1
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
BEFORE THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
NELLORE
PRESENT: K. Venkata Naga Pavan,
Judge, Family Court-cum-
VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
Monday, the 25th day of November, 2024
O.S. No.72 of 2012
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the District Collector, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District… Plaintiff
Vs.
Mannem Bharathi Devi …Defendant
This suit came up on 29.10.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. Kakani Jyothi, Government Pleader for the plaintiff and of Sri Y. Ramaiah, Advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff/State Government against the defendant seeking declaration of it’s right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property, delivery of possession, declaration of Pattadar
Passbook and Title Deed issued to the defendant in relation to plaint schedule property as not valid and binding on the plaintiff, and for costs.
2.(i) The plaintiff submits as follows: Gottigundala Village of
Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District was originally an Inam Estate 2
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 under the name and style of Dodlavari Samsthanam. The said estate was taken over under the provisions of Estates Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari Act, 1948, which came into force on 03.12.1951 and settlement rights were introduced on 01.07.1960. Since then the said village came to be vested on the Government. The full extent of the land of the village was thus taken over is, Ac.8,789-14 cents. During the settlement operations the Settlement Officer granted ryotwari pattas to various persons on proof of their possession and cultivation of the land prior to 07.09.1948. After completion of the said exercise an extent of Ac.3,928- 43 cents was left out being un-occupied (Gayalu), Porambokes and unassessed waste lands and the same were entered as such in Revenue records. An extent of Ac.283.02 cents being Inam lands no one came forward to claim the said land under Inams Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari Act, 1956. As there was no application either from Inamdars or from the alleged tenants, the entire extent of Ac.283-02 cents came to be vested in the Government as Government land.
(ii) The entire extent of Gottigundala Village was divided into 34
Khandams and Fair Adangal Register was prepared. In respect of each
Khandam, a detailed list is prepared known as ‘Khandam Extract’. Two sets of Fair Adangal books were prepared, one is kept with the Settlement
Officer and the other with the Tahsildar concerned. The Fair Adangal
Register is available in the Collectorate Office and Central Survey Office,
Hyderabad. The manuscript Register was prepared for mutating the same in the Diglot of Revenue lands. After merger of Settlement Department with Collectorate, the Fair Adangal copy was made over to Collectorate and it was also sent to the Central Survey Office, Hyderabad to print 3
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Diglot. The manuscript copy sent to Central Survey Office for printing is accessible to the citizens.
(iii) The Government noticed that the Fair Adangals copy in the
Office of Collectorate/Tahsildar having jurisdiction over Gottigundala
Village of Kondapuram Mandal were tampered in respect of its 1st four pages. It found that 1st four pages have been surreptitiously removed and in it’s place two sheets were surreptitiously substituted. The Village
Revenue Officers intentionally brought out changes in collusion with ryots.
The lands in 1st four pages were recorded as patta lands, though no patta was granted. The changes were inserted in different handwritings. But, as per the Kandam abstract, the lands are Government lands and as per
Manuscript Diglot Register also these lands were shown as Government lands. Though Fair Adangal was tampered, the manuscript Diglot
Register which was sent to the Central Survey Office, Hyderabad for printing of Diglot Register is intact and it is still in its virgin condition.
(iv) In Column No.4 of the Fair Adangal the wording ‘A.W. dry’ was erased and it was substituted with ‘dry’. In some cases the word “Government” (Cirkaru) was erased and the letter “I” (for Inam) was substituted.
(v) In Column No.12 under the head of classification of the land, the words “Gayalu/Vagu/Cart-track” etc., were noted. The word ‘Gayalu’ was erased and irrelevant words like “Term-Rate-Cist” were written by a different handwritings and in different ink also. The erases were chemically made. The ink remover was used and in some cases safety razor blades were put in service to secure the required changes. In
Column No.11 the name of defendant was entered by a different 4
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 handwriting, which can be easily perceived. But in Khandam Abstract and in manuscript record, the lands were entered as Government lands.
(vi) As seen from the 1-B account, Pattadar Passbooks, which were obtained in some cases the lands were noted as Government lands in the manuscript Diglot Register. But during the enquiry of Joint Collector, the defendant has not produced even the xerox copy o the said Pattadar
Passbook. As such, fraud can be understood.
(vii) The age of the defendant in the affidavit filed before the
Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition was mentioned as less than 50 years.
But the Fair Adangal and manuscript Diglot Register were prepared more than 50 years ago, which means that the defendant was not even born by the time of preparation of Fair Adangal/Manuscript Diglot Register. The defendant obtained Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed fraudulently for the plaint schedule property. The defendant has no residence in Gottigundala
Village at any point of time. The defendant belongs to some other district.
In collusion with Revenue Officers, the defendant obtained certified copies of Adangal Extracts and with the help of those copies, the defendant obtained Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed under R.O.R. Act. The
R.O.R. Act has application only in respect of private land and it has no application in respect of Government lands. The Revenue authorities without verifying Fair Adangal Register and Khandam abstract statements of the Manuscript Diglot Register have granted Pattadar Passbook and
Title Deed to the defendant for the plaint schedule property.
(viii) On coming to know about the fraud, the Government initiated suo moto proceedings under Sec.9 of R.O.R. Act and cancelled the
Pattadar passbook and Title Deed. Then the defendant filed a Writ 5
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Petition in W.P. No.16834/2006 and it was allowed by the Hon’ble High
Court of A.P., directing the Government to file a Civil suit by approaching
Civil Court. The Division bench of High Court also confirmed the said
Order.
(ix) The defendant relied upon Agreement and Title Deed, where under the source of title of vendors was not clearly indicated. The vendors of defendant or their predecessors had no title in the schedule property.
The Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds were granted during the year 2000 by playing fraud upon the plaintiff. The defendant is not in continuous possession for 30 years to claim any right over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
3. (i) The defendant filed written statement denying all the allegations.
The defendant claimed ignorance about Gottigundala village as Inam
Estate, and vesting of the same in the Government after abolition of
Estates. The defendant also claimed ignorance about division of
Gottigundala Village into Khandams and preparation of Fair Adangal
Register, Khandam abstract and Manuscript Register. She also claimed ignorance about the availability of such Registers at various Revenue
Offices. She submitted that there was no certainty in the pleadings of the plaintiff. The defendant questioned about availability of another Fair
Adangal Register, which was not manipulated. The defendant also claimed ignorance about tampering of Revenue Records particularly the
Fair Adangals. She submits as follows:- The suit is not maintainable and barred as the authority who signed and verified the plaint is not competent authority and no authorization is filed as required under rule 32 of Civil 6
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Rules of Practice. The plaintiff did not file certified copies of Khandam abstract and Manuscript Diglot Register to prove his averments. The plaintiff failed to mention the date of knowledge of tampering and failed to take any legal action against its Officers.
(ii) Originally the schedule lands in question belonged to Uppalapati
Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah, in whose names
Government issued Settlement Pattas. They had become absolute owners and peaceful possessors. Then defendant purchased schedule lands from the original Pattadars for valid consideration under agreement of sale dated 12.04.1978. Since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment. She got registered the schedule lands through Spl.ROR Act vide Spl.ROR.Reg. No.547/1998. Her name is noted as Pattadar and Possessor in Fair Adangal, diglot i.e., ‘A’ Register and also in Adangals. Then Tahsildar issued Pattadar passbooks after verification. This present suit is filed only to cause trouble. He is not aware of tampering of revenue records. He is a native of Gottigundala
Village. He has 30 years of continuous possession over the suit schedule property. In the year 2004 N.V. Krishnaiah, the then M.R.O., Kondapuram
Mandal used to purchase lands through some ryots just before his retirement. He resorted to unlawful earnings. Due to the differences between M.R.O., and a ryot by name Paparao, the Mandal revenue
Officer made fictitious and false allegations and gave false reports to the
District Collector. Based on such reports, the District Collector considered the patta lands as Government lands and gave directions to stop registration of schedule lands to the Registrar and it was also insisted that ryots of Gottigundala Village have to obtain certificate from the Joint 7
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Collector before registration of the lands. New records are created by the plaintiff to defeat his rights. The plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property. He perfected title by prescription. Plaintiff suppressed about pending proceedings before Supreme Court. The plaintiff failed to produce tampered Revenue records. There is no evidence to support it’s allegations. There is no cause of action. Hence she prays to dismiss the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant died. As such, the daughter of defendant has been impleaded as defendant No.2, who contested the present suit.
4.Based on the above pleadings, this Court settled the following issues for trial: - (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession from the defendant over the plaint schedule property?
(2)Whether the Pattadar Passbook and title deed issued in favour of the defendant is not valid, binding on the plaintiff?
(3)Whether the defendant has perfected her title by prescription over a period of 30 years?
(4)To what relief?
5.During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 and PW.2 are examined. Exs.A.1 to A.9 are marked. DW.1 filed chief affidavit and it was eschewed subsequently due to her non-appearance. On behalf of the sole defendant, DWs.2 and 3 are examined. Exs.B.1 to B.13 are 8
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 marked. On behalf of the Court, CW.1 is examined. Exs.X.1 to X.4 are marked.
6.Heard both and perused the record including written arguments filed by both the parties.
ISSUE No.2: -
7.Ex.A.3 is the attested copy of Fair Adangal containing suit schedule property Survey Number of Gottigundala village, Kondapuram Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District. At the time of marking this Ex.A.3, the Counsel for defendant raised an objection. As such this document was marked subject to the objection. As per Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act, the
Fair Adangal is maintained in the Office of District Collector. As such, it is a public document. As per Section 65(e) of Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document. Ex.A.3 is the attested copy of Fair Adangal as it is a copy made from the original, compared with original and attested by the
Tahsildar, Kondapuram Mandal. The same is taken as a secondary evidence as defined under Section 63(2) & (3) of Indian Evidence Act.
Further, PW.1 Tahsildar gave his evidence as to the contents of Fair
Adangal/Ex.A.3. As per Section 63(5) of Evidence Act, his oral accounts of the contents of Ex.A.3 can be considered as secondary evidence and is permissible by Law of Evidence. Further there are about 26 Original Suits filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against various persons claiming the ownership right over lands at Gottigundala Village, Kondapuram Mandal.
As such, filing of original and getting the same marked as an exhibit in all the 26 Original Suits is impracticable. Further, there is a chance of theft or 9
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 manipulation during the course of production. As such, the law contemplates filing of secondary evidence when the original is a public document. In view of the same, the objection taken by the learned
Counsel for defendant is not tenable and is hereby rejected.
8.(i) In the present suit, the suit schedule property is situated at
Gottigundala Village, Kondapuram Mandal. In Ex.A.3 and A.5, the lands were classified as “Gayalu” as against the above said survey numbers.
“Gayalu” literally means ‘the land unfit for cultivation’. “Gayalu” means a ‘Government Poramboke land’. The plaintiff contends that the suit schedule property is a Government land and he filed Ex.A.3 and A.5 in proof of his contention. Government also contends that it did not issue any ryotwari patta to the defendant or his predecessors in title. In the absence of such a ryotwari patta, the suit schedule property remains a
Government land. The plaintiff having discharged his burden, the onus to prove that the suit schedule property is his private land, shifts on to the defendant. Ex.A.1 is the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. It is a common order in various Writ Petitions filed by many persons. The defendant herein is one of such persons, who filed Writ Petition in W.P.
No.16834/2006. The defendant filed Pattadar Passbook (Ex.B.4) and
Title Deed (Ex.B.5) issued in her favour by M.R.O., Kondapuram Mandal in 2002. As per the provisions of R.O.R. Act, the entries in Revenue records give rise to a presumption of title but they are not conclusive proof. Just like under Registration Act, mere registration does not confer any title unless the transferor has title. It is a maxim that no person can transfer a better title than what he himself has. In order to show that it is 10
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 his private land having purchased from the real owners, the defendant has to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the same. Having failed to do so, the defendant cannot claim ownership over plaint schedule property based on Exs.B.3, B.4 and B.5. As per Exs.A.3 and A.5, the suit schedule property was classified as “Gayalu” and it is a Government land. It is up to the defendant to prove that how he or his vendors obtained ryotwari patta from the Government. The defendant failed to prove the same.
8.(ii) At Para No.12 of Written Statement, Defendant submitted that originally plaint schedule property belonged to Uppalapati Venkata
Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah, in whose favour the Government previously issued settlement Pattas. At Para No.12 of Written Statement,
Defendant also submitted that she purchased suit schedule lands from the
Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah by way of
Agreement of Sale. Defendant submitted that subsequently her sale was regularized under ROR Act vide Spl. ROR Register No.547/1998.
Defendant did not file settlement Pattas issued by Government in favour of Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah. Defendant did not mention the year in which Government granted such Pattas in favour of her vendors by names, Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and
Kodimela Veeraiah. Defendant did not file Agreement of Sale entered by her with her vendors. Ex.B.3 filed by her is not valid as it is given in respect of Government land. Issuing ROR proceedings in respect of
Government land is not contemplated under provisions of ROR Act. No
Government record is filed by plaintiff or defendant showing the grant of settlement Patta by Government in favour of Uppalapati Venkata
Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah. For Government land, Pattadar 11
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Passbook and Title Deed cannot be issued as per the provisions of
R.O.R. Act. But, contrary to the provisions of R.O.R. Act, the then M.R.O.
issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in favour of the defendant.
Therefore, it is inferred that the defendant colluded with the then Revenue officials in order to obtain Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in the name of defendant with respect to the suit schedule property, which is a
Government land. Therefore, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.3: -
9.The defendant obtained Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in 2002.
As per Ex.A.1 it is understood that the District Collector, Nellore issued a show-cause notice to the defendant on 01.08.2005 for the purpose of cancellation of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed. The defendant did not plead from which date either herself or her predecessors have been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
Her plea is vague. Except stating that she perfected her title by prescription, she did not take a plea from which date she or her vendors have been in possession. As per the written statement, the defendant claims that she purchased the suit schedule property from Uppalapati
Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah under an agreement of sale. The agreement of sale does not confer any title. Under law, her title cannot be accepted. Further the defendant failed to produce the Title deed and Pattadar Passbook of her vendors. The defendant failed to explain how she got title over the suit schedule property. She failed to explain how her vendors got title over the suit schedule property. She failed to 12
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 explain since how long her vendors have been in possession. She failed to explain since how long any of her predecessors-in-title have been in possession of suit schedule property. As per Exs.B.3, B.4 and B.5 filed by the defendant and as per Ex.A.1, her possession was recognized from the year 2002. Thereafter discovering the fraud committed by the defendant, the District Collector, Nellore issued a show-cause notice on 01.08.2005 and subsequently cancelled the Patadar Passbook and Title Deed on 30.06.2006 by suo motu exercising Revisional powers under Sec.9 of
R.O.R. Act. Thereafter this defendant filed a Writ Petition in 2006. As per the Orders of Hon’ble High Court, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Even assuming that the defendant was in possession subsequent to issuance of
Pattadar Passbook in the year 2002, her possession was challenged in the year 2005 by issuance of a show-cause notice. For a period of 3 years the defendant cannot claim prescription or adverse possession. By leading cogent and positive evidence, the defendant must prove her continuous and uninterrupted possession along with her predecessors-in- title for 30 years prior to 01.08.2005. That means the defendant must plead and prove his continuous and uninterrupted possession of suit schedule property from the year 1975. Then only she is entitled to claim the rights under prescription. In the present case the defendant did not even plead as to the starting point of the prescription period. In the absence of such a pleading and proof, the defendant cannot be said to have acquired rights under prescription. DW.2 stated in his cross- examination that the defendant did not file any document to show her possession for last 30 years. In the cross-examination it was elicited that she obtained Pattadar Passbook in 2002 and Exs.B.3 to B.5 are of the 13
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 year 2002. In the suit on hand, the defendant failed to prove her possession for 30 years prior to 2005. The defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof. As such, the issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.1: -
10.The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property is the
Government land and defendant fraudulently intercepted the entries of
Fair Adangal and obtained Pattadar passbook and Title Deed from the concerned M.R.O. It is further contended that having noticed it, he issued a show-cause notice and cancelled the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed on 30.06.2006. Aggrieved by the Orders, the defendant filed Writ Petition in W.P. No.16834/2006. As per the direction of Hon’ble High Court, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit seeking declaration of title to the suit schedule property. In support of his contention, Exs.A.3, and A.5 were marked. As against the suit schedule property, the word “Gayalu” was recorded in Exs.A.3 and A.5. “Gayalu” means ‘a Government
Poramboke land’. The defendant did not raise any dispute as to the contents of Exs.A.3 and A.5. Though PW.1 was subjected to extensive cross-examination by the Counsel for defendant, nothing adverse could be elicited. PW.1 stated that Ex.A.3 was prepared in 1959 or 1960. If any ryotwari patta was issued after preparation of Ex.A.3/Fair Adangal, the same would be incorporated in the Fair Adangal. As seen from the entries of Ex.A.3 filed by PW.1, it is proved that there are no such incorporations of the name of defendant as against the schedule property. As such, it is proved that the ryotwari patta was not granted to the defendant either at 14
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 the time of preparing or subsequent, to Ex.A.3. The plaintiff discharged his burden of proving the suit schedule property as ‘Government land’.
Now, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove that the ryotwari patta was granted either to her or to her vendors by names Uppalapati Venkata
Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah. The defendant failed to file any such ryotwari patta. The defendant failed to prove that a ryotwari patta was granted. The suit schedule property was a “Gayalu” land. How it was converted to a ‘ryoti land’ was not explained and proved by the defendant.
In the absence of such proof, the defendant cannot be rightful owner of the suit schedule property. In an estate land, a ryotwari patta can be claimed at any time by making an application to the Tahsildar on proof of his possession prior to the year 1948. There is no limitation period. The defendant failed to explain whether her vendors made any application for ryotwari patta and obtained a ryotwari patta by any orders of Tahsildar.
The defendant also failed to explain when and how any of her alleged vendors obtained any ryotwari patta from the Tahsildar. In the absence of such ryotwari patta, the defendant cannot claim any right for Government land (Gayalu land). In the absence of such ryotwari patta, the Revenue
Authorities cannot grant Pattadar Passbook and title Deed to the defendant. Issuance of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in favour of defendant without there being any ryotwari patta or without any plausible explanation and proof of conversion of “Gayalu” land into ‘ryoti land’, is against the provisions of Estates Act and R.O.R. Act. The registration of a
Government land fraudulently in favour of a private individual does not create any right in favour of the particular individual. Similarly, the issuance of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed without complying with the 15
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 provisions of Estates Act and R.O.R. Act does not create any title or right in favour of the defendant with respect to suit schedule property. As per
Section 11 of Estates Act, if any person claims any possession over the
Estate land prior to 1948, he can make an application for issuance of ryotwari patta. Limitation Act is not applicable for making such applications. In the present suit, there is no pleading and proof as to the making of any application for issuance of ryotwari patta by the defendant or her vendors.
11.The Counsel for defendant posed question to PW.1 with respect to sending the list of Government lands to the Sub-Registrars. At this juncture, this Court takes note of the amendment to the provisions of
Registration Act and insertion of Section 22-A therein. This amendment took place in the year 2007. As per 2007 Amendment, the District
Collector must prepare a list of Government lands, assigned lands, Wakf lands, Endowments lands and Ceiling lands and lands on which Court attachments are pending and send the same to the concerned Registrar
Offices. In the present suit, the alleged transactions under agreement of sale and obtaining fraudulent Passbooks took place prior to 2007.
Therefore, sending of such list of Registrars was not done by the District
Collector.
12.Without granting ryotwari patta, the issuance of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed is not valid and is in violation of provisions of Estates Act and R.O.R. Act.
16
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
13.The Counsel for defendant also posed questions relating to Land
Encroachment Act to PW.1. The provisions of Land Encroachment Act will apply when there is an encroachment. Here in the present suit, the defendant is claiming title under fabricated documents. As such, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for declaration as recommended by the
Hon’ble High Court under Exs.A.1 and A.2. Further, the defendant along
with others is not just claiming possession, but is also claiming title under
Pattadar Passbook and title Deed allegedly issued in her favour. As such, the then District Collector promptly responded and suo moto invoked his revisional powers under Sec.9 of R.O.R. Act. If any person claims possession without any authority like pattadar passbook or title deed, he is called an encroacher. He can be dealt with under Land Encroachment
Act. But, the facts in the present suit are different. As such, not invoking the provisions of Land Encroachment Act, cannot be taken advantage of by the defendant. The defendant miserably failed to produce the ryotwari patta allegedly granted by the Government in favour of her vendors. It is true that the PW.1 did not state as to the person, who tampered the adangal/Ex.A.4(tampered fair adangal) and in which year the said tampering took place. Non-mentioning of the said facts cannot be taken advantage of by the defendant. There is no dispute as to the columns in
Ex.A.3. There are only 12 columns. Column No.12 deals with the classification of the land. All the suit schedule lands were classified as “Gayalu lands” as per Exs.A.3 and A.5. PW.1 in the course of her cross- examination stated that the suit schedule lands were kept vacant and they were in the possession of Government. The Revenue records also show the possession of the Government as per PW.1. PW.1 specifically denied 17
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 that the suit schedule lands are the private lands of the defendant. PW.1 also stated that MDR entries (Manual Register) are against the defendant.
14.The Counsel for defendant posed certain questions to the PW.1 with respect to collection of Stamp Duty, Penalty and regularizing patta lands. This regularization has no application to the suit schedule properties, which are Government lands. The regularization is popularly known as “SADHA BINAMA’ in Telangana State. When two private persons enter into any unstamped or un-registered sale transactions with respect to private lands, the Government, under Sec.5-A of R.O.R. Act, can regularize such transactions. This provision is not applicable to the
Government lands as there is a specific bar under Sec.12 of R.O.R. Act. If two persons enter into a sale transaction on an un-stamped or un- registered document with respect to a Government land, the same is not valid and cannot be regularized. As such, regularization is permitted only with respect to private lands. PW.1 stated that the agreement of sale
dated 12.04.1978 was regularized after collection of stamp duty and
penalty under Special R.O.R. Reg. No.547/1998 (Ex.B.3). The defendant failed to file and prove the agreement of sale dated 12.04.1978. The defendant also failed to prove it’s validity before this Court. Further, by 1978 the defendant was very young. All through the defendant misled the Court by filing fabricated Revenue Records. As such, plaintiff is declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property directing the defendant to deliver the possession to the plaintiff forthwith and declaring the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed issued in favour of the defendant with respect to the plaint schedule property as not valid and binding on the plaintiff.
18
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
15.Title of the defendant: -
Defendant claimed title based on an agreement of sale executed by
Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah, which was subsequently regularized by the Revenue Department. The basic rule of
Transfer of Property Act is, “No person can pass a better title than what he himself has”. In the suit on hand, there is no piece of evidence filed by the defendant to prove Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela
Veeraiah had title over the plaint schedule property. Defendant did not file the Pattadar Passbook or Title Deed issued in favour of Uppalapati
Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah. Defendant did not produce any settlement Patta granted in favour of Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah. Defendant did not produce Adangal/Pahani of any year, which reflects the names of Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah as Pattadars or Possessors of plaint schedule property. Mere registration of a document does not confer any title unless the transferor has a valid transferable title. So also, regularization of an
Agreement of Sale by the Revenue Department by collecting the Stamp duty and Registration Fee does not confer any title on a person unless the transferor under the said Agreement of Sale has a valid and transferable right over the property. In the case on hand, Uppalapati Venkata
Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah did not have any valid and transferable right or title over the plaint schedule properties. Then, they could not convey any title under alleged agreement of sale allegedly executed in the year 1978. The defendant did not file the alleged agreement of sale. The failure of the defendant to submit the so-called regularized agreement of sale casts a doubt on her case. It is absolutely 19
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 unbelievable for the defendant to wait till 2002 for issuance of Pattadar
Passbook and Title Deed and for regularization of Agreement of Sale when she obtained an agreement of sale in the year 1978. There is absolutely no documentary evidence filed by the defendant in support of her title. The Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed issued by the Revenue
Department under the provisions of ROR Act do not confer any title. The entries made by the Revenue Department are for the purpose of collecting revenue, but they do not confer any title. The plaintiff raised dispute in the year 2005 after plaintiff came to know about the forgery of it’s documents.
Defendant failed to establish her title. From the documents filed by her, it is proved that she manipulated Government Record in the year 2002 and obtained Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in collusion with the then
Mandal Revenue Officer. The Counsel for defendant vehemently argued that the weakness of defendant’s title shall not result in decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration. This Court agrees with the said argument.
The plaintiff successfully proved it’s title by producing tampered FLR, untampered FLR, MDR, Gazette, and Tapsi list wherein Government was shown to be the original owner of plaint schedule properties. When plaint schedule properties is shown as Gayalu, Government is the owner and defendant can not claim gayalu lands without documentary proof. Had
Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah acquired Pattas prior to 1960, they would have been shown as owners in F.L.R. and
M.D.R. In the cross-examination of PW.2, the Counsel for defendant made suggestions that there would have been granting of Pattas in favour of some persons after 1960. DW.2 answered the said suggestion in positive. Assuming that some Pattas were granted in favour of Uppalapati 20
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah after 1960, it is for the defendant to prove the same by filing those pattas. But, it is not for the plaintiff to prove the title of the defendant. In the cross-examination of
PW.2, the defendant posed several questions suggesting that it failed to prove the title of the defendant. It is an absurd proposition. It is for the defendant to prove her title. It is not for the plaintiff to prove the title of the defendant. In the suit on hand, the defendant utterly failed to prove her title. She did not file any document to show her title or possession or title and possession of her vendors by names Uppalapati Venkata
Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah. Filing a forged and manipulated
F.L.R wherein Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah were shown as Pattadars is not believed by this Court and is not in line with the original F.L.R and M.D.R filed by the plaintiff. In the cross- examination of PW.1 and PW.2, defendant put many questions which are no way related to the title of the plaintiff or defendant. DW.1 categorically admitted that he did not file any document to prove possession of the
Defendant for the last 30 years.
16.(i) From the evidence of PW.1, it is proved that ryotwari Pattas granted after 1960 would be inserted in Fair Adangal and Manuscript
Diglot Register. In the case on hand, Manuscript Diglot Register does not contain the name of any private person as the owner of suit schedule property. The defendant failed to prove the Manuscript Diglot Register as fake and bogus.
16.(ii) Evidence of PW.2/CW.1: - His evidence is primarily concerned with Exs.A.4 to A.9 and Exs.X.1 to X.4. During his cross- 21
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 examination, many irrelevant and unnecessary questions were put. One such objection raised during the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2 is related to authorization of PW.1 and PW.2 to depose on behalf of plaintiff.
PW.1 is none other than the Tahsildar of Kondapuram Village. PW.2 is also a successor Tahsildar of Kondapuram Village. They are authorized persons. The District Collector need not sign the plaint. It is sufficient, if it is signed by the Tahsildar of Kondapuram Village, wherein suit schedule property is situated. All the Government contracts are executed in the name of Governor. Governor does not come in person to execute every contract. It is a basic rule of Administrative Law that any subordinate
Officer can be delegated to exercise the powers and to execute the duties of the Superior Officer. Therefore, the objection raised by the defendant is not sustainable in law. In the cross-examination of PW.2, the following facts are elicited:
16.(ii.ii) “The Suit Schedule property originally belongs to Dodlavari
Samsthanam. As per Ex.A.6, the Settlement operations completed by the year 1960. He did not file list of ryotwari pattas granted after the year 1960. Ex.A.4 is Fair Adangal pertaining to Collector’s Office. The dispute relating to suit schedule property is pending since 2005. Fair Adangal filed by Tahsildar, Kondapuram in O.S. No.401/2005 was marked as
Ex.B.1 and it was a tampered Fair Adangal. The Pattadar Passbooks granted in favour of defendants in 2002 were cancelled. Fair Adangal and
MDR were prepared simultaneously. Ex.B.1 and A.4 were fabricated.”
The Counsel for defendant made a suggestion to PW.2 that Uppalapati
Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah, vendors of defendant were granted ryotwari patta subsequent to the year 1960. There is no such 22
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 pleading by the defendant. There is no documentary proof filed by the defendant in support of her suggestion.
16.(ii.iii) On perusal of evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is found that defendant could not elicit anything to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is found reliable. On the appreciation of entire evidence of the plaintiff and defendant, the suit schedule property is originally a Government property. The defendant did not file any document to show the transfer of ownership from the Government to her vendors. Once it is proved to be a Government land, the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to prove how she acquired the ownership over the plaint schedule property. The defendant failed to prove the acquisition of ownership by her vendors from the Government. It is for the defendant to prove her title by positive evidence. Defendant failed to prove her title.
She did not file the ryotwari patta granted by plaintiff. In the cross- examination of PW.2, some suggestions were made, as if it was for the plaintiff to prove the title of the defendant. However, it is not so.
(iii) Evidence of DW.1:
Defendant is a woman, said to be of 70 years old. According to her, she purchased plaint schedule property under agreement of sale on 12.04.1978. She did not file any age proof. She did not file any residence proof. She did not file any adangal or Cist Receipt. She did not explain what prevented her to obtain registered sale deed or regulated sale deed, or Pattadar Passbook till 2002. She did not file any ryotwari patta issued by plaintiff in favour of her vendors. She fabricated Revenue
Records to make a wrongful claim on the land of Government. Though 23
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 she filed chief affidavit, she did not come forward to face cross- examination on the ground of her ill-health. Her chief affidavit was eschewed on a memo filed by her Counsel.
(iv) Evidence of DW.2:
DW.2 has deposed that defendant is his wife. He filed chief affidavit deposing how his wife became absolute owner of suit schedule property.
Though DW.1 is alive, her chief affidavit had to be eschewed on the memo filed by her Counsel. Her husband was examined as DW.2. DW.2 was subjected to cross-examination. Exs.B.1 to B.8 are marked through him.
He claimed ignorance when asked about the history of Gottiguntala
Village. DW.2 does not know whether Gottiguntala Village was Dodla
Samsthanam or not. DW.2 even does not know whether any Settlement
Patta was granted in favour of the vendors of the defendant. He, being the husband of the defendant, is supposed to know the facts of the written statement. In the written statement at Para No.12, defendant took a plea that her vendors by names Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and
Kodimela Veeraiah obtained Settlement Pattas from the
Government/Plaintiff and she became absolute owner, having purchased from them. However, in the cross-examination DW.2 categorically stated that he was not having knowledge about granting of Settlement Pattas in favour of the vendors of his wife. Defendant did not file any Settlement
Pattas granted in favour of her vendors. As such, it is understood that plaintiff did not issue any Settlement Pattas in favour of Uppalapati
Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah. In the absence of such pattas, Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah could not get any title to alienate to the defendant. As elicited from DW.2, 24
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Exs.B.1 to B.3 are of the year 2002. It is inferred that the tampering of
F.L.R. must have taken place around 2000 and all the documents thereafter, were fabricated for the purpose of claiming false title. Ex.B.8 original Cist Receipt is not having date and is not having the signature of
Panchayat Secretary. Ex.B.8 has no value. It is also elicited from DW.2 that there is no document to show that defendant and her vendors have been in possession for the last 30 years. It is rightly stated by DW.2. As seen from the record, there is no document filed by the defendant to show that the defendant and her vendors have been in possession of plaint schedule property for 30 years. In such a case, plaintiff cannot claim title by way of prescription or adverse possession. As rightly elicited from
DW.2, defendant obtained Pattadar Passbook in 2002. According to Para
No.12 of written statement, defendant purchased suit schedule lands from
Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah through
Agreement of Sale dated 12.04.1978. In such a case, what prevented the defendant to get her agreement of sale regularized till 1998 is not explained. There is no Cist Receipt filed to show that defendant has been in possession since 1978. DW.2 stated the same thing. What prevented the defendant to obtain Pattadar Passbook till 2002, is not explained.
Moreover, the Gottigundala Village was an Estate Village. Unless any
Settlement Patta is granted, no person gets any title. In the suit on hand, there is no such Settlement Patta. The original ownership of plaintiff is an admitted fact by the defendant at Para No.12 of written statement. Ex.B.7 is of the year 2015. Ex.B.7 is the judgment passed in an Injunction Suit.
Ex.B.7 has no bearing on this case. In his cross-examination, it is elicited from DW.2 that the year of regularisation of agreement of sale was 25
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 registered with Sub-Registrar. That is not a fact. DW.2 falsely stated that the agreement of sale was registered with Sub-Registrar. The conduct of
DW.2 shows that the alleged documents, on which his wife was claiming title, are tampered documents. It is rightly elicited from cross-examination of DW.2 that defendant did not file any adangals showing her name.
Defendant filed Ex.B.6. Ex.B.6 is said to be a Settlement Register, issued by Panchayat Secretary. Panchayat Secretary is not competent authority to issue any Settlement Register. He is not rightful custodian of Ex.B.6.
Therefore, Ex.B.6 has no value of whatsoever in nature. As rightly elicited from DW.2, there is no date mentioned in Ex.B.6. Ex.B.2 is said to be
Permanent ‘A’ Register allegedly issued by C.C.L.A., Hyderabad. Ex.B.2 is not proved by examining the person, who issued it. The competent authority to issue Permanent ‘A’ Register is, Tahsildar, but not C.C.L.A.
Even assuming that Ex.B.2 is correct for a moment, it did not reflect the entries of untampered F.L.R and original of M.D.R. DW.2 denied the suggestion that Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.6 are fabricated and the vendors of his wife could not derive any title. On perusal of his oral testimony coupled with documentary evidence, it is proved that defendant tried to make a claim on land belonging to the plaintiff by fabricating Exs.B.1 to B.8.
(v) Evidence of DW.3:
Defendant examined a person said to be resident of Gottigundala
Village, as DW.3. DW.3 deposed that defendant, a native of Hyderabad, purchased suit schedule lands in the year 1978 through one
Dasaradharamaiah and defendant has been in possession for the last 44 years and the vendors of defendant left the village in 1980. As such, registration could not be done in favour of defendant. There are are 26
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 improvements made by DW.3 in order to fill the lacuna in the case of defendant. All the above statements deposed by DW.3 were not pleaded by the original defendant. Defendant did not plead that his vendors left the village in the year 1980. The husband of defendant himself stated in the cross-examination that there was no document to show that defendant and her vendors were in possession for last 30 years. In such circumstances, the deposition of DW.3 that defendant has been in possession for the last 44 years, is not having any value. From the cross- examination of DW.3, it is elicited that DW.3 left the village Gottigundala about 10 years ago and defendant purchased suit schedule property through registered deed. It is a false statement. Defendant did not purchase suit schedule property through any registered deed. Even according to defendant, she allegedly purchased the suit schedule lands under an un-registered agreement of sale. DW.3 does not even know where the defendant is residing presently. In the cross-examination,
DW.3 stated that defendant purchased suit schedule property from
Ramarao, Krishna Rao, etc. DW.3 does not even know the vendors of defendant, as seen from this statement. According to defendant, she allegedly purchased from Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela
Veeraiah. But, DW.3 stated that it was purchased from Rama Rao,
Krishna Rao, etc. It is elicited from DW.3 that the suit schedule property was Government land and defendant was granted patta. It is also a false version. As seen from the record, defendant was not granted any patta by the plaintiff. Immediately DW.3 stated that he did not see any patta granted in favour of the defendant or her predecessor. On perusal of testimony of DW.3, it is understood that he was planted by the defendant 27
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 to fill the lacuna and his testimony is not reliable. DW.3 does not know anything. The testimony of DW.3 is not supported by the documentary evidence to support the case of defendant. The oral testimony of DW.2 and DW.3 is not reliable and it does not help the case of defendant.
(vi)The defendant clearly admitted original ownership of plaintiff at Para No.12 of her written statement. Defendant contended that plaintiff issued pattas in favour of her vendors and she purchased the suit schedule property from her vendors. Defendant failed to submit, depose and prove the year, in which her vendors obtained Pattas from the
Government and failed to prove the granting of such Pattas. The defendant failed to produce any such ryotwari patta granted in favour of her vendors. Defendant failed to file Pattadar passbook and Title Deed of her vendors. Defendant failed to file Adangals, wherein her vendors were shown as owners. Defendant did not file the alleged agreement of sale,
dated 12.04.1978. The names of her vendors were not shown as
Pattadars in Basic Settlement Records like Exs.A.3 and A.5.
(vii)Ex.B.3 does not confer title on the defendant as it is found that the alleged vendors of the defendant did not hold any title or interest in the suit schedule property. There is no document filed by the defendant to prove the title of her vendors. Ex.B.1 is based on tampered entries and
Ex.B.2 is a fabricated document. As such, Ex.B.3 has no sanctity whatsoever in nature. The basic rule of Transfer of Property Act is, “No person can pass a better title than what he himself has.” Therefore, the defendant could not acquire any title from her vendors either by way of regularization under the provisions of ROR Act, or under the provisions of 28
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Registration Act, or by Court Sale, unless the transferor had a valid title. In the suit on hand, the ownership of Government is proved in the light of
Exs.A.3 and A.5, the admission made by the defendant in her written statement and in the cross-examination and with the statements elicited during the cross-examination of DW.3. On the other hand, the defendant failed to prove her title. She failed to discharge her burden. As such, the
Government is declared as the owner of the suit schedule property.
(viii)The regularization under Section 5-A of A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act (ROR Act) can be equated to registration of document under the provisions of Registration Act. Registration of
Government land in contravention of Section 22-A of Registration Act is prohibited. So also, the provisions of ROR Act are not applicable to
Government lands. Under Section 5-A of ROR Act, only a private land can be regularized. The suit schedule property is found to be a
Government land. Therefore, such regularization [under Ex.B.3] is not valid and it does not pass any title to the defendant.
(ix)Under Exs.A.1 and A.2, the Hon’ble High Court placed burden on the plaintiff to approach a Civil Court. In the humble opinion of this
Court, Hon’ble High Court could have placed the burden on the defendant, instead of placing it on the plaintiff. This Court makes this observation without there being any contempt towards Hon’ble High Court. When
Tahsildar, Kondapuram issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed to some persons, the Joint Collector, Nellore District canceled those Pattadar
Passbook and Title Deeds after conducting an enquiry. Absolutely, it was well within the powers of District Collector to exercise such revisional 29
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 powers. Had the Hon’ble High Court placed burden on the defendant to prove her title by approaching a Court, defendant could not have stood the test of proving her title even for a moment. She approached the Court with fabricated documents.
17.Documentary Evidence: -
(i) Ex.A.1 is the Certified copy of the Order in Writ Petition passed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Writ Petition was allowed granting liberty to the plaintiff herein to file a Suit for declaration of title.
(ii) Ex.A.2 is the Writ Appeal preferred by the State Government (plaintiff), whereunder the Order in Ex.A.2 was confirmed. Consequently, the plaintiff had to file the present suit seeking declaration of it’s title.
(iii) Ex.A.3 is the original F.L.R showing the suit schedule property as ‘Gayalu’ land. The names of Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and
Kodimela Veeraiah are not found as against suit schedule lands in Ex.A.3.
There is no proof to show that suit schedule lands belonging to the alleged vendors of the defendant.
(iv) Ex.A.4 is tampered F.L.R. Even in this F.L.R., the names of
Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah are not found as against plaint schedule lands.
(v) Ex.A.5 is the Hero document. It is the only document, by which
F.L.R can be understood to be either tampered or untampered. If F.L.R 30
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 contains certain names, are found place in M.D.R, that means, that F.L.R is tampered. The defendant could tamper the F.L.R, but he could not tamper the M.D.R. As such, defendant is caught by the Revenue authorities. As per the entries in Ex.A.5, the land remains a Government land and no Settlement Patta is granted in favour of any private individual.
Fair Adangal and Manuscript Diglot Register are authoritative documents to prove the original ownership in Estate Villages.
(vi) Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of Gazettee regarding Gottigundala
Village, where suit schedule property is situated. As per Ex.A.6, the ryotwari settlement under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1948 was introduced into Gottigundala Village in Fasli 1370 (Calendar Year 1960) and Gottigundala Village was described as an
Estate Village, which was notified in G.O.2303 and was taken over by the
Government on 03.12.1951.
(vii) Ex.A.7 is a certified copy of Tapsi list of Gottigundala Village.
This list contains the names of joint owners of any land. Ex.A.8 does not reflect the suit schedule lands. The names of the alleged predecessors in title of the defendant were not found place in Ex.A.8. As the suit schedule lands remained Government lands, no pattadars are shown in Ex.A.8.
(viii) Ex.A.8 is Permanent ‘A’ Register. As per Ex.A.8, Uppalapati
Venkata Krishnamma was shown as encroacher as against land in survey
No.400/2. Her name is not shown as either encroacher or Pattadar in respect of other lands in the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is crystal clear that Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma was not granted any 31
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Settlement Patta by the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule lands.
(ix) Ex.A.9 is Certified copy of Khandam extract. As averred by plaintiff, the defendant made illegal alterations in page-wise data of
Government lands and private lands in Fair Adangal. The plaintiff also averred that the Khandam extract remained intact without such alterations and when compared with Khandam extract, the illegal page-wise alteration of Government and private lands can be made out. However, the plaintiff did not file page-wise data of Fair Adangal in order to compare the same with the data of Khandam extract. For example, in Page
No.161 of Fair Adangal, Ac.56.04 cents is shown as un-occupied land.
The same is reflected in Khandam extract also page-wise. Suppose, someone illegally made alteration in page No.161 of Fair adangal, altering nature of un-occupied land and it’s extent by reducing it to Ac.16.04 cents, the same can be found by comparing it with Khandam extract. In the suit on hand, there is no such necessity for comparison as the Government remained absolute owner as per the entries of Fair Adangal and MDR.
The need for Ex.A.9 does not arise in this suit.
(x) Suo motu, this Court summoned the plaintiff to produce certain documents. Accordingly, the plaintiff produced certain documents. They were marked as Exs.X.1 to X.4. Exs.A.4 to A.8 were marked subject to objection raised by the Counsel for the defendant. The same Exhibits (Exs.A.4 to A.6) were marked by this Court on it’s behalf as Exs.X.1 to
X.3. Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked after comparing with the original records. As such, the objection raised by the Counsel for defendant is not sustainable. Further, the original custodian of the Revenue Records is, 32
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 the plaintiff. When Plaintiff produced certain documents, this Court admitted the same after comparing with the original records. As such, the objection raised by the Counsel for the defendant as to their authenticity is not found bonafide, and the same is rejected. The fact that Gottigundala
Village was an Estate Village, is an admitted fact. Exs.X.1 to X.4 were marked through the Tahsildar, Kondapuram. Tahsildar, Kondapuram, who was examined as CW.1 (and PW.2). Ex.X.1 is the copy of tampered
F.L.R. Even in Ex.X.1, the name of defendant’s alleged vendors are not found place as against suit schedule lands.
(xi) Ex.X.2 is the M.D.R, as per the entries, the land remains a
Government land and no Settlement Patta is granted in favour of any private individual.
(xii) Ex.X.3 is the attested copy of Gazette. As per Ex.X.3, the ryotwari settlement under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1948 was introduced into Gottigundala Village in Fasli 1370 (Calendar Year 1960) and Gottigundala Village was described as an
Estate Village, which was notified in G.O.2303 and was taken over by the
Government on 03.12.1951.
(xiii) Ex.X.4- Letters issued by the District Collector reporting the production of suo mottu summoned documents
(xix) Ex.B.1 is said to be Fair Adangal, allegedly issued by Mandal
Revenue Officer, Kondapuram. Ex.B.1 is of the year 2001 and Ex.B.1 is 33
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 issued after tampering of the Revenue Records. The entries in Ex.B.1 are not supported by the entries in the Settlement Records like F.L.R and
M.D.R. As per the entries in F.L.R and M.D.R, no Settlement Patta is granted so far in favour of any private individual in respect of suit schedule lands. Therefore, Ex.B.1 has no sanctity of whatsoever in nature. Based on such fabricated document like Ex.B.1, defendant cannot claim ownership of all the Settlement Pattas in respect of Estate village,
Settlement records are F.L.R and M.D.R. In the suit on hand, the defendant succeeded in tampering one copy of the F.L.R., without touching M.D.R. As such, tampering has been discovered in this case.
(xv) Ex.B.2 is said to be a Permanent ‘A’ Register issued by
C.C.L.A., Hyderabad. Permanent ‘A’ Register can be issued by Tahsildar.
Defendant did not examine any authority, who issued Ex.B.2. Even as per Ex.B.2, there is no proof to show that a settlement Patta was granted in favour of Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah (alleged vendors of the defendant). Ex.B.2 is a tampered document. It’s entries are not supported by the entries made in M.D.R (Ex.A.5/Ex.X.2).
(xvi) Ex.B.3 is Special R.O.R No.547/1998. Ex.B.3 is a fabricated proceeding. It is a fabricated document. There is no reference about this proceeding as against suit schedule land in F.L.R and M.D.R. there is no proof to show that plaintiff granted Settlement Patta in favour of
Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah. Suit schedule land remains a Government land. In the absence of ownership,
Uppalapati Venkata Krishnamma and Kodimela Veeraiah could not get any authority to alienate the suit schedule land in favour of defendant.
34
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Ex.B.3 is not valid as suit schedule land is found to be a Government land. Under the provisions of R.O.R Act, regularization cannot take place in respect of Government lands.
(xvii) Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5 are of the year 2002. In view of the above findings, Exs.B.4 and B.5 have no sanctity. Even in Exs.B.4 and B.5, there is no reference of Ex.B.3. On bear perusal of Exs.B.4 and B.5, it can be found that was fabricated in 2002 for the purpose of making wrongful claim. When Ex.B3 is found to be invalid, it is equally justified to declare Exs.B4 and B.5 as invalid documents.
(xviii) Ex.B.6 is said to be a Settlement Register, allegedly issued by Panchayat Secretary of Gottigundala Panchayat. Ex.B.6 has no sanctity, as it was issued by Panchayat Secretary. Panchayat Secretary has no authority to issue Settlement Register. Therefore, Ex.B.6 cannot be said to be any Settlement Register. Even assuming that Ex.B.6 was issued, it was issued based on Ex.B.3 (another fabricated document).
(xix) Ex.B.7 is the judgment in injunction suit and it does not have any bearing on the title suit on hand.
(xx) Ex.B.8 does not contain any date. It cannot be said to be a proof of possession.
(xxi) Exs.B.9 to B.13 are the correspondence made by the defendant with Revenue Authorities. Exs.B.9 to B.13 do not help the defendant to prove her title.
35
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
18.Plaintiff filed common written arguments in all the suits filed by it.
Plaintiff reiterated it’s facts. Plaintiff submitted that defendants were not even born by the time Fair Adangals/Manuscript Diglot Registers were prepared. But, their names were shown in the said Registers. At the time of cross-examination, one of the defendant’s husband stated that his wife was 57 years as on that date. But, Ex.A.6 relates to the year 1960. Ex.A.6 reveals husband’s name of the defendant, which means the defendant was not even born by the time of preparation of Fair Adangal/Manuscript
Diglot Register. Some of the defendants were below 60 years, but in FLR, their names along with their husband’s names are shown. So, it is apparent that records were tampered with a view to grab Government lands. There is no counter argument by the Counsel for defendant on this point. By the date of preparation of Fair Adangal/Manuscript Diglot
Register, either the defendants were not born or they were not married.
But the names of defendants along with their husband’s names were shown. It is a clear case of tampering. Plaintiff also submitted that the defendants did not file Pattadar Passbooks and Revenue Title Deeds of his vendors in the suit. This Court concurs with the said argument. The plaintiff also submitted that it’s Officials granted Pattadar Passbooks and
Title Deeds to defendants in some cases without verifying Fair Adangal
Register and also Khandam abstract statements of the manuscript Diglot
Register. This Court concurs with the said argument. Further, even
Revenue officials cannot issue Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds under ROR Act in respect of Government land. ROR Act is only applicable in respect of private lands only. Once plaint schedule property is proved to be a Government land, the issuance of Pattadar Passbooks 36
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 and Title Deeds by Revenue Officials in collusion with the defendants, is not having any force. The plaintiff, soon after discovering about the said fraud, initiated legal steps to cancel the Pattadar Passbooks and Title
Deeds. Then, defendants filed Writ Petitions. As per the Orders in Writ
Petitions, the plaintiff approached this Court seeking a relief of declaration.
In the opinion of this Court, the High Court ought to have placed burden on the defendants to prove their title, instead of placing burden on the plaintiff. The plaintiff acted according to law by cancelling the Pattadar
Passbooks and Title Deeds, fraudulently issued by it’s officials. In fact, it is for the defendants to prove their title.
19.The defendants raised a question about the authority of Tahsildar in signing the plaints on behalf of the District Collector. The plaintiff submitted in the written arguments that the District Collector authorized
Tahsildar, Kondapuram to sign on his behalf and also submitted that the said authorisation letter was duly filed before the Court. This Court concurs with the said argument.
20.The defendant filed written arguments, reiterating the case of the plaintiff, case of the defendants, issues, evidence recorded on behalf of both sides and her arguments based on the following judgments:
(1)Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh of Apex Court, dated 28.03.1995. By relying on this judgment, the defendant argues that
Government failed to establish title by producing any documents. This
Court differs with the said argument. The plaintiff filed Exs.A.3 and A.5.
On perusal of the same, it is found that the suit schedule property is not 37
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 private land. Further, defendant admitted the original ownership of the
Government/Plaintiff. Then, the onus gets shifted to defendant to prove how her vendors acquired title from the Government. In the case on hand, defendant miserably failed to prove her title and how the defendant and her predecessors-in-title got ownership from the plaintiff. The original ownership of plaintiff is proved in the light of Exs.A.3, A.4, A.5, A.6 to A.9 and in view of the admission made by the defendant in the written statement. In such circumstances, the onus of proof is shifted to the defendant.
(2)Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and Anr, decided on 22.02.2021 reported in AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1158. Ex.A.5 is the Certified copy of MDR. Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of Fair Adangal and
Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of Gazette. The Counsel for defendant raised objection as to their admissibility. The objection is rejected as untenable.
Exs.A.4 to A.6 (Exs.X.1 to X.3) are compared with the originals. Original documents are brought by the Revenue Officials before this Court and this Court compared the same with original. This Court suo motu summoned the District Collector to produce the said documents and accordingly, they filed the said documents, which are simultaneously marked as Exs.X.1, X.2 and X.3. These exhibits are produced from their proper custody. Merely because original document is in the form of loose sheets and not in a binding form, it cannot be said that those documents (Ex.A.5 particularly), cannot be admitted in evidence. Therefore, the argument advanced by the Counsel for defendant is rejected.
(3)Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Others, vs. Union of India and others decided in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505/2015 of Hon’ble 38
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Supreme Court of India. The Counsel for defendant relied on the above decision to contend that loose sheet of papers are irrelevant in evidence under Section 34 of Evidence Act. The said citation is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the present suit, this Court is not concerned with any book. The defendant went to the extent of alleging fabrication of
Ex.A.5/Manuscript Diglot Register and filing of complaint before Hon’ble
Lokayuktha. This is nothing but grossly abusing the process of various authorities and Courts. The original title of plaintiff with respect to suit schedule lands is not in dispute. Plaintiff filed it’s records in support of it’s contention. On the other hand, defendant miserably failed to prove her title. When defendant takes a plea that she or her predecessor-in-title acquired title from the plaintiff, it is for the defendant to prove the same. In the case on hand, defendant failed to prove her title. Defendant along with others tampered the Fair Adangal, but they could not tamper the
Manuscript Diglot Register. As such, defendant is seriously disputing the admissibility of Manuscript Diglot Register. This Court does not find any fabrication of Manuscript Diglot Register (Ex.A.5). Filing of the same by the plaintiff cannot be said that he is not the proper custodian. The plaintiff need not prove each and every minute detail, particularly, when it’s original title was admitted by the defendant and when plaintiff discharged it’s burden of proving it’s title by producing it’s title documents.
(Exs.A.4, A.5 and A.6) (4)Ravjappa vs. Nilakanta Rao and Ors, decided on 3rd October, 1960 reported in AIR 1962 Mysore 53. By relying on the said judgment, the Counsel for defendant argues that Ex.A.5 is not produced from proper custody and presumption under Section 90 cannot be drawn. The District 39
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Collector is the protector of all the Government lands in his District. He maintains the records of all the Government lands. When he files any document from his custody, it cannot be said that he is not the proper custodian.
(5)Sri Lakni Baruan and Others, vs. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita &
Ors, decided on 26.02.1996 reported in 1996 AIR 1253. By relying on the said citation, the Counsel for defendant argues that Section 90 cannot be drawn in the case of Ex.A.5 as it was fabricated. The defendant did not prove the fabrication of Ex.A.5. Merely because Ex.A.5 was not produced along with the plaint, it cannot be said that it is fabricated during the pendency of the suit. Ex.A.5 is filed along with a permission petition and the permission was granted. Further, this Court suo motu summoned. On such summoning, attested copy of MDR is filed (Ex.X.2). This Court invokes Section 90 of Evidence Act. The genuiness of Ex.A.5 is presumed. The defendant failed to rebut the said presumption.
(6)Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakuru Ramarao and
Ors, decided on 30th November, 1971 reported in AIR 1973 ANDHRA
PRADESH 149. The Counsel for defendant relied on the above citation and argues that Ex.A.9 is not admissible and Section 90 of Evidence Act cannot be invoked with respect to the said document. Ex.A.9/Khandam extract is filed to prove that the total extent of Government land it holds in each Survey Number. According to the plaintiff, the defendant tampered some entries regarding it’s lands and after tampering, it’s (plaintiff’s) total extent is not matching with total extent shown in Khandam extract. This
Court explained the same with the following example. In Ex.A.9,
Government is shown to be the owner of Ac.100.00 of land in a particular 40
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 survey number. In the corresponding Fair Adangal, it’s entries and extent are fabricated and thereafter, the Government land as per Fair Adangal comes to Ac.60.00. But Government/Plaintiff can file Khandam extract in order to prove its total extent and the tampering. According to plaintiff, after the tampering, it’s total extent is not matching with it’s total extent in
Khandam extract. According to the Counsel for defendant, Ex.A.9 has no relevancy. But, this Court differs with the said arguments. Khandam extract/Ex.A.9 is useful to prove the tampering. Therefore, the citation relied on by the counsel for defendant is not useful.
(7)Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs vs Jaganath, in Appeal (Civil) 6974 of 1996. The said citation is not relevant to the present case.
Hence, it is not relied upon.
(8)Moganti Rama Santhi vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, decided on 7th April, 2022, reported in W.A. No.292 of 2019. The
Counsel for defendants relied on this judgment to show that Gayalu land is not Government land. The defendant failed to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule lands for the last 30 years. The defendant’s claim is defective and is based on fabricated documents.
Now, the defendant cannot come and say the plaintiff is not having title.
Therefore, the said citation is not relevant.
(9)Kedam Ramanjulu vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, decided on 1st March, 2023, reported in Writ Petition No.4504/2016. In the said citatioin, the petitioner filed documents since 1963 and the Court found the said land to be private land. However, in this case the defendant did not file any document since 30 years prior to 2005. The name of defendant is not found in yearly adangals. Her Pattadar Passbook or title 41
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Deed is not even 5 years old prior to 2005. By that date, District Collector raised dispute and suo motu cancelled their Title Deeds/Pattadar
Passbooks. As such, the said citation is not relevant. Had defendant been a title holder as per Fair Adangal Register, she would have got title deed and Pattadar Passbook long ago and her name would have been shown as Pattadar or possessor in yearly adangals and she would have obtained any Bank loan or crop loan. In the suit on hand, there are no such things.
(10)M/s Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd vs Mahak Singh & Ors, decided on 8th March, 2007, reported in AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1370. The said citation is not relevant as the plaintiff produced all the documents in it’s possession and discharged it’s onus.
(11)Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin And Anr. The said citation is not applicable as the plaintiff filed the evidence in it’s possession.
(12)Union of India & Ors vs Vasavi So-Op. Housing Society Ltd. &
Ors,decided on 07th January, 2014, reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME
COURT 937. It is relied on by the defendant to show that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove it’s title without relying on the weakness of the defendant. By relying on the said judgment, defendant impliedly admitted the weakness of his title. The plaintiff proved it’s title based on
Ex.A.5 (X.2). Further, the defendant admitted the original ownership of the plaintiff. In such case, it is for the defendant to prove how she acquired the title. In the suit on hand, the defendant miserably failed to prove her title. Accordingly, the original ownership of plaintiff is confirmed and declared.
42
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 (13)P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar, reported in Civil
Appeal No.7210/2011 of Hob’le Supreme Court of India; (14)Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh; and (15) Smiriti Debbarma (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs
Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Others in C.A. No.878/2009 of Apex
Court.
These are relied on by the defendant to show that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove it’s title without relying on the weakness of the defendant. By relying on the said judgments, the defendant impliedly admitted the weakness of his title. The plaintiff proved it’s title based on
Ex.A.5 (Ex.X.2). Further, the defendant admitted the original ownership of the plaintiff. In such case, it is for the defendant to prove how she acquired the title. In the suit on hand, the defendant miserably failed to prove her title. Accordingly, the ownership of plaintiff is confirmed and declared.
(16)The Chief Conservative of Forest, Government of Andhra
Pradesh is, Collector and others, dated 18.02.2003 reported in AIR 2003
SC 1805. The said citation is not relevant as there is no proof of schedule
property to be a private land. There is no proof of long and peaceful enjoyment of suit schedule lands by any Pattadar.
(17)Nazir Mohamed vs. Kamala and Ors. Reported in Civil Appeal
Nos.2843-2844 of 2010. This citation is not relevant as the plaintiff suo 43
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 motu took steps under Section 9 of ROR Act, and cancelled Pattadar
Passbooks and Title Deeds fraudulently issued in favour of defendant soon after it’s discovery by the plaintiff. Therefore, there after legal battle ensured. Exs.A.1 and A.2 are filed. Limitation did not expire in filing the present suit.
Based on the above discussion, issue No.1 is decided in favour of
Plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.4: -
21.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and directing the plaintiff to take over the physical possession of the plaint schedule property. It is also declared that the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed issued in favour of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property are not valid and not binding on the plaintiff.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 25th day of November, 2024.
Sd/ K.V.N. Pavan,
Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
for Plaintiff: - PW.1: D. Prameela, Tahsildar of Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
PW.2: R. Brahmaiah, Tahsildar Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
44
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024 for Court: -
CW.1: R. Brahmaiah, Tahsildar, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
f or Defendant: -
DW.1: Eschewed.
DW.2: Mannem Visweswara Rao.
DW.3: Thimmireddy Venkata Reddy.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
for Plaintiff: -
Ex.A.1: Common Order dated 18.12.2008 in WP No.15629/2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.A.2: Common Judgment dated 23.04.2009 in Writ Appeal No.418/2009 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.A.3: Attested copy of the Fair Adangal in respect of Survey Nos.400/2, 404, 402, 403/1, 403/3, 404, 405/1, 405/3 and 413 of Gottigundala Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District (Marked subject to objection).
Ex.A.4: Certified copy of Fair Adangal (Marked subject to objection).
Ex.A.5: Certified copy of M.D.R. (Marked subject to objection).
Ex.A.6: Certified copy of Gazette (Marked subject to objection).
Ex.A.7: Certified copy of Tapsi list of Gottigundala Village (Marked subject to objection).
45
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Ex.A.8: Certified copy of Permanent ‘A’ Register (Marked subject to objection).
Ex.A.9: Certified copy of Khandam extract.
For Defendant:
Ex.B.1: Certified copy of Fair Adangal pertaining to the schedule land in in O.S. No.401/2005 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kavali.
Ex.B.2: Certified copy of permanent ‘A’ Register pertaining to the Suit schedule land issued by CCLA, Hyderabad.
Ex.B.3: True copy of Order passed under ROR Act in Spl. ROR No.547/1998.
Ex.B.4: Pattadar Passbooks issued in favour of the defendant for the suit schedule land by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapuram.
Ex.B.5: Title Deed issued in favour of the defendant for the suit schedule land by the R.D.O., Kavali.
Ex.B.6: Settlement Register issued by Panchayat Secretary.
Ex.B.7: Certified copy of Judgment in O.S. No.401/2005 on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Kavali.
Ex.B.8: Original Cist Receipt standing in the name of the defendant.
Ex.B.9: Office copy of the application for information dated 12.06.2016 made by the defendant to the Tahsildar/Public Information Officer, Kondapuram, SPSR Nellore District.
Ex.B.10: Letter, dt.21.06.2016 addressed by the Tahsildar, Kondapuram to the Tahsildar, Vinjamur Mandal.
Ex.B.11: Letter dated 21.06.2016 addressed by the Tahsildar, Kondapuram to the District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, SPSR Nellore District.
46
OS. 72 of 2012
25.11.2024
Ex.B.12: Reply letter under endorsement bearing No.14.07.2016 given by the Deputy Tahsildar, Vinjamur Mandal to the Tahsildar, Kondapuram Mandal.
Ex.B.13: Letter addressed by the District Revenue Officer, Nellore to the Tahsildar, Kondapuram, dated 23.06.2016.
for Court: -
Ex.X.1: Attested copy of FLR which is compared with original.
Ex.X.2: Attested copy of MDR which is compared with original.
Ex.X.3: Attested copy of Gazette.
Ex.X.4: Letter in Rc.E2.6269/2011 dated 03.01.2023 (already marked as Ex.X.4 in O.S. No.68/2012).
Sd/K.V.N. Pavan
Judge, Family Court-
cum-VI ADJ, Nlr.
// True Copy //