1
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
EAST GODAVARI AT KAKINADA
PRESENT : M. Srinivasachary, VI Addl.District Judge, Kakinada.
Saturday, the 29th day of December, 2018.
O.S.60/2009
Between:
1.Karipedi Satyanarayanamurthy (died) 2.Karipeddi Bhavani 3.Karipeddi Vasudeva Sarma 4.Karipeddi Aparna @ Bharathula Aparna (Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are added as per orders in I.A.106/17 Dt.22-6-2017)
.. Plaintiffs
And
1.State of A.P., rep.by District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
2.Rangaraya Medical College, rep.by its
Principal, Kakinada.
3.Karipeddi Ramalakshmi 4.Karipeddi Suryanarayanamurthy (died) 5.Chanduri Subbalakshmi 6.Karipeddi Annapoorna
.. Defendants
This suit coming before me on 10.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.J.Ramagopal, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader for Defendants 1 and 2 and Defendants 3 to 6 remained exparte and Sri and having been stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:--
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration of title of plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 6 over the property to an extent of 1249 sq.yards bearing
T.S.No.13/1 near Jayendranagar, Kakinada covered by Old R.S.No1.29/1 bounded by East: 130 feet-Site of Dwaraka Bhamidipati
Suryanarayanamurthy, North: 84 feet 6 inches-Property belonging to
Addala Laxminarayana, West: 133 feet-property in possession of 2nd defendant, South: 84 feet 6 inches-Road (the said property would be hereinafter referred to as plaint schedule property) and for possession thereof from the defendants and for costs.
2
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
2.In brief, the averments of the plaint are that the 3rd defendant is the wife and defendants 4 to 6 are the sons of late
Karipeddi Venkateswara Sarma. Late Venkateswara Sarma purchased plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dt.8-2-1962 and since then he was in possession and enjoyment till his demise on 25-2- 1981. Thus, the plaint schedule property devolved upon plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 6. The plaintiffs have been residing in Hyderabad.
While, the defendants 3 to 6 used to reside in Hyderabad. The plaint schedule property is a vacant site. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 6 from Kakinada, defendants 1 and 2 have highhandedly trespassed into the plaint schedule property in
October, 2007 which fact the plaintiffs came to know on 04-10-2007 when they applied for survey of the land. Then the plaintiff on his behalf and on behalf of defendants 3 to 6 got issued a notice dt.29-5- 2008 to the defendants 1 and 2 U/S.80 CPC which they received but did not deliver the possession. Hence, the suit.
3.Defendants 3 to 6 were set exparte.
4.The 2nd defendant filed written statement which the 1st defendant adopted by a memo dt.7-6-2010. Subsequently, additional written statement was filed by the 2nd defendant on 21-8-2018 after the amendment of the plaint consequent upon the death of 4th defendant. The following is the substance of their written statements.
a)The defendants denied the averments of plaint contending inter-alia that the 2nd defendant purchased an extent of 1144 sq.yards of site covered by Assessment No.2455, T.S.No.13/1 situated Ward
No.2, by way of sale deed dt.15-9-1975 from Koutha Renuka
Ramalakshmi W/o Renuka Prasad of Kakinada and it was registered as
Document No.5658/75. Prior to the execution of sale deed, the vendor-
K.Ramalakshmi was in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment thereof. Since the date of sale deed, the 2nd defendant has been in 3
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of it. Neither the plaintiffs, defendants 3 to 6 nor Venkateswara Sarma had at any time been in possession and enjoyment thereof.
b)The plaintiff being a prestigious institute had no necessity to encroach into the lands of others taking advantage of their alleged absence from town. The alleged sale deed dt.8-2-1962 purported to have been obtained by late K.Venkateswara Sarma is never true and a genuine document and it has never been acted upon. Even for the sake of assumption, if the plaintiffs and others are treated to be the owners of plaint schedule property, their rights were virtually extinguished by afflux of time beyond more than 40 years. Therefore, under any stretch of any imagination, the plaintiffs or defendants 3 to 6 cannot claim any right, title or interest over plaint schedule property.
From the schedule of the sale deed dt.15.9.1975, it is evident that the property covered by it is encompassed by the property held by the 2nd defendant on all its sides except the southern side which is road.
Therefore, it is clear that neither the 1st plaintiff nor his father had at any point of time right, title or interest in it.
c)In the additional written statement, it has been averred that the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession for the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 6. Plaintiffs in their claim requested to pass a decree in favour of plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 6 also. As such the defendants 3 to 6 are also defacto plaintiffs in this suit. Pendency of the suit that it was informed to the Hon’ble Court that the sole plaintiff died on 28-3-2017 and legal representatives in the petition in I.A.571/18 was filed to add the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his legal representatives and it was allowed and plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added. In consequences of that a neat copy of plaint was filed in which it was noted in the cause title that the 4th defendant died. Actually to that effect, no amendment petition was filed and this court did not 4
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
allow the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to that effect. Even then the plaintiffs filed neat copy stating that the 4th defendant died. At the time of arguments, this fact was put to the knowledge of this court by the counsel for defendants that the suit was abated as decree is seeking in favour of deceased person. At that time, plaintiffs filed a memo that the 4th defendant died on 28-11-2013. Subsequently,
I.A.571/18 was filed by plaintiffs requesting to recognize the 3rd defendant as the sole legal representative of the 4th defendant. By the time of filing the said I.A, the suit was abated. The defendants 1 and 2 are not admitting the fact that the 3rd defendant alone is the legal representative of 4th defendant. Thus, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.
5.On the strength of above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of right, title and for recovery of possession of schedule property?
2.Whether the 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser under registered sale deed dt.15-9-1975 and in possession of the schedule property?
3.Whether the sale deed dt.8-2-1962 is true and acted upon?
4.To what relief?
6.During trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 marked. While, on behalf of defendants,
D.Ws.1 to 3 examined and Exs.B1 to B14 and Ex.C1 marked.
7.Before going to appreciate the evidence on record, it is better to have a glance in respect of the documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
a)Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed dt.8-2-1962 vide document no.2627 executed by Renuka Ramalakshmi W/o Renuka
Prasad in favour of Venkateswara Sarma (father of plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6 and husband of 3rd defendant). Perusal of recitals of 5
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
Ex.A1 would disclose the fact that the vendor there under traced her title in respect of the property conveyed there under to Venkateswara
Sarma, on the strength of the registered sale deed dt.12-10-1959 vide document no.5476/59 and thereby conveyed 1249 sq.yards (plaint schedule property) bounded by East: Site of Dwaraka Bhamidipati
Suryanarayanamurthy, North: Addala Laxminarayana Thota, West: Site of Laxminarayana, South:Road. The said boundaries have been shown in the plaint schedule. The property under the said document, is situated in T.S.No.13/1, Ward No.2, Block No.4, Patta No.83, R.S.129/1 an extent of 1249 sq.yards out of 32010 sq.feet (3556.67 sq.feet).
Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.29-5-2008 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 and 2 calling upon them to deliver possession of property within two months from the date of receipt of notice. Exs.A3 and A4 are postal acknowledgments dt.2-6-2008 in respect of Ex.A2, received by defendants 1 and 2. Ex.A5 is the registration extract of sale deed dt.12-10-1959 in the name of Renuka
Ramalakshmi, W/o Renuka Prasad executed by Dwaraka Bhamidipati
Suryanarayanamurthy, Dwaraka Bhamidipati Krishnamurthy and
Dwaraka Bhamidipati Manikyamba, vide document no.5476 where under Renuka Ramalakshmi sold an extent of 35010 sq.feet in
T.S.No.13/1, Ward No.2, Block No.4, Patta No.83 R.S.129/1. Ex.A6 is the registration extract of sale deed dt.3-8-1961 vide document no.4090/61 in favour of Bhamidipati Lakshmi Narasimha, W/o Veera
Raghavulu executed by Renuka Ramalakshmi W/o Renuka Prasad where under Renuka Ramalakshmi sold 1190 sq.yards out of 32010 sq.feet. Ex.A7 is the registration extract of sale deed vide document no.5657/75 executed Koutha Renuka Prasad, Koutha Renuka Ram and
Koutha Renukanand in favour of the governing body of Rangaraya
Medical College represented by its Secretary (2nd defendant).
6
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
b)On the other hand, the documents exhibited on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2 are Exs.B1 to B14. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document no.5658/75 executed by
Ramalakshmi in favour of 2nd defendant and thereby conveyed 1144 sq.yards bearing T.S.No.13/1 in Ward No.2, Block No.4 (patta No.83)
R.S.129/1 and the assessment no.2455 and D.No.2-18-37 within the boundaries East-130 feet-Property belonging to Rangaraya Medical
College, South-82 feet road, West-128 feet-Property belonging to Sri
Renuka Prasad sold to the vendee, North-84 feet: T.S.No.16 belonging to Rangaraya Medical College. In Ex.B1, the vendor traced her title in respect of the property being conveyed there under (i.e., two portions of the site) to the 2nd defendant by virtue of two registered sale deeds in 1961 and 1962. Thus, it is manifest from the perusal of the said recitals that Renuka Ramalakshmi sold two portions of the site, she purchased under two registered sale deeds in 1961 and 1962. Ex.B2 is the souvenir for one decade. Ex.B3 is the Magazine relating to 1998.
Ex.B4 is positive photo of flack of inauguration of sports pavilion.
Ex.B5 is the office copy of letter dt.3-11-2004 from Principal,
Rangaraya Medical College to the Executive Engineer, S.C Co-
Operative Society Limited, Kakinada, requested to take up the work in three phases for the construction of compound walls in three corners, playground. Ex.B6 is the office note submitted to the District Collector dt.4-10-2006 for certain developments in the playground of Rangaraya
Medical College, Kakinada and providing for walking track. Ex.B7 is photographs. Ex.B8 is letter from Principal, Rangaraya Medical
College, Kakinada to the counsel for plaintiffs in response to legal notice under Ex.A2 denying the contents of such notice. Ex.B9 is office note dt.1-11-2004 submitted to the District Collector, East Godavari,
Kakinada for construction of compound wall and development of playground. Ex.B10 is the letter to Executive Engineer, S.C Co-
Operative Society Limited, Kakinada from the Principal of 2nd defendant 7
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
dt.12-10-2006 for certain developments in the playground of
Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada providing walking track around the compound wall and for work orders issued. Ex.B11 is the photograph with C.D. Ex.B12 is positive photograph. Ex.B13 is photograph of walking track on southern side along with compound wall and cricket net and practice ground. Ex.B14 is tax receipts from 2008 to 2009. Ex.C1 is commissioner plan.
8.a)The evidence of P.W.1 was eschewed on 20-3-2012.
Karipeddi Suryanarayana Murthy (4th defendant) is examined as P.W.2.
His evidence would show that his father-Venkateswara Sarma purchased the property under a registered sale deed dt.8-2-1962 from
Renuka Ramalakshmi under Ex.A1. The said Ramalakshmi is the wife of Renuka Prasad. He along with his brothers, mother and sisters were in possession of property. They were residing far away from Kakinada.
The plaint schedule property is a vacant site. On 04-10-2007 his brother came to Kakinada and found that a compound wall was constructed by the 2nd defendant in their site. A survey was conducted and it was found that the 2nd defendant-Rangaraya Medical College highhandedly occupied their property. Then they got issued a legal notice dt.29-5-2008 to the defendants 1 and 2. As they did not vacate, the present suit is filed for declaration of their title and possession of property.
b)The 6th defendant examined as P.W.3. Her evidence went in similar lines as that of P.W.2. She filed Ex.A5-C.C of sale deed in favour of Koutha Renuka Ramalakshmi dt.12-10-1959, Exs.A6 and A7-
Sale deeds in favour of Bhamidipati Lakshmi Narasamma and sale deed dt.15-9-1975 in favour of 2nd defendant.
c)Dr.V.Satyadev, Retired Vice Principal, Rangaraya Medical
College is examined as D.W.1 on behalf of the 2nd defendant. His 8
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
evidence would show that he is the old student of Rangaraya Medical
College in 1969 for M.B.B.S. After completing M.B.B.S, he studied M.S in Rangaraya Medical College. After that he joined as Assistant
Professor in Rangaraya Medical College in 1982. He has retired from service as a Vice Principal on 30-9-2010. By the time of filing this suit, he was working as a Supervisor in the Department of Orthopedics in
Government Hospital, Kakinada cum Vice Principal, Rangaraya Medical
College, Kakinada. Since beginning i.e., from 1969, he has personal knowledge about the facts of Rangaraya Medical College including topography of the college as well as the site in dispute. The property covered under the sale deed dt.8-2-1962-Ex.A1 is not adjacent to their college playground on any side. Since long time, their college is enjoying the playground in which the plaint schedule property is an integral part.
d)His deposition further discloses that the schedule property and some other property purchased by their college under a registered sale deed dt.15-9-1975 under Ex.B1 from K.Renuka Ramalakshmi W/o
Renuka Prasad of Kakinada i.e., 1144 sq.yards. Prior to purchasing, the property by the 2nd defendant covered by Ex.B1, the 2nd defendant purchased some more property situated on the western side of it from the same vendor. One P.Venkanna, generous citizen of Kakinada donated ac.6-50 cents to their college at the time of commencement of the college. The said property is situated to the further south of the road now shown as boundary to the plaint schedule property. In the said property, the college constructed buildings and now using for
Mens Hostel and it was deemed as Vivenkananda Vihar. Adjacent to the said property, their college acquired land with an extent of ac.24-00. The said fact was published very long ago in their college souvenir relating to the period 1958 and 1968 and relevant page is marked as Ex.B2. Actually, the road situated on the southern side is 9
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
the schedule property and integral part of their college. The neighbours of that locality requested their college management to provide some site to Kakinada Municipality to lay road to reach their houses. Accordingly, their college donated the said place to Kakinada
Municipality and subsequently the present road was laid.
e)Apart from the above, their college has some other property except the property covered by Ex.B1 and some more properties situated towards the west to the property covered by Ex.B1.
Therefore, with a view to secure the contiguous property, their college purchased the property covered by Ex.B1 and some other property on the west from the same vendor. Even by the date of purchasing said property, their college has some other property situated on all the three sides to the property covered by Ex.B1 except on South with an extent of ac.10-50 cents. Their college using it as playground after purchase under Ex.B1, their college started construction of Sports
Pavilion and the foundation was laid by the then Minister on 20- 9-1976. Subsequently, the construction of Sports Pavilion was completed by 1978 and it was opened and declared by Hon’ble Sri
K.V.R.S.Padmanabha Reddy, Minister for Social Welfare Department in
Government of A.P in 1978. The said fact was published in their college magazine pertaining to the year 1980 and the relevant page is marked as Ex.B3. Even the said inauguration stone is there and its positive photo with relevant negative is filed as Ex.B4. At the time of inauguration function itself, four compound walls were constructed to the said ground specifically demarcating their college property, whatever the property, their college had by 1975. The same property is there even till today. Their college conducting several sports meets and functions as absolute owner of it. Therefore, he denies that somewhere in 2007 college trespassed into the plaintiffs’ property. At any point of time, either plaintiff or his relatives or their vendor never 10
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
enjoyed the property which is in the possession and enjoyment of
Rangaraya Medical College. Thus, the contra contest taken by the plaintiffs is incorrect. For some time, Kakinada Municipality dumped the waste material in their college playground, then the management, students and inhabitants of that locality objected. In 2003, the Medical
Council of India, New Delhi visited the Rangaraya Medical College, its hostels and playgrounds referred to above and observed the playground is not upto the satisfaction and it does not contain all the facilities. Then their college contacted Social Welfare Department and requested to do the needful to uplift the playground, for providing amenities, for construction of compound wall and for other purposes.
In that regard, the then President of their college addressed a letter dt.8-11-2004 to the Executive Engineer, S.C. Co-Operative Society
Limited, Kakinada for the above purposes under Ex.B5. Thus, by following the due process, their college reconstructed compound wall in 2005. Subsequently by investing huge amounts, the college provided a walking track in that playground. For all these purposes, the then Principal of their college addressed a letter under Ex.B6 to the
District Collector to provide necessary funds.
f)Within four boundaries of their college playground, there are no private properties. Their college playground compound walls are in existence. A positive photograph showing the southern compound wall is marked as Ex.B7.
g)The sum and substance of his deposition in chief examination would show that the plaintiffs are claiming part of their college playground situated on the southern side. Thus, he has given the boundaries of playground having main access from southern side as under: East-Public Road, South-Road and further Rangaraya Medical
College Men’s Hostel, West-Road, North-Property of Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University. The said property was assessed in the name of their college with D.No.2-18-38. Ex.B8 is reply notice to Ex.A2.
11
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
h)While in his cross examination, he stated that he does not know whether Koutha Renuka Ramalakshmi is the owner of an extent of 32010 sq.yards of site. He admitted that her husband Renuka
Prasad is also having site in the same survey number. He admits that the 2nd defendant-college purchased sites as per the sale deeds of the years 1961 and 1962. He is not aware whether R.Ramalakshmi purchased the site under sale deed dt.12-10-1959.
i)As per Ex.B1, although there is mention that they purchased the property from Ramalakshmi which she purchased in the year 1961 and 1962, it is not mentioned about the property purchased by her as per the sale deed dt.12-10-1959. He further admitted that the 2nd defendant purchased the property covered under T.S.No.16 from Addala Laxminarayana Sastry and also acquired site of Kala
Dwaraka Bhamidipati Suryanarayana. He does not aware of Ex.A1. He did not peruse Ex.A1. He does not aware whether Renuka
Ramalakshmi sold an extent of 1249 sq.yards of site to the plaintiffs father-Venkateswara Sarma. He admitted that they purchased property under two documents from Koutha Renuka Ramalakshmi and her husband-Renuka Prasad. They purchased as noted in the red marked portion in Ex.C1. The 2nd defendant obtained E.C and filed into court.
In their document, Karipeddi Venkateswara Sarma (father of plaintiff) did not sign. He admitted that they did not file documents purchased from Koutha Renuka Prasad. He is not aware, on plaintiff’s representation, RDO sent a surveyor in 2007. He admitted that the 2nd defendant addressed a letter under Ex.B9 informing that Municipality are dumping waste and they require Rs.20,00,000/- for leveling and cleaning of waste material. He admits that Ex.B1 does not contain about the existing compound wall and breach of portions of the wall.
He admits that in Ex.B9 in the subject, they mentioned that funds are required for the construction of the compound wall. Ex.B13 is showing the plaint schedule property. Ex.B2 is not concerned to the schedule 12
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
property. He admitted that in Ex.B8 there is no mention about the denying that the 2nd defendant purchased the property claimed by the plaintiffs. He admits that as per Ex.B5, they demanded for grant of construction and betterment of sports pavilion. He admits that new compound wall was constructed in 2006 and 2007. He admitted that they are claiming right and title over plaint schedule property.
j)The Principal-Rangaraya Medical College by name
Dr.R.Mahalakshmi is examined as D.W.2. Her evidence went in similar lines as that of D.W.1. In her cross examination, it was brought out that there is a file of correspondence relating to the schedule property which she has gone through. She has no objection to bring correspondence to the court. She does not know whether survey was got done by RDO once and court commissioner once. There is one document relating to purchase of property by Rangaraya Medical
College in 1975 purchased from Koutha Renuka Ramalakshmi. She does not know whether some property was purchased from Koutha
Renuka Prasad. She does not remember the boundaries of property purchased from Koutha Renuka Ramalakshmi under Ex.B1. She does not remember whether there is a mention that the property was purchased from Renuka Prasad in Ex.B1. She does not know how the property was acquired by Renuka Ramalakshmi. She does not know whether there is mention of vendor’s title in Ex.B1. As per Ex.B1, they purchased 1444 sq.yards. She does not remember whether there is a document of 1961 in the college. She does not know whether Renuka
Ramalakshmi purchased some property in 1959, 1961 and 1962. She does not remember whether Koutha Renuka Prasad executed document in favour of college on 15-9-1975 under document no.5657/75. They purchased 1144 sq.yards from Renuka Ramalakshmi.
She does not remember whether 1100 sq.yards of site purchased from
Renuka Prasad. She does not know whether the property purchased from Renuka Prasad on the east of property purchased from 13
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
Ramalakshmi under Ex.B1. She does not know whether college purchased site from Addala Laxminarayana and some property from
Ramalakshmi. She does not know the college did not purchase the property which was purchased by Ramalakshmi from
Dwarakabamidipati people and they purchased the property by
Ramalakshmi from Bamidipati Laxminarasamma. She does not know whether the vendor’s title deeds were given as voucher documents and they are available in the file. She does not know whether
Ramalakshmi purchased an extent of 1249 sq.yards from
Dwarakabamidipati Suryanarayanamurthy. She does not remember the T.S number of their college. She admitted that Rangaraya Medical
College got the property in T.S.No.13/1/3. She does not know whether the college has no property in T.S.No.13/1/2. The total extent of playground of Rangaraya Medical College is 11.05 cents. She does not know whether the ground is situated in 13/1/4 and 13/1/2. They are in possession of the file relating to the plaint schedule property but the letter addressed by RDO office is not traced in it. She does not know how the said letter was misplaced. The notice issued by the Urban
MRO dt.10-9-2009 proposing to survey the land is also misplaced. She does not know whether MRO got surveyed the land. She does not know whether Renuka Prasad executed any sale deed in their favour.
Except the document executed during 1975, they are not in possession of any other document prior to 1975 relating to the plaint schedule property. She stated that the western boundary was mentioned as property sold by Renuka Prasad to Rangaraya Medical College. The northern boundary shown in Ex.B1 is the property belonging to
Rangaraya Medical College. She has never perused Ex.B1. She does not know whether plaint schedule property is situated towards east of the property sold by Renuka Prasad. She does not know whether they filed any objection to the report of commissioner.
14
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
k)One M.Venkateswararao, a Senior Assistant of 2nd defendant-college, is examined as D.W.3. His evidence would show that the plaint schedule property is an integral part of their college playground. There was compound wall around the playground. In the place of same old compound wall, new compound walls were constructed in 2006-2007 which are now in existence. Their college playground from beginning is being called as Rangaraya Medical
College Sports pavilion ground. Kakinada Municipality since beginning collecting taxes for the playground bearing D.No.2-18-30. Ex.B14 is bunch of tax receipts relating to the playground. In the cross examination, it was elicited that he does not know the particulars of the documents relating to the suit. He does not know from whom vendors of defendants purchased the property. He does not know whether the title deeds relating to the suit schedule property in their office. As per the document of the year 1962 filed by the plaintiffs, their father purchased the property. He does not know whether RDO addressed a letter to their college asking him to deliver the possession of the property of plaintiffs.
9.Memo of points submitted by the counsel for plaintiffs.
Written arguments filed by the defendants 1 and 2. Heard and perused the record.
10.Issues No.1 to 3:-
Since the above issues are inter-related, inter-connected and inter-woven, common discussion of evidence and appreciation of contentions is needed and to see that no overlapping do occur, I would like to answer them together and simultaneously.
a)It is relevant to consider the contention of the learned counsel for defendants raised in the written arguments that D.1 is the
State of Andhra Pradesh and D.2 is the Government Medical College which is attached to Kakinada General Hospital that means both 15
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
defendants representing government only by one or the other way, thus, a mandatory provision is there U/S.80 CPC to issue notice to the government organizations or officials representing government against whom case intends to be filed by giving 60 days time for compliance in the notice. According to him, before the suit is filed against D.1 and
D.2, no notice was issued. He further contends that the plaintiffs want to say Ex.A2-Notice dt.29-5-2008 is prior notice, admittedly, such notice was not issued to D.2 nor did any petition filed to dispense with notice to D.2. Moreover, in Ex.A2, it was stated as if the college
principal trespassed into the schedule property, whereas the suit was
not filed against Principal of D.2 in personal or official capacity.
However, in Ex.A2 notice was stated to have been issued to the
Principal of College as he is representing the D.2. In the plaint, it was
not pleaded that said notice issued to D.2-College Principal on behalf of
D.2, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-issunace of
Sec.80 notice to D.2. So contending, he relied upon the following authorities.
i) Dr.Satyanarayana S.Melkote and others Vs State of A.P and others1 paras-25 and 26 held as under:
Para-25: The Trial Court framed the issue as to whether the suit is defective due to non-compliance of Section 80 CPC. It answered the issue in the affirmative against the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel for the appellants, as noticed earlier, relies on Ex.A18 in support of the contention that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it amounts to notice under Section 80 CPC. The submission is devoid of any merits and cannot be countenanced. Section 80 CPC requires a person to serve notice to the Government or any public officer against whom the suit is intended and wait for expiration of two months next after notice is delivered. The mere service of notice cannot be compliance under Section 80 CPC. A notice is required stating the cause of action, name and description of the plaintiff and the relief claimed. The notice also should contain details of the grievance thereof.
Para-26:- The Government issued Ex.A9 Government Order informing their decision to take back the land and construct Unanni Hospital. GSM sent Ex.A10 dated 9-6-1959 in response to G.O.Ms.No.1057, dated 5-5-1959 (Ex.A9). Thereafter, the
Additional Government Pleader issued Ex.A17 notice demanding
possession, to which GSM sent another reply dated 4-8-1971 which is marked as Ex.A18. In Ex.A18, notice through his 1 2003 ALD 377 16
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
lawyer, to which a reference has already been made, GSM, while requesting the Additional Government Pleader to advise the Government form taking nay hasty action against him informed that any action taken will be resisted holding the Government responsible. The purport of Section 80 CPC is not mere demur of a governmental action nor indicating the stand that the governmental action would be opposed. It must be a precursor of the impending action by way of suit and not an information that any governmental action would be opposed. A person need not inform any other person that the latter’s intention will be opposed, for, it is right of every person to oppose and make out a counter grievance in any suit. As Section 80 CPC requires a person filing a suit against the Government or public authority to put the latter on sixty days notice so that such Government or public officer can make efforts having regard to the factual situation that might be projected in Section 80 CPC.
ii) Union of India, Railway Administration Madras and others Vs Eastern Match Co., Tirumangalam2 wherein it was held by their lordships in para-64 as under:
Section 80 CPC enacts thus:
“No suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act, purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of:
(a) ……………………………………..
(b)In the case of a suit against the Central Government, where it relates to a Railway, the general Manager of that Railway;
(c)……………………………..
and, ………………………………………..
stating that the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.”
It is well-established by the pronouncements of the highest tribunals that the terms of this Section are imperative, and admit of no exceptions or implications, and that a suit not complying with its provisions cannot be entertained by any Court, and, if instituted, must be rejected under O.VII, R. II CPC. Even where the Government was only a pro-forma defendant, it was held that a notice under this Section is necessary. The notice must substantially fulfil the object in informing the parties concerned generally of the nature of the suit intended to be filed, and it is essential, having regard to the language of Section 80, that notice should state the names, descriptions and places of residence of all the plaintiffs.
iii)State of Madras (no Andhra represented by the
Collector, East Godavari Vs Chitturi Venkata Durga Prasadarao
and others3 wherein it was held in paras-10 and 17 as under:
Para-10 2AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 172 (5) 51 C 46) 3 (S) AIR 1957 Andh Pra 675 (V 44, C 216 OCT) 17
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
Section 80 as it stands applies to all suits, whether they are suits for declaration or suits for injunction, mandatory or prohibitory, and suits for damages. The expression ‘act purporting to be done’ takes in past acts as well as future acts. The expression ‘in respect of’ is of very wide amplitude as the contemplated suit may be for any relief which flowed from the allegations in the plaint, but the suit must have relation to or must have reference to an act purporting to be done by a public officer in his official capacity. If the allegations in the plaint relate to acts purporting to be done by such public officer, whatever the relief may be that is prayed, the section is attracted and the notice is mandatory. In the case of a threatened injury which is sought to be restrained by an injunction, it is difficult to imagine a plaint which does not contain allegations on which the fear of the threat complained of could be justified. Hence, in a suit where there is a prayer for declaration and for injunction, a notice under S.80 is necessary.
Para-17:-
It is permissible notwithstanding Art.14 to enact a piece of legislation based on reasonable classification to achieve a particular object has now been well established by decision. In view of the above principles, in our opinion, S.80 was based upon a reasonable classification for the protection of the interests of the Government and its officers to enable them to have sufficient time to take legal advice and to adjust the matter if possible without the necessity of a suit. As pointed out by the Judicial Committee in ILR 51 Bom 725: (AIR 1927 PC
174) (B), the section was intended for the protection of the officers of the Government and that is the object. The distinction is between officials and ordinary private citizens, which in our view is a reasonable classification and the section has relation to the end in view as it requires that the Government should have a period of two months before the suit is filed. It does not absolutely prohibit the suit but only postpones the action for a period of two months. It is difficult, therefore, to hold that the section violates the protection afforded by Art.14 of the Constitution.
iv)Harihar Mahapatra and others Vs Hari Otha and others4 in which it was held in para-16 as under:
It appears to me therefore that the proper course to adopt in the circumstances of this case is to aside all the findings of the Courts below against the plaintiffs and to reject the plaint as a whole and to dismiss the suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of S.80, Civil P.C. I may add that this course is also the one most in the interest of all the parties concerned. As stated at the outset, the plaintiffs are not the persons solely interested in the village of Agulpada and in the irrigation rights to the wet lands therein. The Rajah of Dharakote is entitled to the major interest therein. Irrespective of any question whether the Rajah of Dharakote was or was not a necessary party to the suit of present nature it is obviously undesirable that the rights relating to the use of Kochianala as the irrigation source for the wet lands of Agulpada should be decided in the absence of the Rajah of Dharkote and that the defendants should be exposed to the possibility of a fresh suit at his instance re-agitating the same matter.
b)On the other hand, in the memo of points submitted on behalf of plaintiff, it is contended that notice was addressed to 2nd defendant as Principal, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada and stated that notice not addressed to Rangaraya Medical College, rep. by 4 AIR (37) 1950 Orissa 257 (C.N 49) 18
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
Principal, Kakinada. In the written statement of D.2, nowhere disputed
that notice issued to Principal, Rangaraya Medical College is not a valid notice and there was no plea regarding what was stated in para-2 with regard to Section 80 CPC. Admittedly, no where in the written statement, the defendants did raise such objection. On the other hand, before filing the suit, the plaintiff got issued notice under Ex.A2.
Moreover, in the authority that was relied upon by the 2nd defendant in (S) AIR 1957 Andh Pra 675 (V 44, C 216 OCT), it was held that “Section 80 CPC based upon a reasonable classification for the
protection of the interests of the Government and its officers to
enable them to have sufficient time to take legal advice and to
adjust the matter if possible without the necessity of a suit. As
pointed out by the Judicial Committee in ILR 51 Bom 725: (AIR 1927
PC 174) (B), the section was intended for the protection of the
officers of the Government and that is the object. The distinction is
between officials and ordinary private citizens, which in our view is
a reasonable classification and the section has relation to the end in
view as it requires that the Government should have a period of two
months before the suit is filed. It does not absolutely prohibit the
suit but only postpones the action for a period of two months. It is
difficult, therefore, to hold that the section violates the protection
afforded by Art.14 of the Constitution.” Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for 2nd defendant does not have any water to sustain to dismiss the suit on the ground that Sec.80 notice was not issued.
c)In a nutshell, the sum and substance of the claim of the plaintiffs is that one Koutha Renuka Ramalakshmi purchased the property under Ex.A5 on 12-10-1959 from Dwaraka Bhamidi
Suryanarayana and his son. Out of which, she sold the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 in favour of Karipeddi Venkateswara Sarma, who was the father of plaintiffs, D.4 to D.6 and husband of D.3. Eversince
Venkateswara Sarma was in possession and enjoyment of plaint 19
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
schedule property without any interruption to the knowledge of one and all including the defendants, till his demise on 25-2-1981. Later on, plaint schedule property devolved upon the plaintiffs and D.3 to
D.6. As plaint schedule property is vacant site and plaintiffs and defendants happened to be residing in Hyderabad, defendants 1 and 2 trespassed into plaints schedule property in October, 2007 which fact the plaintiffs came to know on 04-10-2007 when they applied for survey of the land. Therefore, they got issued a legal notice on their behalf and on behalf of D.3 to D.6 on 29-5-2008 under Ex.A2 to the defendants which they received but did not deliver possession to them.
d)As against the above, in brief, the sum and substance of claim of 2nd defendant took in defence is to the effect that D.2 purchased the plaint schedule property from Koutha Renuka
Ramalakshmi under Ex.B1-Sale deed dt.15-9-1975 vide document no.5658 and since then D.2 has been enjoying the same as absolute owner. Even by then, D.2 has its property on three sides except on
South. Thus, plaint schedule property is integral part of the playground of D.2. Alternatively, D.2 took the defence without admitting the claim of plaintiffs, assuming for a moment that late Venkateswara Sarma purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1, indeed, it was never acted upon as from the date of Ex.B1-Sale deed, the D.2 alone has been enjoying the property, therefore, any rights are there in favour of said Venkateswara Sarma and after him, plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 6 over plaint schedule property could be extinguished by afflux of time for more than three decades i.e., more than statutory period and thereby took shelter of Section 27 of Limitation Act.
e)The plaintiffs and D.2 set up their respective titles over plaint schedule property from the common vendor namely Routhu
Renuka Ramalakshmi, who purchased the property under the original of Ex.A5-Registration extract of sale deed vide Doc.No.5476/1959 20
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
dt.12-10-1959 where under said Ramalakshmi purchased 3560.55 sq.yards. Such document gained prominence in this case. With reference to Ex.A5, Exs.A1 and B1 relied upon by the plaintiffs and D.2 are examined. Under Ex.A1, Venkateswara Sarma purchased 1248.72 rounded to 1249 sq.yards, in which the vendor-Ramalakshmi traced her title in respect of 1249 sq.yards being conveyed there under in favour of late Venkateswara Sarma, on the basis of the sale deed dt.12-10- 1959 vide document no.5476/1959 which is Ex.A5. It seems that out of 3560.55 sq.yards, she has been proved to have sold 1249 sq.yards (plaint schedule property) in favour of late Venkateswara Sarma.
Coming to the original of Ex.B1-Sale deed dt.15-9-1975, D.2 is shown to have purchased 1189 sq.yards. Perusal of Ex.B1, the vendor-
Ramalakshmi traced her title in respect of 1189 sq.yards being sold there under on the strength of the two registered sale deeds in 1961 and 1962. At this juncture, it is relevant to look into Ex.A6-Registration extract of Sale deed dt.3-8-1961 vide Doc.No.4090 of 1961 where under Ramalakshmi sold 1190.08 sq.yards in favour of B.Lakshmi
Narasamma. In such sale transaction, the vendor has traced her title in respect of 1190.08 sq.yards conveyed there under, on the strength of Ex.A5. Thus, Ramalakshmi sold 1249 sq.yards under Ex.A1 and 1190.08 sq.yards sold under Ex.A6. Thus, she remains 1121.47 sq.yards. But there was no reference of the sale deed under Ex.A5 in
Ex.B1, on the other hand, there was reference of sale deeds in 1961 and 1962 in respect of the title of Renuka Ramalakshmi. Be that as it may, under Ex.A7 vide document no.5657, husband and sons of
Ramalakshmi, viz., Renuka Prasad, Koutha Renuka Ram and Koutha
Renukanand sold 2241.86 sq.yards in favour of 2nd defendant, in which the vendors traced their title on the strength of the registered sale deed dt.10-10-1959. In Ex.A7, the eastern boundary is shown as property belonging to Smt.Renuka Lakshmi sold to the vendee.
Perhaps, such eastern boundary property under Ex.A7 must be the 21
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
property covered by Ex.B1. Therefore, it is crystal clear and manifest from the recitals of Exs.A1, B1, A5 and A7 which are crucial and important documents placed on record for consideration, that the property sold to Venkateswara Sarma and D.2 by Renuka Ramalakshmi is not one and the same and that they are different, arising out of the purchase of Ramalakshmi from three sale deeds i.e., Ex.A5, two sale deeds of 1961 and 1962 referred to in Ex.B1.
f)The sale transactions covered by Exs.A5, A1 and B1 are of 30 years old, but none of them could file the originals of their title documents. Regarding the marking of documents referred to above, there was no objection. Hence, it is relevant to note here the authority inR.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder, Appellant V. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another, Respondents5, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held in paras 19 to 23 as under:
Para-19:
Order 13, R.4 of the C.P.C. provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initiated by the
Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An
objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised
before such endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to
form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was produced.
Para-20:
The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on the Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras and another, AIR 1966 SC 1457 in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the above said case. however, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as ‘an exhibit’, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been 5AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4548 22
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court.
Para-21:
Privy Council in Padman and others V. Hanwanta and others (AIR 1915 PC 111) did not permit the appellant to take objection to the admissibility of a registered copy of a Will in appeal for the first time. It was held that this objection should have been taken in the trial Court. It was observed: “The defendants have now appeal to the Majesty in Council, and the case has been argued on their behalf in great detail. It was urged in the course of the argument that a registered copy of the Will of 1898 was admitted in evidence without sufficient foundation being led for its admission. No objection, however, appears to have been taken in the first Court against the copy obtained from the Registrar’s office being put in evidence. Had such objection being made at the time, the District Judge, who tried the case in the first instance, would probably have seen that the deficiency was supplied. Their Lordships think that there is no substance in the present contention.”
Para-22:
Similar is the view expressed by this Court in P.C.Purushothama Reddiar v. S.Perumal (1972 (2) SCR 646). In this case, the police reports were admitted in evidence without any objection and the objection was sought to be taken in appeal regarding the admissibility of the reports. Rejecting the contention it was observed:
“Before leaving this case, it is necessary to refer to one of the contention taken by Mr.Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the respondent. He contended that the police reports referred to earlier are inadmissible in evidence as the Head Constables who covered those meetings have not been examined in the case. Those reports were marked without any objection. Hence, it is not open to the respondent now to object to their admissibility.
Para-23:
23
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
Since documents A30 and A34 were admitted in evidence without any objection, the High Court erred in holding that these documents were inadmissible being photocopies, the originals of which were not produced.
g)Be that as it may, now it is to be considered regarding other contentions of the learned counsel for defendant no.2 that whether presumption U/S.90 of Evidence Act can be extended to the certified copies of the documents. In this respect, reference is made to Section 90 of Evidence
Act. Under this Section, presumption may be drawn in favour of documents of 30 years old or what is known as ancient documents. When the document is proved to be 30 years old, compliance with rules meant for the purpose of proving the execution of documents may be dispensed with and a presumption in favour of document may be drawn U/S.90 of the Evidence Act.
The above section embodies a rule of necessity. For the sake of general convenience, if founded on the great difficulty and often impossibility of proving hand writing after long lapse of time and on the presumption that the attesting witnesses, if any are dead, a presumption which is not allowed to be rebutted by proof that such witnesses are alive and actually in court. The presumption U/S.90 of the Evidence Act may be drawn if the following conditions are satisfied.
(i) ancient documents;
(ii) produced from proper custody;
(iii) document must be free from suspicion;
(iv) document must not have been anonymous.
h) When a document purporting or proved to be 30 years old and produced from proper custody, the following presumptions may be raised.
(i) that the signature and every other part of the document which purports to be in the hand writing of any particular person is in that person’s hand writing;
(ii) that the document was attested by the person by whom it purports to have been executed.
(iii) that the document was attested by the person by whom it purports to have been attested.
24
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
i)The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied upon an authority in Vimalchand Gaver Chand Jain and others vs Ramakanth
Ekanath6wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-13 held as under:
The deed of sale dated 29-6-1978 was a registered one. It, therefore, carries a presumption that the transaction was a genuine one. Respondent was the son of the vendor. He was an attesting witness. In his written statement, he categorically denied execution of the said deed of sale. He also denied that he had attested the document. He even did not examine himself before the learned Trial Judge. His witnesses merely proved his possession. The fact that the respondent’s father was put in possession with effect form 1-7-1978 was in dispute. What was in dispute was the character of his possession. Did he continue to possess the godown as owner thereof or on the basis of leave and license was the question, which was not considered in its proper perspective by any of the three courts below.
j)The learned counsel for D.2 in the written arguments contended that mere filing of document like Ex.A1-Sale deed will not prove the execution of document and it will not prove their correctness.
k)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Vs.
Gurudev Singh and others7 has held that “certified copy of a public
document is admissible in evidence without being proved by without
further being proved by calling the witness.” In Madamanchi Ramappa & Another vs Muthalur Bojjappa8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “in terms of Sec.77 of Evidence Act, 1872, the certified copy of a
public document is admissible in evidence without further being proved by
calling the witness. Such finding has been recorded on the strength of the
established principles that once a document is preserved as a public
document, it need not be proved like any other private document.”
l)It is contended by the counsel for D.2 that it is the specific case of plaintiff that in October, 2007, the defendant trespassed into the plaint schedule property. As such it is bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove the same, but the plaintiff did not choose to examine any independent witness to depose that the plaint schedule property is in 6 2009 (3) Supreme 460 72011(4) Civil Court Cases 0738 8AIR 1963 SC 1633 25
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6 and no documents were filed to prove their earlier possession. In the absence of the same, it is not safe to believe the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 to decide the case in favour of plaintiff. Thus, his endeavour is that the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6 failed to prove their possession at any point of time over plaint schedule property. As such the registered document under Ex.A1 is not valid and genuine and contents of the same are not proved and it is never acted upon. On the other hand, the learned counsel for plaintiff contended that in a suit for recovery of possession against the encroacher when there is a registered sale deed executed by vendor in his favour, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in 2017 SC 350 that there is no need to examine or vendor to prove the sale. In this case, admittedly, Ex.A1-Sale deed is 30 years old document and there is a presumption to the execution of Ex.A1 regarding which I have already discussed above. Moreover, it is produced before the court from proper custody. In the cited authority, it was held to the effect that the execution of sale deed does not need any attesting witnesses like gift deed which requires atleast two attesting witnesses as provided U/S.123 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and consequently Section 68 of Evidence Act that deals with the examination of attesting witness to prove the execution of document would not apply to the sale deed which is governed by Section 54 of
Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the presumption U/S.90 of Indian
Evidence Act is clearly applicable to the execution of Ex.A1. Moreover, the defendants except contending that Ex.A1 is never acted upon and it was stated to be created document, did not take any steps to subject it to the expert for comparison and report. Even though the defendants are admittedly in possession of Ex.B1 which is executed by the common vendor-Ramalakshmi, as this court had come to a conclusion that the plaint schedule property and property covered by
Ex.B1 are different, it is settled principle of law that the title follows 26
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
possession that applies to this case. If a person claims title to an immovable property, he has to prove his possession thereof as otherwise such title has got no value at all. However, that does not mean that the title thereof has been extinguished because of the person not being in possession.
m) In these circumstances, the contention of defendants that
Ex.A1 is never acted upon and evenif it is acted upon the title of father of plaintiff and defendants and subsequently their title stood extinguished after expiry of nearly three decades is not sustainable.
Once the title of K.Venkateswara Sarma has been established it, naturally flows into plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6 soon after his demise being his legal heirs, unless, it is established by the 2nd defendant that by way of adverse possession, it acquired title to the said property. Admittedly, there was no plea of adverse possession raised by the 2n defendant, on the other hand, it has set up counter title. In this regard, it is quite worthy to refer here an authority in
Indira v. Arumlugam9in which it was held to the effect that the suit based on title for possession, if the title established on the basis of relevant documents, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited, unless, the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period.
Indeed, the provision under Article 142/1908 Limitation Act, it was for the plaintiff to prove not only the title but also the possession within 12 years from the date of suit, but under new Act, period of limitation commences only after possession of defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs as there was metamorphic sea change in view of Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963. Under the new Act, the burden is shifted on to the defendant to prove adverse possession by clear and unequivocal evidence and in such circumstances, there is no obligation on the plaintiff to prove that they are in possession within the stipulated period of 12 years. What is required is that the finding on the title of 9 AIR 1999 SC 1549 27
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
plaintiff has to be given. Here, it is not the case of defendants 1 and 2 that they acquired title over the property by adverse possession as their contest is that they purchased under Ex.B1, but this court categorically held that both properties are different. This apart, being a civil case, the plaintiff cannot be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt, a high degree of probable lending assurance of the availability of title with him would enough to shift the onus on the defendants and if they do not succeed in shifting back the onus, plaintiff’s burden of proof can safely deemed to be discharged.
n)On careful analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, I am of inescapable opinion and irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff, defendants 3 to 6 are able to succeed in proving title of Venkateswara Sarma, as such they are entitled for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. Consequently, issues no.1 and 3 are held in favour of the plaintiffs.
o)Coming to issue no.2, whether the 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser under the registered sale deed dt.15-9-1975 and in possession of the property is concerned, it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that under Ex.B1, the 2nd defendant has purchased 1189 sq.yards from the common vendor of plaintiffs and 2nd defendant by name Renuka Ramalakshmi who conveyed the said property which she got under registered sale deeds pertaining to 1961 and 1962, inasmuch as both the properties are different, no serious consideration is needed to decide the aspect that the 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser or not as no claim is there from the side of plaintiffs against the property covered by Ex.B1. Accordingly, I answered that the 2nd defendant is validly purchased the property covered under Ex.B1.
11.Issue No.4:-
To what relief?
In the result, suit is decreed as under:
28
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
i)The plaintiffs-2 to 4, D.3, D.5 and D.6 are hereby declared as the owners of plaint schedule property.
ii)The defendants 1 and 2 are hereby directed to deliver the vacant possession of plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs-2 to 4 and D.3, D.5 and D.6 within two months from the date of this judgment; failing which, the decree holders are at liberty to get it done through process of the court, iii)In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 29th day of December, 2018.
VI Addl.District Judge, Kakinada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
P.W.1:Karipeddi Satyanarayana Murthy P.W.2 :Karipeddi Suryanarayana Murthy P.W.3 : Karipeddi Annapurna
FOR DEFENDANTS:-
D.W.1 : Dr.V.Satya Dev D.W.2 : Dr.R.Mahalakshmi D.W.3 : M.Venkateswara Rao
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1/dt.8-2-1962:Original registered sale deed Ex.A2/dt.29-5-2008:Office copy of legal notice Ex.A3/dt.2-6-2008 :Postal acknowledgment Ex.A4/dt.2-6-2008 :Postal acknowledgment Ex.A5/dt.12-10-1959:Registration extract of sale deed Ex.A6/dt.3-8-1961:Registration extract of sale deed Ex.A7/dt15-9-1975:Registration extract of sale deed
FOR DEFENDANTS:-
Ex.B1/DT.15-9-1975:Certified copy of registered sale deed Ex.B2/dt.-------------:Souvenir for one decade Ex.B3/dt.------------:Magazine relating to 1998. Ex.B4/dt.----------- :Positive photo of flack of inauguration of sports pavilion. Ex.B5/dt.3-11-2004:Office copy of letter from Principal, Rangaraya Medical College to the Executive Engineer, S.C Co-Operative Society Limited, Kakinada 29
O.S.60/2009 Dt.29-12-2018
Ex.B6/dt.4-10-2006:Office note Ex.B7/dt.-------------:Photographs Ex.B8/dt.-------------:Letter Ex.B9/dt.1-11-2004:Office note Ex.B10/dt.12-10-2006:Letter to Executive Engineer, S.C Co- Operative Society Limited, Kakinada Ex.B11/dt.------------:Photograph with C.D Ex.B12/dt.------------:Positive photograph Ex.B13/dt.------------:Photograph Ex.B14/dt.-------------:Tax receipts from 2008 to 2009
Ex.C1/dt.--------------:Commissioner plan
VI Addl.District Judge, Kakinada.