O.S. 41/20101
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ALLAGADDA.
Present : Sri P.Divakar, Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda.
Friday, this the 20 th day of March, 2020
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 41 of 2010
Kota Rajeswari W/o Late Ravi Kumar, Aged 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Padakandal Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District.
....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sirivella Jayarami Reddy S/o Pulla Reddy, AGEd 80 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Obulampalle village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District ( Died Rep.by his LR.s Defendants 6 and 7)
2. Nandyala Ramalingamma W/o Hussain Reddy, Aged 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o P.Chinthakunta Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District.
3. Munnelli Venkateswaramma W/o Pullaiah, Aged 32 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Pullareddy Street, Allagadda Village & Mandal, Kurnool District.
4. Manilla Venkateswara Reddy S/o Laxmi Reddy, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o H.No.LIG61, Houseing Board Street, 28th ward, Nandyal Town, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.
5. Mekala Pedda Dasthagiri S/o Pedda Obanna, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o H.No.3/7, B.C. Colony, G.Jambuladinne Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District.
6. Sirivella Satyanarayana Reddy @ Badri S/o Late Jayarami Reddy, Aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Obulampalle Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District.
7. Sirivella Chandrasekhara Reddy S/o Late Jayarami Reddy, Aged 62 years, Hindu, Retd.Employee, R/o H.No.81291/B, Chalamaiah Street, Allagadda Town & Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendants
(D6 to D7 added as L.Rs of D1 as per order in IA NO. 930/2017 dated 03.01.2018)
This Suit is coming before me on 23.01.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Neelakanteswaram, Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff and Sri B.V.Subba Reddy, Advocate on behalf of defendants, and upon hearing the counsels for both sides, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is the suit initially filed by the Plaintiff against D1 to D5 seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property. During the pendency of the suit D1 died, therefore his
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/20102
LR.s D6 and D7 brought on record. During the pendency of the suit, Plaintiff filed a petition in IA No.623/2018 Under O.6 R17 of Civil Procedure Code ( In short C.P.C ) to amend the plaint, which was allowed and suit is amended from the injunction simplicitor to declaration and consequential Permanent Injunction.
2.The averments of the plaint are that :
For the purpose of Agricultural Market Committee, Allagadda the
Government had acquired Ac.18.75 cents in Sy.No. 244/1, 244/2, 245/1B, 247, 248/1, 248/2 and 249, in Allagadda Town located opposite to the court buildings Allagadda.
Even the land acquisition officer paid compensation to the owners from whose land was acquired. Particularly, the Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No. 249 and Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No. 248 is part and parcel of the said Ac.18.75 cents.
One Kota Lakshmaiah is the original owner of Ac.1.06 cents in Sy.No. 245/3.
After acquisition of Ac.1875 cents and allotted of the same to the Agricultural
Market Committee, the Committee noticed that, for the better and convenient usage of the land acquired, it is better to exchange the land with the said Kota Lakshmaiah’s land.
Accordingly, the Agricultural market committee entered into Registered Exchange Deed
dated 21.03.2005 with Kota Lakshmiah and his family members by exchanging land of
Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No. 249 and Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No. 248 with Ac.106 cents in Sy.No.
245/3 belongs to Kota Lakshmaiah. Thus, after exchange, the Plaintiff who is the 6th party in the Exchange Deed became entitled for Ac.0.14 ½ cents in Sy.No. 249 which is shown as plaint A schedule. On the other hand, the Agricultural Market Committee became entitled for Ac.106 cents in Sy.No. 245/3, which is shown as plaint B schedule. Despite the fact, the defendants tried to interfere with the Possession of Plaintiff over the Plaint A schedule property, hence the suit seeking Permanent Injunction.
Subsequently, as the Defendants denied the title of the Plaintiff, at the initiation of the Plaintiff a petition in IA No.623/2018 Under O.6 R17 of C.P.C filed and allowed, accordingly the suit is amend from Permanent Injunction to Declaration and
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/20103
Consequential Permanent Injunction.
3.On the other hand, the 3rd Defendant filed Written Statement, adapted by other Defendants, denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that the Plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing material facts. The D1, D2 and D4 are unnecessary parties to the suit. The Market committee and the Land acquisition officer are the necessary parties to the suit. Neither the Agricultural committee nor the Land acquisition officer acquired the land of the Defendants. The alleged exchange deed is not binding on Defendants.
Originally the Plaint Schedule Property belongs to Valmiki Elukala Chinna
Rangaiah. He sold Ac.0.03 ¼ cents to Mamilla Chinna Rangaiah through Registered Sale
Deed dated 30.09.1969. Later the same was succeeded to the son of Mamilla Lakshmi
Reddy who is D4 herein. Being the owner, the D4 sold the same to D5 through Registered
Sale Deed dated 24.12.2009. The Plaintiff has knowledge of the above said transactions.
Now, the D5 is in possession of AC.0.03 ¼ cents.
Further, an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No. 249 own by the above said
Chinna Rangaiah sold to Sirvella Jayarami Reddy through Registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.1969. Later the said Jayarami Reddy sold the same to Nandyal Rama Lingamma through Registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.2008. Subsequently, the said Rama Lingamma also sold the same to Manneli Venkata Lakshmamma who is D3 herein, under Registered
Sale Deed 16.12.2008, since then she has been in possession of the same.
Thus in total, D3 and D5 own and possess Ac.0.06 ¼ cents. The Plaintiff have no right to claim the said site. Since the suit filed for relief of Permanent Injunction without seeking declaration, suit is not maintainable.
3(a).After amendment of the suit, the Defendants filed Written Statement denying the title of the Plaintiff and contended that, the Plaintiff is not the owner of the Plaint
Schedule Property.
4.Basing on the rival contents of both the parties , since there are no elements of settlement, the following issues are settled for trial.
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/20104
1. “ Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of agricultural market committee and the land acquisition officer as necessary parties to the suit ?”
2. “ whether the suit for mere Permanent Injunction without declaration of right and possession of Plaintiff over the Plaint Schedule Property is maintainable ?”
3. “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for against the Defendants ?”
4. “ To what relief ?”
After amendment of the suit the issue as to declaration is framed and the above issue No.2 is struck down. Now the array of issues are :
1. “ Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of agricultural market committee and the land acquisition officer as necessary parties to the suit ?”
2. “Whether the Plaintiff entitled for Declaration as prayed for?”
3. “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for against the Defendants ?”
4. “ To what relief ?”
5.During the trial, the Plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. So also examined her husband Kota Ramaiah as PW2. By filing petition in IA
No.47/2019 summons served to witnesses Naganna and P. Siva Mahanadi Reddy, they were examined as PWs 3 and 4. On the other hand, the D6 examined as DW1 and got marked
Ex.B1, B2 ; D2 to D5 are examined as DW2 to 5 and got marked Ex.B3 to B10.
6.The gist of evidence of the Plaintiff and her witnesses as follows:
6(a).The Plaintiff being PW1 filed her chief Affidavit mostly reiterating the contents of the Plaint. Wherein, in Cross examination, she deposed that, the total extent in Sy.No. 249 is
Ac.1.10 cents. She denied that, on the ground there is only Ac.0.96 cents. She was allotted
Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No. 249. She denied that, the market committee only shown the record of
Ac.0.74 cents in the name of her fatherinlaw. She voluntarily deposed that, the Government acquired Ac.1.06 cents in Sy.No. 245/3, to compensate the same, allotted Ac.1.10 cents in
Sy.No. 249. She denied that, the Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No. 249 not allotted to her fatherinlaw.
She do not know who are the other persons from whom the market committee acquired the land. Her husband’s brother and others looked after the aspect of measuring the property and
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/20105
other events in that connection. She did not file any survey report. The market committee authorities shown their property including Plaint schedule Ac.0.14 ½ cents physically to them.
She knew about the exchange took place, but she do not know the year of acquisition by the market committee. She does not know the sale transaction in between Valmaki Yelakala
Chinna Rangaiah and D1. After amendment of the suit, filed additional chief and cross examined through Advocate Commissioner wherein, she deposed that as per Ex.A1, the Serial
No.6 property allotted to her and she was shown as 6th party in Ex.A1. There are some houses to the east of Plaint Schedule Property. The Prasad is no way concerned with the extent in
Sy.No. 249. She denied that, in the suit schedule survey number the D3 have Ac.0.03 cents and D5 have Ac.0.03 ¼ cents.
6 (b)The husband of PW1 i.e, Kota Ramaiah/P.W2 filed his chief mostly sailing with
PW1, wherein in his cross he deposed that, the total extent in Sy.No. 249 is Ac.0.75 cents. He denied that, the total extent is Ac.0.96 cents. He does not know the total extent in Sy.No. 248.
His father have Pass Book and Title Deed pertaining to Ac.1.06 cents in Sy.No. 248. He admitted that, the Ex.A1 is pertaining to exchange of property in Sy.No. 248 and 249 in favour of eight members of his family. He further admitted that, the PW1 is shown as 6th member in
Ex.A1. He denied that Ex.A1 is not particular about the allotment of extents referring to specific survey number. He admitted that, as per Ex.A1, the Serial No. 1 to 5 properties are on one side and Serial No.7 and 8 properties are on other side. He admitted that, for the plaint schedule Ac.0.14 ½ cents, there is no specific boundaries given in Ex.A1. He voluntarily deposed that, the total property covered under Ex.A1 given, by allotting extent to all the family members. He did not take over the document from the market committee to ascertain from whom they acquired Ac.0.74 cents. He voluntarily deposed that, he have document to show from whom market committee acquired Ac.0.74 cents. He filed the said record before the court. They did not specifically demarcate the Plaint Schedule Property with the assistance of
Mandal Surveyor. He voluntarily deposed that, after measuring the property with the District
Surveyor, the market committee handed over Ac.0.74 cents to their family members in Sy.No.
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/20106
248 and 249 by subdividing the same. In the year 1980, the Market committee acquired the land. He denied that, on 30.09.1969 one Lakshmi Reddy who is father of D4 purchased
Ac.0.03 ¼ cents from Valmiki Chinna Ranganna. He further denied that, the Ac.0.03 cents to the east of above AC.0.03 ¼ cents purchased by D1 from the same Ranganna on the same day i.e., on 30.09.1969. He denied that, D4 executed Sale Deed dated 24.12.2009 in favour of D5 and D1 executed Sale Deed dated 05.12.2008 in favour of D2, subsequently D2 executed Sale
Deed dated 16.12.2008 in favour of D3. According to him, in the year 1980 whose names replicate as owners, the market committee acquired the property from them in Sy.No. 249. He denied that, D3 and D5 are in possession of Ac.0.03 ¼ and Ac.0.03 cents respectively and they are the owners of the same.
6(c) The present secretary of the Agricultural Market Committee by name Naganna got summoned by the Plaintiff and examined as PW3. Though he brought the original of
Ex.A1 and A2, since they were marked as Ex.A1 and A2, the originals not received into the record. In the cross examination he deposed that, there is no record before him to show that they are the owners in Sy.No. 249. He did not obtain RH page for Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No. 249 acquired. Eight persons executed Ex.A1 for Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No. 248 and Ac.0.74 cents in
Sy.No. 249. The particular extents own by executees is not mentioned in Ex.A1. He do not know location of the lands by referring to executees. He do not know whether Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No. 249 retain by the Plaintiff and remaining Ac.0.74 cents only acquired. No land acquired from Mamilla Lakshmi Reddy and Sirivella Jayarami Reddy under Ex.A2.
6(d). One P. Siva Mahanandi Reddy who is then typist of the Agricultural Committee got summoned by the Plaintiff and examined as PW4. Though he brought the original of
Ex.A1 and A2 since they were marked as Ex.A1 and A2, the originals not received into the record. In the cross examination he deposed that, the total extent in Sy.No. 249 is Ac.1.10 cents. There is no record before him to show that they are the owners in Sy.No. 249. He did not obtained RH page. The particular extents owned by the executees is not mentioned in
Ex.A1. He do not know the location of the land by referring to executees. He do not know
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/20107
whether by retaining Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No. 249 with the Plaintiff, remaining Ac.0.74 cents only acquired. No land acquired from Mamilla Lakshmi Reddy and Sirivell Jayarami Reddy under Ex.A2. The boundaries and measurements of each person not shown in the Exchange
Deed. It may be true that, 6th Serial number property may correlate to 6th executee/Plaintiff.
He denied that, no such acquisition is made and some of the extent is acquired.
7.The gist of evidence of defendants and their witnesses:
7(a).The 6th defendant being DW1 filed his chief affidavit mostly sailing with written statement, and got marked Ex.B1 and B2. Wherein in, in his cross deposed that, the Suit
Schedule Property located to the east of market yard. He do not know the total extent in
Sy.No. 249. He cannot say the entitlement of remaining owners in Sy.No. 249. He denied that, the market committee authorities taken over total extent in Sy.No. 249. He does not know about the award passed after acquisition of extent in Sy.No. 249 for the purpose of market yard. He did not make any application either to the collector or to the land acquisition officer or to the market yard authorities alleging that, he own property in Sy.No. 249. He admitted that, originally the Plaint Schedule Property belongs to one Chinna Rangaiah,
Nagaiah, Chinna Pullanna and Pedda Nagaiah. He does not know whether they are alive or not. He admitted that, Chinna Rangaiah and Pedda Rangaiah are own brothers. His father purchased the property from Chinna Rangaiah. He did not file any record in the name of
Chinna Rangaiah from whom his father said to have purchased the property. He do not know partition if any among the brothers of Chinna Rangaiah. The land acquisition was made but did not acquire his property. To the north of Sy.No. 249 market yard is there. He does not know whether to the east of Sy.No. 249 Kota Raja Sekhar s/o Kota Lakshmaiah site is there.
To the west of Plaint Schedule Property Mamilla Lakshmi Reddy site is there. The suit is filed for Ac.0.03 cents. Since his father sold Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No. 249, he have no right over such extent. Sirivella Jayarami Reddy is his father. He admitted that, to the north of total extent in
Sy.No. 249 market committee godown is there. He admitted that, by acquiring the property the government constructed godown. He deposed that, no noticed served on them by the
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/20108
time of such acquisition. Therefore they did not raise any objection. After verifying with the
Registrar Office and MRO office pertaining to acquisition by the Government, his father sold the property. He denied that, since the land acquired, his father have no right to sell the property and even his father execute D2 will not get any right, in turn through D2, D3 will not get any right. They are not aware of award passed by Land acquisition officer. He is no way concerned with the property of the Plaintiff. He denied that, the public notice given by the
Government prior to the land acquisition calling for objections if any, including the suit schedule survey number. He denied that, since the acquisition done in proper manner, he did not raise any objection.
7(b).The N. Ramalingamma/DW2 filed her chief mostly sailing with Written
Statement, got marked Ex.B3/Registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.2008, wherein in her cross, she deposed that, she do not know the total extent in Sy.No. 249. She admitted that, to the north of the Plaint Schedule Property – Market Yard, Godown and compound are there. She admitted that, market yard and godown constructed around 30 years back. She purchased the property from one Jayarami Reddy from Ex.B3. She denied that in Ex.B3 northern boundary is shown as market yard. She does not know whether Ex.B3 property located in the midst of Sy.No. 249 or not. The Government did not acquired in property in Sy.No. 249 for construction market yard. She again sold the property to Venkata Lakshmamma. There is no difference in between the Sale Deed executed in her favour and Sale Deed executed by her.
She admitted that, Pedda Rangaiah and china Raigaiah are own brothers. They have Ac.100 in Sy.No. 249. She denied that, after acquisition, Pedda Rangaiah received notice, compensation and award passed as well. She denied that, either Jayarami Reddy or Pedda
Rangaiah or Chinna Rangaiah have no property in Sy.No. 249.
7(c).Venkata Lakshmamma/D3 filed her chief as DW3 mostly sailing with Written
Statement, got marked Ex.B4 to B7, wherein in cross she deposed that, out of Ac.0.06 ½ in
Sy.No. 249, Ac.0.03 ½ cents is vacant site and remaining Ac.0.03 cents is not vacant site. The
Market yard not located to the immediate north of her property. She purchased the property
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/20109
from D2. Since she is illiterate she cannot say door number but she filed tax receipts. The boundaries to Plaint Schedule Property are : West – Mekala Dasthagiri site, North – Road,
South – Road, East – Prasad House. She denied that, D2 have no right to execute Sale Deed.
She do not know whether the extent in Sy.No. 249 originally belongs to Chinna Rangaiah or not. The Plaintiffs family members have no site in Sy.No. 249. In the chief examination she deposed that, the Plaintiff have site in Sy.No. 249. She denied that, she did not construct house in Ac.0.03 cents out of Ac.0.06 ½ cents and it is vacant site only. The Door number shown in tax receipt replicate in Ration card. She have been residing in Pulla Reddy street.
After obtaining sanction, she constructed a house around 7 years back. She did not file sanction proceedings as it was torn.
7(d)The Venkateswara Reddy/D4 filed his chief as DW4 mostly sailing with DW4, got marked Ex.B8 and B9 wherein in his cross he deposed that, Mamilla Lakshmi Reddy is his father. His father purchased the property from Valmiki Elukala Chinna Rangaiah. The property originally own by said persons. The Ac.0.03 ¼ cents located in the midst of Ac.0.90 cents which was originally own by Chinna Rangaia and Pedda Rangaiah. He admitted that, on all four sides of Ac.0.03 ¼ cents, open site is there. He have gone through Ex.B8. The Ex.B8 property sold by him to D5 under Ex.B9. He do not know about Ex.A1. He does not know whether the Chinna Rangaiha and Pedda Rangaih received compensation for the acquisition for not !. He denied that, Ex.B8 and B9 are no way concerned with the Plaint Schedule
Property.
7(e).Mekala Pedda Dasthagiri/D5 failed his chief as DW5 mostly sailing with Written
Statement and marked Ex.B10 wherein in his cross, he deposed that, the property is in Sy.No.
249 located to the east of market yard. Venkateswara Reddy is his vendor. He admitted that, opposite to the Allagadda court market yard constructed. He purchased the property in the midst of Sy.No. 249, within West – land of K. Ramudu, North – Road, East – land of D3,
South – Road. He admitted that, to the north of road market yard godown is there. He further admitted that, in between road and market yard godown the extent is within Sy.No.
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201010
249. He admitted that, Elukala Chinna Rangaiah and Pedda Rangaiha are the original owners for the land in Sy.No. 249. He does not know whether the government acquired the total extent in Sy.No. 249 or not and the said original owners received compensation or not. The
Ex.B10 replicate the entry of Sale Deed dated 30.09.1969 and did not replicate in Ex.B9. He denied that by submitting wrong particulars, he obtained Ex.B10. He denied that, through
Ex.B9 and B10 he will not get any right and title.
8. Heard the arguments of both sides.
9.Issues No.1 :
1. “ Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of agricultural market committee and the land acquisition officer as necessary parties to the suit ?”
One of the contentions raised by the defendants is that, the suit is bad for non joinder of Agricultural Committee and Land acquisition officer as necessary parties. On the other hand, the Plaintiff counsel argued that, since it is dispute between Plaintiff and the defendants, there is no necessity to add the other persons who did not dispute the title of the
Plaintiff.
In view of such rival contentions, first of all let us see what is Sec.34 of Specific
Relief Act, 1963 ( In short Act,1963 ) speaks. Sec. 34 of the Act, 1963 is very clear that, the suit for declaration lies against a person who deny the title of the Plaintiff. It is further clear from Catena of judgments that, the judgment in suit for declaration is judgment in personam which binding upon parties to the suit and not judgment in rem. When the law is very clear, as rightly contended by the Plaintiff either the Agricultural committee or the land acquisition officer not denied the title of the Plaintiff, therefore she did not chosen to added them as parties to the suit, by virtue of Sec. 34 of Act, 1963, there is no necessity for her to add them as parties to the suit.
Moreover, the necessary party is a party without whom no proper adjudication can be made. Here is the case, the title dispute is between Plaintiff and defendants; in such a case who have better title among can be decided, even in the absence of the alleged necessary
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201011
parties. Therefore, I am of the considerable opinion that neither the Agricultural Market
Committee nor the land acquisition officer are not necessary to adjudicate the dispute in between parties to the suit.
Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants
10. Issue No.2 :
2. “Whether the Plaintiff entitled for Declaration as prayed for?”
It is the case of the Plaintiff/PW1 that, the Government acquired Ac.18.75 cents the in Sy.No. 244/1, 244/2, 245/1B, 247, 248/1, 248/2 and 249 in Allagadda Village for the purpose of Agricultural Market Committee. The said extent located opposite to the court buildings Allagadda. Even the land acquisition officer paid compensation to the owners from whose land was acquired. Particularly the Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No. 249 and Ac.0.36 cents in
Sy.No. 248 is part and parcel of the said Ac.18.74 cents. For the better and convenient usage of the land allotted to the Committee, they enter into Registered Exchange Deed dated 21.03.2005/Ex.A1 with Kota Lakshmiah and his family members by exchanging land of
Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No. 249 and Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No. 248 belongs to Agricultural Market
Committee with Ac.106 cents in Sy.No. 245/3 belongs to Kota Lakshmaiah. The Plaintiff who is the 6th party in the Exchange Deed became entitled for Ac.0.14 ½ cents in Sy.No. 249. Since the defendants tried to interfere with the Possession of Plaintiff, she filed suit for injunction simplicitor, subsequently amended the relief to Declaration and consequential Permanent injunction.
10(a).On the other hand, the defendants contended that the part plaint A Schedule property i.e., Ac.0.06 1/4 cents originally own by Chinna Rangaiah and Pedda Rangaiah.
Subsequently, by changing the hands came to the hands of D3 and D5 and there are the owners and possession of Ac.0.03 1/4 cents and Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.249 respectively.
10(b).In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies upon the Plaintiff to establish his title to the plaint schedule property and the weakness if any in establishing the title of the defendant over his property shall not confer any title to the Plaintiff. In this regard,
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201012
I relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Union of India and others v.
Vasavi Coop Housing Society Ltd. and others, wherein at Para No.15, it was held as hereunder:
“The legal position, therefore, is clear that the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not.
We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of Plaintiff's own title, Plaintiff must be nonsuited.”
The learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that, the moment the Plaintiff discharged the burden lying upon him, the onus of proof would shift upon the defendant to prove his title to the property. In this regard, he relied upon a Division Bench decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nagamma and Ors V. G Kamalamma and
Ors., wherein at Para No.12, it was held as hereunder:
“It was well settled that in a suit for declaration of title if the Plaintiffs are to succeed they must do so on the strength of their own title. (Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos, AIR 1959 SC 31). Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witnessbox and state his own case on oath, and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct (Vidhyadhar, 1999 (3) ALT SC). Ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side.
The initial onus is always on the Plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to the relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the Plaintiff to the same. (Anil
Rishi, 2006 (5) SCJ 721). But then the question of burden of proof at the end of the case, when both parties have adduced their evidence, is not of very great importance and the court has to come to a decision on a consideration of all materials. (Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos, 5 supra).”
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201013
But, as argued by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, when the Plaintiff and defendant are claiming title to the plaint schedule property, on the discharge of burden lies upon the Plaintiff, it shifts upon the defendant to make out a better title than the Plaintiff. So, the burden of proof always lies on the Plaintiff to prove his title to the plaint schedule property, but upon discharge of the same, the onus of proof shifts upon the first defendant to make out a better title than the Plaintiff.
10(c).To discharge initial onus the Plaintiff, she herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2. When it is the case of the PW1 that, the Government acquired Ac.18.75 cents of land including the Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.249 and Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.248, it is her primary onus to establish such acquisition by the Government.
11. By referring to Ex.A2 which is the award passed by the land acquisition officer, while testifying orally, the Pws 1 and 2 candidly deposed that the Government acquired
Ac.18.75 cents including Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.249. The PW1 further deposed that, they filed document to show the acquisition, whereas the PW2 voluntarily deposed that, they have no document to show from whom the market committee acquired Ac.0.74 cents. The PW2 further deposed that, he did not taken over the document from market committee to ascertain from whom the government acquired Ac.0.74 cents. Even the PW1 also deposed that, she did not know whether the persons from whom the extent in Sy.No.249 acquired.
11 (a).Though PW1 and 2 deposed that, they did not file any document to establish such acquisition, the Plaintiff counsel argued that, the Ex.A2 is sufficient to establish the
Acquisition.
Since either PW1 or PW2 not in a position to say what is extent and in which survey number the land is acquired, so also from whom it is acquired, considering the argument of Plaintiff counsel, this court constrained to go through Ex.A2 which is projected to establish the acquisition of Ac.18.75 cents, including the plaint A schedule property in
Sy.No.249. As can be seen from Ex.A2, it is apparent that one K.V. Ranga Rao, Special Deputy
Collector passed the Award/Ex.A2. The award passed conforming the acquisition of Ac.18.75
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201014
cents in Allagadda Village. However, the glaring aspect has to be considered here is that, neither survey number nor the specific extent in survey number is given in Ex.A2. Without mentioning the S.No and extent how anyone including the court can assume that the Plaint A schedule property is part and parcel of 18.75 cents ?.
11(b). Except Ex.A2 there is no other document filed, that is to say, either the proclamation or notification of acquisition or beneficiary list who receive the compensation, filed before the court. Though it is suggested to defendants side witnesses in their cross that, the original owners received compensation for the acquisition of the land in Sy.No.249, no piece of document filed to establish such receipt of compensation.
11(c).Thus, without any further scrutiny it is clear that, except Ex.A2 there is no other document filed to establish the acquisition. Of course, the Ex.A2 admission of DW1, is sufficient to assume the acquisition of Ac.18.75 cents in Allagadda Village for the agricultural market yard, but not sufficient to assume that, in the particular survey number, the particular extent acquired, much less the plaint A schedule property is also acquired and part and parcel of Ac.18.75 cents. Without any piece of document, the mere admissions elicited form defendant side witnesses are not sufficient to assume that the plaint A schedule property is part and parcel of Ac.18.75 cents.
12.Now coming to Ex.A1, it is the exchange deed in between agricultural market committee and the Plaintiff and her family members. For better appreciation, I have gone through the said exchange deed. It consists of two schedules one is Ac.1.06 cents in
Sy.No.245/3 own by the Plaintiff and her family members and another is Ac.0.74 cents in
Sy.No.249 and AC.0.36 cents in Sy.No.248 which is said to be the land acquired by the
Government for the market committee. The person in charge of the market committee entered into exchange deed with 8 persons including Plaintiff for exchange of the Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.249 and Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.248 of market committee with that of Ac.1.06 cents in Sy.No.245/3 of Plaintiff and her family members. However as stated supra, without any prima facie material as to acquisition of particular survey number and extent, this court
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201015
cannot assume or presume the entitlement of the person in charge of the market committee entered into exchange deed.
12(a). Moreover, there are eight extents shown pleaded in plaint. Serial No.6 entitled by the Plaintiff. It is argued by plaintiff counsel that, as per recitals in Ex.A1 that
Serial No.1 named is entitled by for Serial No.1 property and Serial No.2 named entitled for
Serial No.2 property so on and so forth; therefore, the Plaintiff/PW1 who is the Serial No.6 in
Ex.A1, is entitled for Serial No.6 property i.e., Ac.0.14 1/2 cents. In view of such pleading and argument, I have gone through Ex.A1 carefully. The Plaintiff/PW1 herein shown as 6th party and the Ac.0.14 1/2 cents is shown as 6th item. It is pertinent to note that, there is no survey number given beside the Ac.0.14 1/2 cents. Even there are no boundaries given either to
Ac.0.14 1/2 cents or remaining seven extents. Without providing any survey number how can we assume that, the said Ac.0.14 1/2 cents is pertaining to Sy.No.249 only ? . Without providing any survey number and without there being any boundaries and without mentioning the fact how the agricultural market committee became entitled to Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.249 and Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.249, the Market committee proceeded to execute Ex.A1.
Furthermore, I did not found any recital in Ex.A1 which connote the meaning that, by virtue of the Acquisition, the market committee is entitled to the property which include plaint A schedule property. In the absence of any details with regard to either survey number or boundaries, this court cannot assume or presume that, the Serial No.6 i.e., Ac.0.14 1/2 cents is none other than the plaint A schedule property.
12(b).Coming to oral evidence in this context, Pertaining location of the property within the given boundaries, when PW1 subjected to cross examination she deposed that, her husband’s brothers and others looked after the aspect of measuring the property and other evidence. However, she did not file any report. In this context, the PW2 deposed that, they did not specifically demarked property with the assistance of Mandal surveyor. After giving such answer, immediately he voluntarily deposed that, after measuring the property with the
District Surveyor, the market committee handed over Ac.0.74 cents to their family members
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201016
in Sy.No.248 and 249. If that being so, where is the said report why the said report did not filed before the court ?, is best know to P.W2.
Thus, it is clear that, the Ex.A1 and A2 are not sufficient to assume that, the plaint A schedule property is the property exchanged in between the Plaintiff, her family members and the market committee.
13.Now, coming to the case of the defendants, it is their case that, the Ac.0.06 ¼ of property which including plaint A schedule property belongs to Valmiki Yelukala Chinna
Rangaiah and he sold Ac.0.03 1/4 cents to market committee through Ex.B1/30.09.1969 and on the same day he again sold Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.249 to S. Jayarami Reddy. By showing plaint A schedule, the Plaintiff claiming their Ac.0.06 1/4 cents. However, the Plaintiff counsel further argued that, as deposed by DW1 they are no way concerned with the property of the
Plaintiff.
13(a).In view of such argument, I have gone through the oral evidence of Dws 1 to 5.
It is suggested to Dws 1 to 5 that, originally the plaint A schedule property belongs to Chinna
Rangaiah and his brothers. So, as admitted by the Plaintiff, the plaint A schedule property originally belongs to the Chinna Rangaiah and his brothers. As stated supra, there is no document filed to assume either to acquisition of Ac.0.76 cents in Sy.No.249 or from whom it is acquired or to whom compensation is paid. The acquisition was done in the year 1980, whereas the Ex.B8 speaks that on 30.09.1969 the Mamilla Lakshmi Reddy who is the father of
D4 purchased Ac.0.03 1/4 in Sy.No.249. In such a case, as of the year 1980 the Mamilla
Lakshmi Reddy is the owner of Ac.0.03 1/4 and if at all the acquisition is made he is the proper person to receive compensation, but is suggested to Dws 1 to 5 that the original owner Chinna
Rangaiah received compensation !. If at all the said beneficiary list contain the names of the persons who received compensation filed, this court might have had an opportunity to verify the said aspect. Even the PW3 and 4 deposed that no property acquired from Mamilla
Lakshmi Reddy’s father as DW4 and Jaya Rami Reddy, who is father of DW1. Without filing any document to show the name of the Chinna Rangaiah as a beneficiary received the
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201017
compensation, this court cannot assume or presume that the Government acquired the land from Chinna Rangaiah and paid compensation to him as well.
Further, after 19 years of the said acquisition, the D4/DW who is the son of
Lakshmi Reddy executed Sale Deed for the said Ac.0.03 1/4 cents. On 24.12.2009 through
Registered Sale Deed/Ex.B9 in favour of D5/DW5. In spite of such registered document i.e.,
Ex.B8 and B9 without there being any prima facie material as to acquisition by referring to survey number, extent and owners and without mentioning any survey number and boundary in Ex.A2, the Plaintiff went on contesting the suit that, she is the owner of the plaint A schedule property. For the reason that, the DW1 deposed that, he is no way concerned with the property of the Plaintiff, it is not mean that, the Plaintiff is the owner of the plaint A schedule property. When the DW1 candidly deposed that, under the guise of Ex.A2, the
Plaintiff claiming title over his extent, the said evidence of DW1 cannot be understood in the way argued by the Plaintiff.
13(b).It is further case of the defendants that, on 30.09.1969 the same Chinna
Rangaiah sold Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.249 to S. Jayarami Reddy he sold the same to Nandyala
Rama Lingaiah/DW2 through Registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.2008/Ex.B2, in turn she sold the same to Venkata Lakshmamma /DW3 through Registered Sale Deed dated 16.12.2008/EX.B3. All these documents goes to show the acquisition and devolution of the property, firstly upon Jayarami Reddy and then to DW2 and then to DW3. As deposed that the persons concerned with committee i.e., Pws 3 and 4. No property of Jaya Rami Reddy acquired. As observed supra, without filing any document to show that the Jayarami Reddy is the person received compensation for such acquisition, this court cannot assume or presume such acquisition and the Ex.B2 and B3 convey better title.
14.Nonetheless, it is admitted fact that, the Government acquired Ac.18.75 cents in
Allagadda Village limits for the purpose of agricultural market yard. It is also admitted fact that, the said market yard godown constructed and it is located opposite to the Allagadda
Court buildings. It is also admitted fact that, the godown was constructed in Sy.No.249.
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201018
Except extracting oral admissions there is no document filed by the Plaintiff. Let us assume for a while that, the market committee yard, godown constructed in Sy.No.249, whether it is sufficient to establish that the plaint A schedule property is entitled by the Plaintiff ?, Certainly not .
14(a).For not filing of the proper material, to avoid technicalities and the difficulties in future this court constrained to say some probabilities. If at all the Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.249 and Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.248 acquired by the Government and the same survey number is there in the Gazette or notification contain the names of Chinna Rangaiah and Jayarami
Reddy as the owners and if their names replicate in the beneficiary list to receive the compensation on one hand the Ex.B2, B3,B9 and B10 losses its significance. If not replicate
Ex.B2, B9 and B10 holds good.
15. Nonetheless, apart from the above said reasons, for not mentioning specific survey number and boundaries in Ex.A2 corelating to Serial No.6 i.e., Ac.0.14 ½ cents , this court cannot assume or presume that, the plaint A schedule property of Ac.0.14 1/2 cents is within Sy.No.249 and within the boundaries given in plaint A schedule.
Viewed from any angle, the Plaintiff failed to establish her title over the plaint A schedule property.
16. Issue No.3
3. “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for against the Defendants ?”
In view of findings in Issue No.2 it is came into light that, the Plaintiff failed to establish her title over plaint A schedule property. Even there is no document filed to establish her possession from the date of exchange deed dated 21.03.2005 till filing of suit. If at all as deposed by PW2, the property was demarked and market committee put them in possession, why their name was not mutated in any of the revenue document ?. Except Ex.A2 of the year 2005, there is no document filed to establish the possession of the Plaintiff over the plaint A schedule property. For reasons given supra, Ex.A2 is not sufficient to assume legal possession
Jcj, Allagadda
O.S. 41/201019
of the Plaintiff over the Plaint schedule property within given boundaries.
In view of findings in Issue No.2, as well as for not filing any document to show the possession of Plaintiff, it cannot be said that she is in legal possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore this issue is also answered against the Plaintiff.
17. Issue No.4:
4. “ To what relief ?”
In view of findings in Issue No.s 1 to 3, since the Plaintiff failed to establish her title and legal possession over the plaint schedule property, she is not entitled either for declaration or consequential permanent injunction. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation by the typist corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of March, 2020.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ALLAGADDA.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
For Plaintiffs For Defendants PW1 : Kota RajeswariDW1 : Sirivella Satyanarayana PW2 : Kota RamaiahDW2 :N. Ramalingamma PW3 : NagannaDW3 : M. Venkata Lakshmamma PW4 : P. Siva Mahanandi Reddy Dw4 : M. Venkateswara Reddy DW5 : Mekala Pedda Dasthagiri Exhibits Marked For Plaintiffs Ex.A1 : A counter copy of deed of registerd exchange dated 21.03.2005 executed by the market committee and PW1, and others, from which he got the schdule land. Ex.A2 : The certified copy of Award passed by land acqisition officer, dated 27.11.1980. For Defendants : Ex.B1 : Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.1969. Ex.B2 : Registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.2008. Ex.B3 : Registered Sale Deed dated 16.12.2008. Ex.B4 : Encumbrance Certificate dated 04.03.2010 (Manual) Ex.B5 : Encumbrance Certificate dated 04.03.2010 Ex.B6 : Demand Bill Ex.B7 : Tax Receipt Ex.B8 : Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.1969 in favour of Lakshmi Reddy who is the father of DW4. Ex.B9 : Registered Sale Deed dated 24.12.2009 executed by DW4 in favour of D5 Ex.B10 : Encumbrance Certificate dated 04.03.2010
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ,
ALLAGADDA.
Jcj, Allagadda