land of Rabia Begum. Further the acts committed by the plaintiffs and sale between GPA of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are not at all reliable transaction and real owner is expected to take necessary action against the plaintiffs No.2 & 3. In view of findings given on issues
No.1 to 9, this Court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule land. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
34
OS No.1 of 2001
ISSUE NO.VII:
47.It is an admitted fact that the present suit was instituted in the year 1987 before the SubCourt, Peddapalli. Subsequently, on establishment of SubCourt at Manthani, this case was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.1 of 2001. The GPA of plaintiff No.1 allegedly sold away Ac.5000 of land to the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 i.e., each Ac.2500 of land in the year 1987. The sale transaction is onceagain simple sale deeds even without the signatures of plaintiffs No.2 & 3. After the above said alleged sale transactions, in the year 2001 the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 got pattadar pass books and title deeds. But however they failed to prove whether they are in possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit. The plaintiffs No.2 & 3 failed to furnish any kind of revenue document to prove their possession over the suit schedule property.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to rely upon the documents filed by plaintiffs No.2 & 3 even though the revenue authorities precluded from issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds during the pendency of the suit. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.VIII:
48.SubRule 6 of Rule 26 of A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Rules 1989 provides that the title deed and pass books shall be given only to the persons who are in actual possession of land.
49.The GPA of plaintiff No.1 sold Ac.2500 of land to plaintiff No.2 and another Ac.2500 of land to plaintiff No.3 through unregistered sale deeds. In the present case, it is said by GPA that he is authorized to do any act on behalf of plaintiff No.1. The mutation of names of plaintiffs
35
OS No.1 of 2001
No.2 & 3 was also taken place and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in their favour. As discussed above, this Court came to a conclusion that the GPA of plaintiff No.1 colluded with plaintiffs No.2 & 3 in order to grant the land of plaintiff No.1. It is also under suspicion that whether the plaintiff No.1 knows the sale transactions taken place between the GPA and plaintiffs No.2 & 3. This Court could not considered the pleadings of GPA holder unless and until the physical presence of plaintiff No.1 made available before this court. This court is not aware that whether the revenue authorities followed the procedure as contemplated under law prior to issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds to the plaintiffs No.2 & 3. The alleged sale transactions took place way back in the year 2001 and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in the same year. However, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 kept silent for about 19 years without approaching the court to protect their rights over the suit schedule property. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to trust the documents filed by them before this court. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
ISSUE NO.IX:
50.This Court has got territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case as subject matter is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court because the suit is valued at Rs.5,00,000/ and the suit being one declaration and injunction valued for Rs.5,00,000/. Further, Jallipalli village where the suit schedule property is situated within Kamanpur
Mandal and within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, this
Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
36
OS No.1 of 2001
ISSUE NO.X:
51.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of February, 2020.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PEDDAPALLI.
FAC SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MANTHANI.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For the Plaintiff For the Defendant
PW1 T.Prabhakar Rao DW1 KVS Yagulu
PW2 T.Panduranga Rao DW2 N.Rajeeru
PW3 S.Ramakrishna DW3 A.Seetharamam
PW4 B.Ramchander Rao DW4 E.Vijaya Kumar
Exhibits marked For the Plaintiff
Ex.A1is General Power of Attorney dt.28.4.1987 Ex.A2is Pahani patrik for the year 197475 Ex.A3is Pahani patrik for the year 197576 Ex.A4is Pahani patrik for the year 197677 Ex.A5is Pahani patrik for the year 197879 Ex.A6is Pahani patrik for the year 197980 Ex.A7is Pahani patrik for the year 198081 Ex.A8is Pahani patrik for the year 198182 Ex.A9is Pahani patrik for the year 198283 Ex.A10is Pahani patrik for the year 198485 Exs.A11 are sisth receipts to A13 Ex.A14 Rythu pass book Ex.A15CC of Judgment in LRA No.4 of 1981 Ex.A16Order of Hon'ble High Court in WP Mis.ptn.No.6117/1987 Ex.A17Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.1886/1987 Ex.A18NamunaI pertaining to Rabia Beum Ex.A19Affidavit of Smt.Rabia Begum before the LRA Peddapalli
37
OS No.1 of 2001
Ex.A20 Land revenue receipts to A22 Ex.A23Agreement of sale in Urdu language Ex.A24Translated of Ex.A23 in English Ex.A25 is pahani for the year 198586 Ex.A26 13B Namuna and 13C Namuna of plaintiff No.1 & A27 Ex.A28Order of RDO, Manthani in case No.A/515/2002 Ex.A29Unregistered sale deed dt.11.5.1987 Ex.A30 13B and 13C Namuna of plaintiff No.2 and A31 Ex.A32Pattadar pass book of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A33Title deed of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A34Unregistered sale deed dt.24.5.1987 Ex.A35 13B and 13C Namuna of plaintiff No.3 & A36 Ex.A37Pattadar pass book of plaintiff No.3 Ex.A38Title deed of plaintiff No.3
For the Defendants
Ex.B1 Extracts of number of survey numbers submitted to the to B4Tahsildar by the Patwari/T.Panduranga Rao. Ex.B5Copy of agreement of sale dt.2.6.1975 Ex.B6 are land revenue receipts to B8 Ex.B9 CC of counter in I.A.No.229/71 on the file of SubCourt, Karimnagar. Ex.B10 CC of order dt.16.4.1971 in I.A.No.229/1971 Ex.B11 CC of compromise petition in I.A.No.731/1971 in OS No.2/1970 Ex.B12 CC of Amendment plaint in OS No.2/1970 Ex.B13 CC of Report of Commissioner Ex.B14 is original regd.sale deed dt.12.6.1964. Ex.B15 is original regd.sale deed dt 5.6.1970 Ex.B16 is original registered sale deed dt.22.6.1970 Ex.B17 CC of final decree dt.14.8.1974 in I.A.No.32/1974 in OS No.2/1970 Ex.B18 CC of Memorandum of appeal in L.R.No.25/1979 Ex.B19 CC of Judgment in LRA No.25/1979 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Karimnagar. Ex.B20 CC of Memorandum of appeal dt.29.6.1979 in LRA No.39/1979
38
OS No.1 of 2001
Ex.B21 CC of Judgment dt.8.8.1979 in LRA No.39/1979
Ex.B22 Is the Letter in file No.CC No.P/1285/75. Ex.B23 Is the Leter dt.23.8.1982 in file No.P/1285/75 Ex.B24 Is the letter dt.18.9.1987 issued by defendant company Ex.B25 Is the letter dt.26.9.1989 issued by defendant company Ex.B26 CC of amendment plaint dt.22.2.1971 in I.A.No.229/1971 Ex.B27 CC of pahani patrik for the year 198889 Ex.B28 CC of pahani patrik for the year 198990 Ex.B29 CC of pahani patrik for the year 199192 Ex.B30 CC of pahani patrik for the year 199293 Ex.B31 CC of pahani patrik for the year 199495 Ex.B32 CC of deposition of PW1 dt.20.8.1993 in OS No.290/1987
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PEDDAPALLI.
FAC SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MANTHANI.