1
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ::
VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE
PRESENT: Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anakapalle.
MONDAY, THE 10 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023
ORIGINAL SUIT No.05/2015
Between:
1. Dasari Tata Babu, s/O. Late D.Apparao, Aged about 42 years , Occupation: Service, R/o. D.No.28-21-9, Kanithi, Wadlapudi, R.H.C, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Dasari Narasayya, S/o. (Late) Venkatappa @ Paradesi, Hindu, aged 46 years, R/o. D.No.9-104A, Bangarayyapeta Village, H/o. Thallapalem, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Dasari Somaraju, S/o. (late) Venaktappa @ Paradesi, Hindu, aged 45 years, R/o. D.No.9-104, Bangarayyapeta Village, H/o. Thallapalem, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Dasari Apparao, S/o. (Late) Venkatappa @ Paradesi, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o. D.No.9-104B, Bangarayyapeta Village, H/o. Thallapalem, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
5. Dasari Kalyanam, S/o. (Late) Narasayya, Hindu, aged 47 years, D.No.30- 82-28/1, Kanithi, R.H.Colony, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
6. Dasari Tatababu, S/o. (Late) Narasayya, Hindu, aged 45 years, residents of D.No.27-11-24, Sundarayya Colony, Peda Gantyada, Nadipuri P.O, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Dasari Nookaraju, S/o. (Late) Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 40 years, R/o. D.No.34-15-30/327, Street No.10, Sangam Colony, Mandapeta Village & Mandal, East Godavari District.
8. Dasari Somaraju, S/o. (Late) Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 39 years, R/o. D.No.34-15-30/327, Street No.10, Sangam Colony, Mandapeta Village & Mandal, East Godavari District.
9. Dasari Ramana, S/o. (Late) Apparao, Hindu, aged 41 years, D.No.28-21-9, Kanithi, R.H Colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
10. Dasari Kondababu, S/o. (Late) Somulu, Hindu, aged 43 years, R/o.D.No.28-21-14, Kanithi, R.H Colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
(Plaintiffs 2 to 10 represented by their G.P.A Holder Dasari Tatababu i.e., 1 st plaintiff) ….Plaintiffs 2
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
A n d:
1. Bathina Satyanarayana, S/o. Kannu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 47 years, Occupation: Cultivation, R/o. Gurugu Bheemavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Bathina Potharaju, S/o. Kannu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Occupation: Cultivation, R/o.Gurugu Bheemavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Bathina Krishna, S/o. Kannu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Occupation: Cultivation, R/o.Gurugu Bheemavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Bathina Gangamma, W/o. Kannu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o.Gurugu Bheemavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
5. M/s. Position Power Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Ramineni Anjaneya Prasad, S/o. (Late) Buchaiah, Flat No.502, S.S.V.Paradise, K.R.M.Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-13.
…Defendants
This suit is coming on 15.03.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintifs and of
Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendants 1 to 4 and 5th defendant having remained set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This is a suit fled by the plaintifs for declaration of their title as absolute owners in respect of the plaint schedule properties and consequently to declare the Gift Deed dated 21.06.2007 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 as invalid and also to cancel the registered Sale Deed dated 15.03.2012 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 5th defendant, along with costs of the suit.
2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:-
(a). The plaintifs have succeeded the land situated in Sy.Nos.92, 97, 40/1, 40/2 under G Patta numbers 354, 10 in an extent of Ac.6-19 cents,
Ac.0-27 cents and Ac.5-88 cents and the total extent comes to Ac.12-34 cents, situated in Gurugu Bheemavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal. The 3
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
above referred properties were jointly purchased by the grandfather of the plaintifs by name Dasari Somulu and his mother Dasari Nookamma under two registered Sale Deeds i.e., registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1936 purchased from Bathina Adinarayana and another registered Sale Deed dated 12.04.1947 purchased from one Dasari Appala Naidu. The grandfather of the plaintifs gave the above said properties on lease to one Bathina Kannam
Naidu and others. Subsequently, the plaintifs have succeeded the said properties and they are in joint and constructive possession of the same. The plaintifs also prepared a partition list dated 25.01.2010 for partition of the plaint schedule properties among themselves.
(b).While so, the plaintifs came to know that the defendants 1 to 3 are claiming that they got title in respect of the suit schedule properties.
Therefore, the plaintifs got issued Public Notice in Eenadu and Sakshi telugu daily newspapers intimating the general public that the above said properties belonged to them and cautioned the public not to purchase the above said properties. The plaintifs also fled caveat before the Court. The defendants also fled caveat against the plaintifs. In the Caveat, the defendants 1 to 3 got it mentioned that they are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties by paying the land revenue and the Revenue Authorities also issued pattadar passbooks to them. Thereafter, the plaintifs fled an application dated 29.10.2011 before the Thasildar, Kasimkota Mandal requesting them to conduct enquiry and to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued to the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the schedule properties, as the
Thasildar did not conduct enquiry, the plaintifs also fled a Writ Petition
No.16970/2012 before the Honourable High Court seeking direction to the revenue ofcials to conduct enquiry with regard to pattadar passbooks issued to the defendants 1 to 3 and the same is pending.
4
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
(c). The plaintifs also came to know that the 4th defendant has executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of part of the schedule property under registered Gift Deed dated 21.06.2007 without having any right or title over the property. In turn the defendants 1 to 3 sold some property to the 5th defendant under registered Sale Deed dated 15.03.2012 without having title and right over the property. Under these circumstances, the plaintifs are constrained to fle the present suit for declaration of their title and also for consequential relief to declare that the
Gift Deed dated 21.06.2007 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 is not valid and also for cancellation of the registered Sale
Deed dated 15.03.2012 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 5th defendant.
3.After receiving summons from the court, the defendants 1 to 4 made their appearance. The 1st defendant fled written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 2 to 4. The 5th defendant remained exparte in the suit. The averments of the written statement fled by the 1 st defendant are as follows:
(a). The 1st defendant denied all the material averments made in the plaint. The 1st defendant also has fled a schedule along with the written statement in respect of the Sy.Nos.40/1 and 40/2, which is shown as Item
No.3 in the plaint schedule property. It was further contended by the defendants that the plaintifs gave wrong boundaries in the plaint schedule in respect of Item No.3. It was further contended that the defendants 1 to 3 are the brothers and 4th defendant is their mother. The defendants 1 to 3 are the children of Bathina Kannam Naidu, who is the husband of 4th defendant. The defendants 1 to 4 are in lawful possession and enjoyment of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property and prior to them their father and forefathers were in possession of the property with absolute rights. The defendants were also 5
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
paying land revenue to the government in respect of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties and their possession and enjoyment is also within the knowledge of the plaintifs. The Gift Deed executed by the 4th defendant in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and the Sale Deed executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 5th defendant are valid documents and binding on the plaintifs. The plaintifs fled Caveat Petition before the Court only to create record for litigation.
(b). The defendants further contended that the plaintifs have not fled any record to establish their relationship with Dasari Somulu and further failed to fle any proof to show that they are successors of the said Dasari
Somulu and Nookamma. Therefore, the plaintifs are not entitled to seek the reliefs sought in the plaint and as such prayed the Court to consider the circumstances and dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this court has framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the plaintifs are entitled for declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintifs are entitled to declare the Gift Deed
dated 21.06.2007 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of
3rd defendant is invalid?
3. Whether the plaintifs are entitled to cancel the sale deed
dated 15.03.2012 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour
of D5 company?
4. To what relief?
5.To prove the suit claim, the plaintifs 1, 5 and 2 got examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.22. The plaintifs also examined two independent witnesses viz., O.Sannibabu and
Dasari Ammoji as P.Ws.4 and 5 respectively. On the other hand, the 1st defendant got examined himself as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. The defendants also examined two independent witnesses viz., Bathina 6
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
Satyanarayana, Dwarampudi Satyanarayana as D.Ws.2 and 3 respectively.
6.The counsel for the plaintifs as well as the counsel for the defendants 1 to 4 fled written arguments. Heard both counsels. Perused the material on record.
ISSUES 1 to 3: I take up issues 1 to 3 together for discussion for convenience and also to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion.
7.The plaintifs are claiming title in respect of the Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties and also seeking for declaration that the Gift
Deed executed by D4 in favour of D1 to D3 as invalid and also for cancellation of registered Sale Deed executed by D1 to D3 in favour of D5.
Therefore, the plaintifs have to establish their title in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 of plaint schedule properties. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss that the defendants have only claimed right and possession only in respect of
Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property and the defendants clearly stated that they are no way connected with Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. Even if the defendants taken a plea that they are no way connected with Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, the plaintifs are not automatically entitled to seek the relief sought in the plaint.
The plaintifs have to independently establish their title in respect of Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties.
8.In order to establish their right and title, the plaintifs 1, 5 and 2 got examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively. P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically stated that the plaintifs 2 to 10 have executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 1st plaintif to look after the plaint schedule properties and also to fle a suit on their behalf. Therefore, the General Power of
Attorney executed by the plaintifs 2 to 10 in favour of 1st plaintif dated 04.08.2011 is marked as Ex.A1. P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically deposed that their grandfather by name Dasari Somulu and his mother Dasari Nookamma jointly 7
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
purchased the plaint schedule properties under two registered Sale Deeds and the certifed copies of the Sale Deeds are marked as Exs.A2 and A3. The contention of the plaintifs is that by virtue of Exs.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds the grandfather of the plaintifs and the mother of their grandfather jointly purchased the plaint schedule properties. Subsequently, the plaint schedule properties were leased out to one Bathina Kannam Naidu and others. The said Bathina Kannam Naidu is the father of defendants 1 to 3 and husband of 4th defendant. Subsequently, the plaintifs succeeded the plaint schedule properties from their predecessors and they are in joint and constructive possession.
9.The plaintifs came to know that the defendants are trying to create documents claiming title over the plaint schedule properties.
Therefore, the plaintifs have given Public Notice by making publication in
Eenadu newspaper. Ex.A6 is the Publication in Eenadu newspaper dated 23.08.2011. The plaintifs also fled Caveat petition before the Court on 29.09.2011 and Ex.A7 is the Ofce Copy of Caveat Petition. The defendants also fled Caveat before the Court on 17.10.2011 and the served copy of
Caveat Petition fled by the defendants is marked as Ex.A8. The plaintifs also came to know that the 4th defendant executed Gift Deed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 in respect of Item No.3 of the schedule properties and the certifed copy of Gift Deed dated 21.06.2007 is marked as Ex.A4. In turn the defendants 1 to 3 executed Sale Deed in favour of 5th defendant for part of
Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property and the certifed copy of Sale Deed
dated 15.03.2012 is marked as Ex.A5. The plaintifs also came to know that
the defendants 1 to 3 have obtained pattadar passbooks from the Revenue
Authorities. Therefore, they have fled an application before the Thasildar,
Kasimkota to cancel the pattadar passbooks, but no action was taken by the
Thasildar, Kasimkota on their application. Therefore, the plaintifs have fled a 8
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
Writ Petition before the Honourable High Court seeking direction to the revenue ofcials to cancel the pattadar passbooks. Ex.A9 is the Copy of Writ
Petition No.16970/2012 fled before the Honourable High Court. Ex.A10 is the served copy of counter fled by the defendants in Writ Petition
No.16970/2012. Ex.A11 is the copy of rejoinder fled in Writ Petition
No.16970/2012 and Ex.A12 is the Market Value Certifcate relating to the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A13 is the copy of the notice issued by the government dated 27.06.1975. Exs.A14 to A18 are the Death Certifcates of
Dasari Somulu, Dasari Venkappa, Dasari Narasayya, Dasari Nookaraju and
Dasari Apparao respectively. Ex.A19 is the certifed copy of Sale Deed dated 08.12.1995. Exs.A20 to A22 are the letters addressed by the 1st plaintif to the R.D.O, M.R.O and District Collector requesting to take action on the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of defendants 1 to 3. The plaintifs also examined P.Ws.4 and 5 viz., O.Sannibabu and Dasari Ammoji in support of their case. P.Ws.4 and 5 also supported the case of the plaintifs by stating that Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to
Dasari Somulu and his mother Dasari Nookamma and subsequently the said properties were succeeded by the plaintifs and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same.
10.On the other hand, the 1st defendant got examined himself as
D.W1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. D.W.1 deposed in his evidence that the defendants 1 to 3 are brothers and they are the children of 4th defendant and one Bathina Kannam Naidu. The defendants categorically stated that they are no way connected with Items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, but they are having right and title in respect of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property, situated in Sy.Nos.40/1 and 40/2 to an extent of Ac.5-88 cents. The defendants contended that Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property is their ancestral property succeeded by them. D.W1 got marked 9
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
Exs.B1 to B3, which are 1-B Register stands in the name of defendants 1 to 3 respectively. The defendants contended that Exs.B1 to B3 clearly established that Item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties belongs to defendants 1 to 3.
In support of their contention, the defendants got examined two independent witnesses viz., Dwarapureddi Satyanarayana and J.M.Suryanarayana Raju as
D.Ws.2 and 3. D.Ws.2 and 3 also categorically stated that they got neighbouring lands near the properties of the defendants and stated that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties succeeded from their ancestors. Therefore, D.Ws.2 and 3 have supported the version of the defendants. So far as the version of the defendants is concerned Exs.A4, A5 and Exs.B1 to B3 are relevant to determine their rights.
As per the version of the defendants Item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties situated in Sy.Nos.40/1 and 40/2 belonged to their ancestors and succeeded by them. When Ex.A4 Gift Deed dated 21.01.2007 is perused the recitals show that the said Gift Deed was executed by the 4th defendant i.e., mother in favour of her sons i.e., defendants 1 to 3.
11.In Ex.A4 Gift Deed it was specifcally mentioned that D.4 got the property from her parents only in respect of the property in Sy.No.40/1 to an extent of Ac.1-83 cents and no property was conveyed in respect of the property in Sy.No.40/2. Therefore, this fact clearly shows that D4, who is the mother of defendants 1 to 3 got the property from her parents and which clearly shows that it is not the property of forefathers of D1 to D3 as contended by them. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention that no reference has been made as to how D4 got the property from her parents.
How the D4 succeeded the property mentioned in Ex.A4 Gift Deed from her parents is not explained. Therefore, this is a crucial aspect, which evidently shows the weakness in the version of the defendants. As per Ex.A5 Sale
Deed, D1 to D3 executed the said document in favour of D5 to an extent of 10
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
Ac.0-32 ½ cents out of total extent of Ac.1-83 cents, therefore part of the property covered under Ex.A4 was sold to D5 under Ex.A5 Sale Deed. The defendants in support of their contentions also got marked Exs.B1 to B3. As per Ex.B1 1st defendant has got Ac.0-61 cents in Sy.No.40/1 and Ac.1-35 cents in Sy.No.40/2. As per Ex.B2, the 2nd defendant by name Bathina
Pothuraju has got Ac.0-61 cents in Sy.No.40/1 and Ac.1-35 cents in
Sy.No.40/2. As per Ex.B3 1-B Register the 3rd defendant i.e., Bathina Krishna has got Ac.0-28 ½ cents in Sy.No.40/1 and Ac.1-35 cents in Sy.No.40/2.
12.At this juncture, after excluding Ac.0-32 ½ cents sold to the 5th defendant under Ex.A5 Sale Deed, the remaining property in Sy.No.40/1 is mutated in the Revenue Records in the name of D1 to D3 and the total extent comes to Ac.1-83 cents which was conveyed to D1 to D3 by D4 under
Ex.A4 Gift Deed. As already discussed above, Ex.A4 Gift Deed does not disclose in what manner D4 got the property from her parents. Therefore, the source of getting title in respect of Ac.1-83 cents situated in Sy.No.40/1 is not properly explained by the defendants. Moreover, Exs.A4 and A5 registered documents are only relating to property in Sy.No.40/1 to an extent of Ac.1-83 cents. So far as the property in Sy.No.40/2 is concerned the defendants did not choose to fle any kind of document as to how they got the property from his ancestors. It is a settled principle of law that the entries in the Revenue
Records cannot become sole basis to determine the title of the parties.
Therefore, in addition to Exs.B1 to B3, the defendants are supposed to fle documentary proof as to how they got right in respect of the property covered under Sy.No.40/2. Exs.B1 to B3, which are the entries in Revenue
Records only show that the defendants 1 to 3 are in possession of the property, but does not establish their title. Therefore, as per the documents fled by the defendants marked as Exs.B1 to B3 and as per Exs.A4 and A5 fled by the plaintifs does not establish the source of getting title in respect 11
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
of Item No.3 of the schedule property comprises of Sy.Nos.40/1 and 40/2.
Merely on the ground that the defendants could not establish their title, the plaintifs are automatically not entitled to get the relief of declaration of title.
The plaintifs have to independently establish their title so as to seek declaration of title and also for cancellation of Ex.A4 Gift Deed and Ex.A5 Sale
Deed. In this regard, it is also pertinent to discuss that Ex.A4 Gift Deed is of the year 2007 and Ex.A5 Sale Deed is of the year 2012. The suit is fled in the year 2015 and therefore the plaintifs cannot contend that Exs.A4 and A5 are created in anticipation of suit fled in the year 2015.
13.In other words, the plaintifs have to establish their title in respect of the plaint schedule properties more particularly in respect of
Sy.No.40/1 and 40/2 to seek cancellation of Exs.A4 Gift Deed and Ex.A5 Sale
Deed.
14.Therefore, this Court holds that the defendants failed to establish their source of title in respect of Item No.3 of plaint schedule property. The defendants however categorically stated that they are not claiming any right in respect of Items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintifs to establish their title in respect of Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintifs mainly relied upon Exs.A2 and
A3 Sale Deeds contending that their grandfather along with his brothers and mother by name Nookamma purchased the properties long back in the year 1937 and 1947. Even according to plaintifs version, the property was purchased by the plaintifss grandfather along with his brothers and mother of their grandfather, which is almost 80 years back. Therefore, the plaintifs have to frst of all establish that they are successors of one Dasari Ramulu whose name was mentioned in Exs.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds. The plaintifs have to establish that they are successors of the vendees covered under Exs.A2 and A3 sale deeds. As the documents relate to 80 years back period, the 12
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
plaintifs also must explain how the property has changed hands from one generation to another generation and fnally how the property came into the hands of the plaintifs. In this regard, the plaintifs absolutely failed to explain the genealogy as to how they succeeded the properties of the vendees covered under Exs.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds. Moreover, the burden is on the plaintifs to establish the fow of succession and how the property changed hands during the said period of 80 years. Moreover, no document has been fled to show the possession of plaintifs or their predecessors in respect of the plaint schedule properties at any point of time. This is a strong circumstance throwing doubt over the case of the plaintifs.
15.The second contention of the plaintifs is that the schedule property was leased out to Kannam Naidu and others by Dasari Ramulu. The said Kannam Naidu is the father of D1 to D3 and husband of D4. If really, the version of the plaintifs is true, they are supposed to mention when the property was leased out to the said Kannam Naidu and others and what is the agreed lease amount and the period of lease. The plaintifs must also state as to who used to receive the lease amounts and when the lease was terminated and also when the plaintifs or his predecessors got possession from the tenants. The plaintifs absolutely did not furnish any of the above said particulars. In the absence of these material particulars, the contention of the plaintifs that they leased out the schedule properties to Kannam
Naidu and others is not proved. Moreover, the plaintifs alleged that Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties were leased out, therefore which item was leased out to which person is also not clearly explained either in the pleadings or in the evidence. Therefore, this Court holds that the lease set up by the plaintifs as alleged by them is not proved. Moreover, if the Item No.3 was leased out to Kannam Naidu, his L.Rs are added as parties. The teneants in respect of Sy.Nos.92 and 97 which are shown as Items 1 and 2 in the plaint 13
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
schedule properties shall also be made as parties, but the plaintifs failed to do so. All the circumstances clearly show that the version of the plaintifs in this regard is doubtful. Moreover, the counsel for the defendants contended that as per Exs.B1 to B3, they are in possession of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties and further the plaintifs have not fled any document to show their possession in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. When the plaintifs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties mere declaration without seeking the relief of recovery of possession is not maintainable.
16.In this regard the counsel for the defendants relied upon the following judgments:- (1). Venkataraja and others V. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (Died) through L.Rs and others reported in [AIR 2014 SC (Suupp) 904]; (2). Ram Saran and another V. Smt.Ganga Devi reported in [AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2685]; and (3). Md. Abdul Latif V. Laloi Mia And others reported in [AIR
Online 2019 Gau 617].
In all the above judgments the proposition laid down is that when it is established that the defendants are in possession of the disputed property and if the plaintifs seek only the relief of declaration of title simplicitor without seeking relief of consequential relief of recovery of possession, the suit of the plaintifs is not maintainable. The counsel by relying on the above judgments contended that the plaintifs have not fled any documents to establish their possession over the schedule properties and moreover the plaintifs have pleaded and adduced evidence stating that they leased out the schedule properties. The plaintifs did not mention that they have taken back the properties from the tenants. Therefore, the plaintifs have to seek the relief of recovery of possession along with declaration of title, but they 14
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
failed to do so, as such the suit is not maintainable. Considering the material on record and the decisions referred above, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintifs could not prove their title and also could not prove their possession in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Except Exs.A2 and A3 all the remaining documents are only correspondence made by the plaintifs and also the Death Certifcates, which does not establish title of the plaintifs.
So far as Exs.A2 and A3 are concerned, this Court has already given a fnding that the plaintifs could not establish that they are the successors of the vendees mentioned in Exs.A2 and A3 sale deeds.
17.The other important aspect is that Exs.A2 and A3 are only certifed copies and the plaintifs did not mention anything about the whereabouts of original Sale Deeds. The presumption of genuineness of documents will be available for 30 years old documents. If the original documents are fled into Court. Such a presumption is also available in respect of certifed copies, if the party lays a foundation from the beginning as to why the party could not fle the original document into Court for reasons such as the document is destroyed or damaged or burnt in fames or lost in foods. If such a foundation is laid with regard to loss of original documents since from the beginning of the case, then the presumption of genuineness of document in respect of 30 years old is also applicable to the certifed copies.
18.In the present case, the plaintifs have not laid any such foundation and as such the presumption of genuineness of Exs.A2 and A3 is not available to the plaintifs. Therefore, the plaintifs have to adduce evidence to prove those documents. Though, the plaintifs examined two independent witnesses as P.Ws.4 and 5 they categorically stated that they have no knowledge about Exs.A2 and A3 documents. When P.Ws.4 and 5 have no knowledge with regard to Exs.A2 and A3 their evidence is not of 15
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
much signifcance in this matter. In the absence of any authentic evidence the title of the plaintifs cannot be determined basing on oral evidence.
19.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations and fndings given by this Court as discussed above, this Court holds that the plaintifs failed to establish their title in respect of the plaint schedule properties and as such the plaintifs are also not entitled to seek for cancellation of Gift Deed dated 21.06.2007 and Sale Deed dated 15.03.2012.
Accordingly Issues 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE No.4:
20.In view of the fndings given by this Court on issues 1 to 3, this
Court holds that the plaintifs failed to establish their claim in the suit, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
21.In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of April, 2023.
Sd/- S.M.Phani Kumar
X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalle
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No. of witnesses examined for
FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:
P.W.1: Dasari Tatababu D.W.1: Bathina Satyanarayana. P.W.2: Dasari Kalyanam D.W.2: D.Satyanarayana. P.W.3: Dasari Nagaraju. D.W3: J.M.Suryanarayana Raju. P.W.4: O.Sannibabu. P.W.5: Dasari Ammoji.
No. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR:
PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.A1: Original General Power of Attorney dated 04.08.2011. (marked subject to objection). Ex.A2: Ofce Copy of Sale Deed dated 17.06.1936. (marked subject to objection). Ex.A3: Ofce Copy of Sale Deed dated 12.04.1947. (marked subject to objection). Ex.A4: Ofce Copy of Gift Deed dated 21.06.2007. Ex.A5: Ofce Copy of Sale Deed dated 15.03.2012.
16
O.S.No.05/2015
X ADJC/AKP
Ex.A6: Public Notice in Eenadu Newspaper dated 23.08.2011. Ex.A7: Ofce Copy of Caveat Petition dated 29.09.2011. Ex.A8: Served Copy of Caveat Petition dated 17.10.2011. Ex.A9: Photostat Copy of W.P.No.16970/2012 (Subject to objection). Ex.A10: Served Copy of counter in W.P.No.16970/12.
Ex.A11: Served Copy of Rejoinder in W.P.No.16970/12.
Ex.A12: Original market value certifcate.
Ex.A13: Photocopy of Government Notice dated 27.06.1975.
Ex.A14: Death Certifcate of Dasari Somulu dated 07.07.2011.
Ex.A15: Death Extract of Dasari Venkappa dated 28.03.2020.
Ex.A16: Death Certifcate of Dasari Narasayya dated 19.07.2011.
Ex.A17: Death certifcate of Dasari Nagaraju dated 07.07.20111.
Ex.A18: Death Certifcate of Dasari Apparao dated 26.02.1999.
Ex.A19: Photocopy of Sale Deed (Extract) dated 08.12.1925.
Ex.A20: Letter to R.D.O, Kasimkota by 1st plaintif dated 21.10.2011.
Ex.A21: Letter to M.R.O, Kasimkota by 1st plaintif dated 31.10.2011. Ex.A22: Photocopy of Letter to District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 29.10.2011.
DEFENDANTS:-
Ex.B1: 1(B) Register in the name of D.W1/Bathina Satyanarayana dt.10.02.2015. Ex.B2: 1(B) Register in the name of Bathina Pothuraju/D2 dated 10.02.2015. Ex.B3: 1(B) Register in the name of Bathina Krishna/D3.
Sd/- S.M.Phani Kumar
X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalle