IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: IBRAHIMPATAN,
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
PRESENT: SRI S. NAGESWARA RAO, Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatan
Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 137 of 2005
Between:
1. Narani Jangaiah son of Late N. Rajaiah Aged 38 years
2. Narani Babaiah son of Late N. Jangaiah Aged 40 years
3. Narani Narsimha son of Late N. Jangaiah Aged 35 years
4. Narani Shankaraiah son of Ramaiah Aged 60 years
5. Potti Jangaiah son of Late P. Pentaiah Aged 65 years
6. Potti Kistaiah son of Late P. Gandaiah Aged 45 years
All Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy District…Plaintiffs
AND
1. Pasham Anjaneyulu son of Chenna Rayudu, Aged 56 years
2. Pasham Prabhakar (died per L.Rs)
3. Pasham Kamalakar son of Chenna Rayudu, Aged 36 years
4. Pasham Mangamma wife of Late Prabhakar, Aged 30 years, Occupation: House wife (Defendant No. 4 added as per orders in I.A.No.222/2006 dated 11-2-2009)
5. Pasham Neeraj Kumar son of Late Prabhakar Aged 12 years
6. Pasham Vinay son of Late Prabhakar, Aged about 10 years
7. Pasham Annu son of Late Prabhakar, Aged about 7 years (Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 added as per orders in I.A.No.635/2008 dated 11-2-2009)
All Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Mangalpally Patelguda Village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District...Defendants
This suit coming on for final hearing before me on 8-4-2015 in the presence of Sri M. Venkatnarayana Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri G. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the defendants 1 and 3 and defendant No. 2 reported dead and defendants 4 to 7 having remained ex-parte and upon hearing the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
2
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed document No.
1828/1994 dated 12-8-1994 and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and persons claiming through them from causing interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land and for any other relief plaintiffs are entitled to. The plaint pleadings in brief are as follows:
Plaintiffs are the joint owners and possessors of agricultural lands bearing ghut survey No. 300 to an extent of Ac.2-35guntas or survey No. 300/ఉ admeasuring Ac.2-35guntas of Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). Originally one Mohd. Nadeem was the pattedar of the agricultural land bearing survey No. 300(P) admeasuring
Ac.11-06guntas, survey No. 299/P ad-measuring Ac.5-03guntas, survey No. 551 admeasuring Ac.12-39guntas and survey No. 552 admeasuring Ac.12-32guntas of Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Narani
Narsaiah, Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah were the protected tenants and possessors of the lands bearing survey No. 300 (P) to an extent of Ac.2- 35guntas out of the total area of Ac.11-06guntas, survey No. 299/P admeasuring Ac.5-03guntas and survey No. 551 admeasuring Ac.12-39guntas, survey No. 552 admeasuring Ac.12-32guntas of Mangalpally village. The PT certificate on the said lands was issued in the name of one of the joint protected tenants namely Narani Narsaiah who was elder among the joint protected tenants. The other joint protected tenants continued their joint possession and enjoyment of the said PT lands along with Narani Narsaiah. In the said PT lands, Narani Narsaiah had got 5/12th share, Narani Ramaiah had got 1/6th share and Potti Pentaiah had got 5/12th share. Narani Ramaiah died about 40 years back survived by his only son Narani Shankaraiah (plaintiff No.
4) who succeeded the PT rights of the said lands held by Narani Ramaiah. Potti
Pentaiah died about 40 years back survived by his two sons Potti Jangaiah (plaintiff No. 5) and Potti Gandaiah who succeeded the PT rights in the said lands held by Potti Pentaiah. On the basis of the PT certificate, 38-E ownership certificate was granted by the Addl. Deputy Collector, East Division and on the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatan in file No. B4/2982/77, as per the entries made in the Faisal Patti for the year 1977-78, the name of Narani
Narsaiah has been mutated as pattedar against the suit land. After the 3 issuance of the 38-E ownership certificate in respect of the suit land in the name of Narani Narsaiah, the legal heirs of other protected tenants as mentioned above became joint owners of the suit land along with Narani
Narsaiah and continued their joint possession and enjoyment as per their respective shares. After the death of Narani Narsaiah who died about 26 years back, his sons Narani Rajaiah and Narani Jangaiah (1st plaintiff) succeeded the ownership rights to the extent of 5/12th share in the suit land held by Narani
Narsaiah. Subsequently, the name of Narani Jangaiah son of Late Narani
Narsaiah has been mutated as pattedar against the suit land. All the joint owners continued their joint possession and enjoyment of the suit land. After the death of Narani Rajaiah son of Late Narani Narsaiah about 11 years back, his only son Narani Jangaiah (1st plaintiff) succeeded the 5/12th share in the suit held by Narani Narsaiah. Likewise, after the death of Narani Jangaiah son of Late Narani Narsaiah, his two sons namely Narani Babaiah and Narani
Narsimha (plaintiffs 2 and 3) respectively succeeded the 5/12th share in the suit land held by Narani Rajaiah and Narani Jangaiah sons of Late Narsaiah.
Potti Gandaiah son of Late Potti Pentaiah died about 4 years back survived by his son namely Potti Kistaiah (plaintiff No. 6) who succeeded the share held by his father in the said lands. Thus the plaintiffs are the joint owners and possessors of the suit land. While so, M/s. Narani Jangaiah, Narani Durgaiah,
Narani Sarvaiah and Narani Yadaiah sons of Sayanna filed an ROR appeal No.
A2/3504/2002 on the file of the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, East
Division claiming exclusive rights over the suit land and for correction of record or rights against Defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 and the same is pending. Meanwhile, defendants herein filed an application before the MRO, Ibrahimpatan on 21-2-2005 for grant of patta in their name on the basis of the alleged registered sale deed document No. 1828/1994 dated 12-8-1994 executed by
Narani Jangaiah son of Narsaiah in respect of the suit land. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 4-4-2005 and plaintiffs filed necessary objection petition in the matter. Ultimately, the MRO, Ibrahimpatan has dismissed the said petition observing that “in view of the above, this Court is not proper to decide the case pending disposal of appeal filed before the
Spl. Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, RR East Division. Hence the case will be taken up for consideration only after disposal of the appeal case by the Spl.
Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, RR East Division. Accordingly, the case is 4 dismissed” vide file proceedings No. D/721/2005 dated 20-6-2005. As a matter of fact, Narani Jangaiah son of Narsaiah has never executed any registered sale deed much less registered sale deed document No. 1828/1994 dated 12-8-1994 in respect of the suit land in question in favour of the defendants as alleged by the defendants. Further Narani Jangaiah son of Late Narsaiah has no exclusive ownership or possessory rights over the suit land at any point of time. Plaintiffs are the joint owners and possessors of the suit land as submitted above and as such the alleged registered sale deed does not convey any ownership or possessory rights to the defendants. The defendants are falsely claiming ownership and possessory rights over the suit land on the basis of the said sale deed. The said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs.
However if the sale deed is allowed to continue, the same would create some future problems. To avoid the future inconvenience, for all practical purposes, it is just and necessary to cancel the registered sale deed document No.
1828/1994 dated 12-8-1994 as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs, otherwise the plaintiffs would be put to loss. Plaintiffs raised horse gram crop over the suit land and are in exclusive possession of the same. The defendants have no concern either with the ownership or possession of the suit land. In pursuance of their common intention, the defendants went to the suit land on 2-10-2005 and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit with a view to occupy the same. Plaintiffs resisted the illegal activities of the defendants and retained their physical possession over the suit land. Defendants who are rich and influential persons threatened the plaintiffs that they would dispossess the plaintiffs by hook or crook. If they succeeded in their attempts, the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by any means. Hence, the plaintiffs having no other alternative filed this suit.
2.The 1st defendant filed written statement. The 3rd defendant adopted the written statement of Defendant No. 1. Summons of Defendant No. 2 returned reporting as defendant No. 2 died. Subsequently, Defendants 4 to 7 were added as legal heirs of Defendant No. 2. Defendants 4 to 7 remained ex- parte. The written statement pleadings of Defendant No. 1 adopted by defendant No. 3 in brief are as follows:
Plaint pleadings except those which are specifically traversed in the written statement are denied. Suit is not maintainable in law or on facts.
Plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. They suppressed the 5 real facts and filed the present false and fictitious suit. Narani Narsaiah was the original protected tenant over the agricultural land bearing survey No. 300 admeasuring Ac.2-35guntas situated at Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatan
Mandal. Later on he became owner by virtue of certificate issued under S. 38E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by the Addl. Dy.
Collector, East Division. On the basis of the said 38-E certificate, the name of the said Narani Narsaiah has been mutated as pattedar in respect of the above said land. The said Narani Narsaiah has got two sons namely Narani Rajaiah and Jangaiah. After death of Narani Narsaiah, his sons Rajaiah and Jangaiah succeeded to the said property. In the joint family partition between Narani
Rajaiah and Jangaiah sons of Narani Narsaiah, the land admeasuring Ac.2- 35guntas out of the land in survey No. 300 fell to the share of Narani Jangaiah and accordingly, the name of Narani Jangaiah son of Narsaiah has been mutated as pattedar in respect of the said land. Except the said Narani
Jangaiah, no other person or persons are having any sort of right over the said land. Narani Jangaiah as absolute owner of the said land alienated the same along with lands in favour of the family members of the defendants herein through an agreement of sale dated 20-8-1996 to meet his urgent family necessities. The family members of the defendants purchased the said lands for lawful consideration and since then they are in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit land in the capacity of bona fide purchasers.
Subsequently the said Narani Narsaiah (Narani Jangaiah?) also executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendants herein in the year 1994. One
Narani Jangaiah son of Sayanna and others filed an Appeal before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, R.R. District East Division behind the back of the defendants herein challenging the entries made in favour of Narani Narsaiah in respect of the suit land. Immediately after knowing the said fact, the defendants along with one Pasham Mangamma filed a petition before the RDO East Division in file No.A2/3408/2002 to implead them as parties to the said litigation.
Ultimately, the learned RDO dismissed the said Appeal by his orders dated 10-8-2005. Plaintiffs have nothing to do with the said lands but due to recent hike of market value of the suit lands, plaintiffs filed the present suit with all sorts of false allegations. Plaintiffs are not in possession over the suit land at any point of time. The younger brother of the 1st defendant namely Pasham
Prabhakar died on 22-6-2002. Plaintiffs are very well aware of the said fact but 6 with a mala fide intention, they filed the present suit by showing the said
Pasham Prabhakar as Defendant No. 2 alleging that he also caused interference in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. This shows that the plaintiffs are not at all in possession of the suit land at any point of time. In collusion with the revenue officials, plaintiffs fabricated some revenue records and filed the present suit with a sole intention to dispossess the defendants from the suit land and also to extract some amounts from the defendants illegally. The cause of action shown is fictitious and fertile imagination of the plaintiffs. Cause of action never arose to file the suit. The suit is grossly undervalued and as the plaintiffs are not in possession over the suit land, they are not entitled to pay Court fee under S. 34(2) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suit
Valuation Act and so the Court fees paid is insufficient. This court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Without prejudice to the pleas taken by the defendants, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Apart from the other grounds, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of all necessary parties. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs.10000/- to each of the defendants.
3.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues were settled for trial:
1) Whether the plaintiffs herein are entitled to seek relief of declaration that registered sale deed bearing document No. 1828/1994 dated 12-8-1994 is null and void and not binding on plaintiffs herein?
2) Whether the registered sale deed bearing document No. 1828/1994 dated 12-8-1994 is genuine one?
3) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation as pleaded by defendants?
4) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable on the ground that lack of cause of action and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as pleaded by the contesting defendants?
5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants herein as prayed for in respect of the suit land?
6) To what relief, if any, plaintiffs are entitled?
4.On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs-A1 to A24 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs-
B1 to B17 are marked.
7
5.Heard both sides.
6.Issues 1 and 2:
As both these issues deal with the registered sale deed in question, they are taken up together. The plaintiffs are contending that they are also shareholders of the suit land and are seeking cancellation of the sale deed as null and void and not binding them. We have the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 on behalf of the plaintiffs apart from overwhelming documents of Exs-A1 to A24.
Let us examine whether the plaintiffs by their evidence are able to establish their case. Out of the six plaintiffs, plaintiffs 4, 1, 3 and 6 were examined as
PWs 1 to 4 and one independent witness is examined as PW5.
7.There is no dispute that one Mohd. Nadeem was the pattedar of the agricultural land bearing survey No. 300(P) admeasuring Ac.11-06guntas, survey No. 299/P admeasuring Ac.5-03guntas, survey No. 551 admeasuring
Ac.12-39guntas and survey No. 552 admeasuring Ac.12-32guntas of
Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal. The plaintiffs claim that Narani
Narsaiah, Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah are protected tenants and possessors of the lands bearing survey No. 300 (P) to an extent of Ac.2- 35guntas out of the total extent and also the lands in survey Nos. 299/P and 551 of Mangalpally village. But they admit that PT certificate of the suit land was issued in the name of Narani Narsaiah stating that his name was recorded as he was elder among them. The defendants also are not disputing about the fact that PT certificate was issued in the name of only Narani Narsaiah. As admitted by the plaintiffs Narani Narsaiah, Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah are not members of one family. Narani Narsaiah has two sons namely Narani
Rajaiah and Narani Jangaiah. Plaintiff No. 1 Narani Jangaiah is the son of
Narani Rajaiah and Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Narani Jangaiah. So, plaintiffs 1 to 3 claim to belong to the share of Narani Narsaiah.
8.Similarly, Narani Ramaiah has only son i.e. Narani Shankaraiah (plaintiff
No. 4). Potti Pentaiah has two sons Potti Jangaiah (plaintiff No. 5) and Potti
Gandaiah. Potti Gandaiah has one son Potti Kistaiah (plaintiff No. 6). The defendants claim that Narani Jangaiah (father of plaintiffs 2 and 3) and son of
Narani Narsaiah alienated the property in favour of the defendants under the registered sale deed sought to the declared as null and void by the plaintiffs. It is their case that in the family partition between Narani Rajaiah and Jangaiah 8 sons of Narani Narsaiah, the suit land fell to the share of Narani Jangaiah and after getting his name mutated in the revenue record with absolute rights, he executed the sale deed. The defendants deny the claim of plaintiffs that
Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah as protected tenants along with Narani
Narsaiah.
9.Now it has to be seen whether the plaintiffs are successful in proving that Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah are also joint protected tenants of the suit land along with Narani Narsaiah in spite of the fact that their name is not reflected anywhere in the revenue record on that aspect.
10.The 4th plaintiff as PW1 in his affidavit in lieu of chief examination re- iterated the plaint averments and produced Exs-A1 to A24. Ex-A1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No. 1828/1994 dated 12-8- 1994 which is sought to be cancelled. It shows that it was executed by Narani
Jangaiah son of Narsaiah in favour of Defendants 1 to 3. In this case,
Defendant No. 2 is dead and defendants 4 to 7 are added as his legal representatives. The said document shows alienation of the suit land by
Narani Jangaiah in favour of defendants 1 to 3 for consideration of Rs.26000/-.
With regard to this document, the plaintiffs contended that Narani Jangaiah never executed the said document and that since Narani Jangaiah has no exclusive ownership and possessory rights, it does not convey any ownership or possessory rights to the defendants.
11.In this case, the 3rd plaintiff who is the son of executant of Ex-A1 is examined as PW3. PW3 also re-iterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit but coming to the cross examination, he says that he does not know whether his father sold the suit land to the defendants 1 to 3 on 20-8-1996 under an agreement of sale and whether his father executed registered sale deed under Ex-A1. Further he says that he does not know whether plaintiff No. 2 who is his brother attested the same. Thus PW3 being the son of executant is not denying the execution of the document by his father in favour of defendants 1 to 3.
12.PW2 (1st plaintiff) son of brother of executant Jangaiah though re- iterated the plaint averments in his chief examination, stated in the cross examination that he came to know about registration of sale deed Ex-A1 by 9
Narani Jangaiah in favour of defendants. Further there is no attempt by the plaintiffs to establish that Ex-A1 was not executed by Narani Jangaiah in respect of the suit land in favour of defendants 1 to 3. Pw4 (6th plaintiff) reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit.
13.Both parties are admitting the issuance of 38-E certificate to Narani
Narsaiah. There is no dispute that Narani Narsaiah has two sons Narani
Jangaiah (executant of Ex-A1) and Narani Rajaiah. Admittedly, the names of
Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah are not shown as joint protected tenants along with Narani Narsaiah. They only claim that though 38-E certificate was issued in the name of Narani Narsaiah, they being the protected tenants along with Narani Narsaiah even prior to the issuance of certificate continued to be joint protected tenants and they were succeeded by their children and they are continuing in possession of the same.
14.Ex-A2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-81 showing the name of Narani Narsaiah as pattedar of the suit land. In possession column, the name of Narani Jangaiah, Narani Shankaraiah (PW1), Narani Rajaiah, Potti
Jangaiah, Potti Gandaiah are shown. In Ex-A3 certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87 i.e. 6 years after Ex-A2, the name of Narani Jangaiah alone is shown in patta column along with other pattedars in respect of the entire extent of Ac.11-06gutnas in survey No. 300. No one is shown in possession column in the said document including the pattedar Narani Narsaiah. In Ex-A4 certified copy of pahani for the year 1987-88, the name of Narani Narsaiah is shown as pattedar whereas the names of Narani Pedda Jangaiah, Rajaiah,
Shankaraiah and Potti Gandaiah were shown in possession column.
15.In Ex-A5 certified copy of pahani for the year 1988-89 also, the name of
Narani Narsaiah is shown as pattedar whereas the names of Narani Jangaiah son of Narsaiah (executant of Ex-A1) alone is shown in possession column as against the name of Narani Narsaiah pattedar.
16.In Ex-A6 certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-99, as against the suit land, the name of Narani Jangaiah son of Narsaiah is shown as pattedar while the names of Narani Bavaiah son of Jangaiah, Narani Jangaiah son of Rajaiah (PW2), Shankaraiah son of Ramaiah (PW1), Potti Jangaiah son of Pentaiah and
Potti Kistaiah son of Gandaiah (PW4) were shown in possession of
Ac.0-23guntas of land each.
10
17.In Exs-A7 to A12 certified copies of pahanies for the years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, the name of Narani Jangaiah son of Narsaiah is shown as pattedar while the names of Narani Bavaiah son of
Jangaiah, Narani Jangaiah son of Rajaiah (PW2), Shankaraiah son of Ramaiah (PW1), Potti Jangaiah son of Pentaiah and Potti Kistaiah son of Gandaiah (PW4) were shown in possession of Ac.0-23guntas of land each.
18.In Ex-A13 certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06, the land in survey
No. 300/ఉ is sub-divided as 300/ఉ, 300/ఉ 1, 300/ఉ 2 of Ac.0-39guntas, Ac.0- 38guntas and Ac.0-38gutnas respectively. In the patta column, the names of defendants 1 to 3 were shown against them. But coming to the possession column, Narani Bavaiah and Narsimha jointly, Narani Jangaiah, Narani
Shankaraiah, Potti Jangaiah, Potti Kistaiah were shown in possession of Ac.0- 23guntas of land each. Same is the case with certified copies of pahanies for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2010-11 marked as Exs-A14, A15 and A23 also.
19.Ex-A20 certified copy of PT Nakal shows Narani Narsaiah as PT for Ac.2- 35guntas in survey No. 300/P about which there is no dispute. Ex-A21 Faisal
Patti of 1997-98 shows the name of Narani Narsaiah vide proceedings No.
B4/2982/77 as against Ac.2-35guntas in survey No. 300/P, Ac.5-03guntas in survey No. 299/P, Ac.12-39 guntas in survey No. 551 and Ac.12-32guntas in survey No. 552. Ex-A22 certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91 also shows Narani Narsaiah as pattedar along with other in survey No. 300 in the total extent of Ac. 11-06guntas. Coming to possession column, Narani
Jangaiah son of Narsaiah is shown in possession of Ac.2-00guntas of land.
20.From the above documents, it is evident that the name of Narani
Narsaiah and after him, the name of Narani Jangaiah is shown as pattedar of the suit land. The plaintiffs have not placed any document showing the names of Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah as persons in possession of the suit land at any point of time to show that they were jointly cultivating the land along with Narani Narsaiah. Though in the documents produced by the plaintiffs, the name of Narani Shankaraiah (plaintiff No. 4) son of Narani Ramaiah, Potti
Jangaiah and Potti Gandaiah sons of Potti Pentaiah are shown in possession column in the year 1980-81, it cannot be said that the said possession was acquired by them from their fathers. Even in the subsequent years after Ex-A2, 11 pahanies reflecting their names are not produced before the Court till Ex-A4 certified copy of pahani for the year 1987-88. Even in Ex-A4, the name of
Shankaraiah son of Ramaiah and Potti Gandaiah son of Potti Pentaiah alone are shown apart from the names of Narani Pedda Jangaiah and Rajaiah son of
Narsaiah in possession column only. Again coming to Ex-A5 certified copy of pahani for the year 1988-89, their names are not found in the possession column and only the name of Narani Jangaiah (executant of Ex-A1) is found as against the name of his father Narani Narsaiah as pattedar. From the documents produced by the plaintiffs from the year 1998-99, the names of the plaintiffs are reflected in the possession column only.
21.The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
Y. Vijayabharathi vs. Y. Manikyamma [1998 ALT (Rev.) 363]. In Para 8 of the said decision, it was held that although the entries in the Record of Rights Register ensure that the entries are true unless the contrary is proved and may not be discredited and that the records of rights are no records of documents of title.
Further it was held that the Records of rights are the documents ensuring the person to be made liable to pay the revenue and for no other purpose. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. In view of this decision, though the names of the plaintiffs are reflected in possession column, they cannot be taken as proof of their title to the property and that they came in possession of the property through their ancestors.
22.PW1 worked as Sarpanch of the village for five years. From his admission, it is clear that Potti Pentaiah and Narani Narsaiah are not related to each other. Though he says that there is record to the effect that Potti
Pentaiah and Narani Ramaiah also cultivated the land along with Narani
Narsaiah and the same is filed, no such document is filed before the Court evidencing the said fact. So, it is clear that there is no such documentary evidence showing joint cultivation of the suit land by Potti Pentaiah and Narani
Ramaiah along with Narani Narsaiah. Since Narani Narsaiah, Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah are not of one family, the question of recording the name of only Narani Narsaiah on behalf of all appears to be not probable. If really, the three persons were cultivating the land as protected tenants with individual extents, their names could have been reflected in the revenue record as protected tenants and they would have been issued separate 38E 12 certificates in respect of their specific extents. So, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 that the names of Narani Narsaiah was alone recorded in the record being elder though all the three persons are jointly cultivating the land cannot be accepted.
23.Ex-A16 is proceedings of the MRO, Ibrahimpatan in D/721/05 dated 20-6-2005. It shows that defendants 1 to 3 approached the MRO on 21-2-2005 for grant of patta under the ROR in respect of the suit land. It further shows that in response to the notices issued, Narani Babaiah, N. Narsaiah, N.
Jangaiah, N. Shankaraiah, Potti Kistaiah and Potti Jangaiah filed objections stating that 38E certificate was issued to Narani Narsaiah and patta was implemented and he is in possession of the said land and that there are two sons of Narani Narsaiah namely Narani Rajaiah and Narani Jangaiah and at the time of implementation of the patta only, the name of Narani Jangaiah was implemented and that land was registered in the name of defendants mala fidely and asked to not to sanction in the name of defendants 1 to 3 as the document is forged. It shows that the matter was enquired after issuing notices to the parties and on 20-6-2005, the order was passed observing that there is an appeal filed under S. 5(5) of the ROR Act 1971 before the Spl. Grade
Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division between Narani Jangaiah and 3 others and N. Babaiah and 4 others against the land in question and in view of the same it would not be proper to decide pending disposal of the appeal. Further it was observed that the case would be taken up for consideration only after the disposal of the appeal case and so the MRO dismissed the said application of the defendants.
24.According to the plaintiffs, one Narani Jangaiah, Narani Durgaiah, Narani
Sarvaiah and Narani Yadaiah sons of Sayanna filed ROR appeal No.
A2/3504/2002 on the file of the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue
Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division claiming exclusive rights over the suit land and for correction of record of rights against D1, D2, D4 to D6 and the same is pending. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that when the defendants made application for grant of patta in their name basing on the sale deed, they filed objections before the MRO and the MRO dismissed the said petition in view of the pendency of the appeal before the RDO in respect of the said property. Ex-A16 also establishes the said fact. From the cross examination of 13
PW1, it is evident that the appeal was filed in the year 2002 and the same was disposed of against Narani Jangaiah and others who are sons of one Sayanna and in favour of the plaintiffs. But PW1 admits that the defendants 1, 3 and 4 were also impleaded in the said appeal and they were also parties tot he said appeal.
25. Ex-A18 is the copy of appeal in file No. 3504/2002 and Ex-A19 is the counter filed by Narani Jangaiah and Narani Shankaraiah in the said appeal
before the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga
Reddy East Division.
26.In this case, Ex-A24 certified copy of order dated 10-8-2005 on the file of the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy
East Division is filed by PW1. The suit was filed on 5-10-2005. The appeal under Ex-A24 shows that it was disposed of on 10-8-2005 itself i.e. even prior to the filing of the suit. A perusal of Ex-A24 shows that defendants 1 to 3 were also parties to the said appeal. The order in the appeal shows that Narani
Narsaiah was sanctioned 38E certificate and was brought on record through
Faisal patti for the year 1977-78 and that the RDO has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the entries made in the faisal patti which should have been made before the competent authority. So, Ex-A24 is not confirming any rights in the plaintiffs though they are parties to the appeal. It only decide that the appellants therein i.e. Narani Jangaiah and others sons of Sayanna are not entitled to rectification of the revenue record against the name of Narani
Narsaiah. So, Ex-A24 only confirms the right of Narani Narsaiah in the suit land.
Simply because the plaintiffs are parties to the said appeal, it cannot be said that they have got crystalized rights in the suit land as claimed by them. The verdict in Ex-A24 is equally in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 also.
27.Ex-A17 is certified copy of Judgment, decree and memo of compromise in O.S.No. 12/1986 dated 22-8-1991 on the file of the Prl. Subordinate Judge,
Ranga Reddy District. It shows that the said suit was filed by Syed Shabir
Ahmed and Syed Shabuddin against Naram Jangaiah, Naram Rajaiah sons of
Narsaiah, Potti Gandaiah and Potti Jangaiah sons of Potti Pentaiah and Naram
Shankaraiah son of Ramaiah. It further shows that the suit was decreed due to compromise between the parties. The compromise decree shows that the said suit relates to Ac.12-39guntas in survey No. 551, Ac.12-39gutnas in survey No.
14 552 and Ac.5-03guntas in survey No. 299 of Mangalpally village. Thus it is clear that the suit land is not part of the said suit and decree and compromise between the parties. The memo of compromise shows that the property covered by the said suit was equally divided between the parties. Basing on this document, the counsel for the plaintiffs submit that along with the lands covered by the decree in Ex-A17, Narani Narsaiah, Narani Ramaiah and Potti
Pentaiah were joint protected tenants of the suit land also. But simply because of Ex-A17 which does not include the suit land, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the suit land also was jointly cultivated by Potti
Pentaiah and Narani Ramaiah along with Narani Narsaiah.
28.The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is also same to that of PW1 and is based on the same documents and their self-serving oral evidence is not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiffs. PW5 is one Narani Narsimha son of Late
Jangaiah who is the son of Sayanna who filed the appeal under Ex-A24.
According to him, Narani Narsaiah, Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah are joint protected tenants and possessors of the suit land along with other lands but the protected tenant certificate was issued in the name of Narani Narsaiah only being elder among them. Further he says that Mohd. Nadeem was the pattedar of the suit land and other lands, that his father Narani Jangaiah purchased the lands in survey No. 300 and 302 totally Ac.25-17gutnas 'Chinna
Kancha Patta Chelka' of Mangalpally village from the pattedars and thereafter in view of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.17/1964 on the file of the
District Munsif, Ibrahimpatan, the name of Narani Jangaiah was implemented in the revenue records in the year 1965-66 as per the orders of the Tahsildar,
Ibrahimpatan and his father has become owner and pattedar of the said lands.
He further deposed that all of a sudden, the name of Narani Narsaiah was entered as pattedar in the pahani for the year 1978-79 in respect of the suit land by deleting the name of his father and knowing about the same, his father and his brothers preferred appeal No. A2/3504/2002 before the Spl. Grade
Deputy Collector, RR East Division, RR District but the appeal was dismissed on 10-8-2005. He says that Narani Narsaiah along with Narani Ramaiah and Potti
Pentaiah have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit land as tenants since long time and that his father and other brothers were under the impression that as per their purchase, they are in possession of the entire land in survey No. 300P i.e. Ac.11-06guntas but the suit land is not in actual 15 possession of the legal representatives of Narani Narsaiah, Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah by the time of filing of appeal before the RDO. He says that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit land and nobody else have got concern in the suit land.
29. In the cross examination, PW5 says that the names of Narani Narsaiah,
Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah were mutated as against the suit land but he does not know the year of mutation. He does not know whose name is mutated after the death of Narani Narsaiah. He does not know whether the defendants 1 to 3 approached the RDO to implement them as parties in the appeal filed by them. He does not know whether the names of defendants were mutated in the revenue records after disposal of their case before the
RDO. He does not know about the sale by Narani Jangaiah son of Narsaiah in favour of the defendants. Thus it is clear that PW5 have no knowledge about the facts and simply he is stating that the names of Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah were also mutated along with Narani Narsaiah. This is in fact incorrect. So the oral evidence of PW5 cannot be made basis to hold that Narani Ramaiah and
Potti Pentaiah are jointly cultivating the suit land along with Narani Narsaiah as protected tenants.
30.Now let us look at the case of the defendants. The 1st defendant as
DW1 re-iterated the written statement averments in his chief examination and produced Exs-B1 to B17. DW1 has been cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiffs at length. DW1 admitted that one Nadeem was original pattedar of the suit land along with the lands in survey Nos 299, 551 and 552 also. DW1 admitted that he purchased the land from Nadeem and Shabbir Ali in survey
Nos. 299, 551 and 551 prior to purchasing the suit land from Narani Jangaiah 15 years back under registered sale deed. He was questioned about total extent of survey numbers where Narani Narsaiah was protected tenant and in which year Narani Narsaiah was given 38E certificate in respect of the suit land and about 38E certificate. DW1 admitted that he does not know in respect of which land apart from suit land Narani Narsaiah was granted 38E certificate.
This evidence elicited from DW1 is of no use to the plaintiffs’ case. There is no dispute about 38E certificate being issued to Narani Narsaiah in respect of the suit land. Narani Narsaiah might have been issued 38E certificate in respect of other lands but it is irrelevant for the purpose of this suit. Even the plaintiffs 16 have not produced the 38E certificate issued to Narani Narsaiah though they claim that 38E certificate was issued to Narani Narsaiah. Now they cannot throw the burden on the defendants to prove the 38E certificate and in which year it was issued.
31.In the chief examination, DW1 stated that Narani Narsaiah has two sons namely Narani Rajaiah and Jangaiah who succeeded to the said property in the partition and that the suit land fell to the share of Narani Jangaiah and accordingly his name was mutated and Narani Jangaiah in the capacity of absolute owner of the suit land alienated the same in their favour through an agreement of sale dated 20-8-1996 to which plaintiff No. 2 acted as an attesting witness. In the cross examination, DW1 says that the agreement of sale was in the year 1984 and the consideration was Rs.26000/- and he paid
Rs.8000/- at the time of agreement of sale in the year 1984 and paid balance amount in the year 1994 at the time of registration and that possession was delivered at the time of agreement of sale itself. Regarding the agreement of sale not being filed, he says that he handed over the same to Narani Jangaiah at the time of getting registered sale deed in the year 1994 but he did not mention about the delivery of possession at the time of agreement of sale in his pleadings. Again DW1 stated that agreement of sale was in the year 1986 but not in the year 1984 as earlier stated by him. He admits that there is no mention about the agreement of sale in the registered sale deed. But a perusal of Ex-A1 registered sale deed shows that possession was already delivered to the vendee even prior to the date of registration. Basing on this it is argued by the counsel for the defendants that possession was delivered at the time of agreement of sale. In the written statement pleadings, it is stated that agreement of sale is dated 20-August-1996 and now it is corrected as 20-August-1986.
32.DW1 has been examined about the orders of the MRO mutating their names in the record and about enquiry being conducted before issuing order which is not relevant to decide the purchase made by the defendants and about the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit land. DW1 was examined about the division between Rajaiah and Jangaiah son of Narani Narsaiah. DW1 stated that he does not know when the division took place and he did not see the documents of division. He did not even see the patta mutated in the name of
Jangaiah. DW1 pleaded ignorance about case of the plaintiffs that Narani 17
Narsaiah, Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah are tenants of the suit land along with other lands and about their shares in the suit land. It was suggested to
DW1 that Narani Narsaiah died in the year 1967. He says that he does not know about the sons of Narani Narsaiah and Potti Pentaiah succeeding to the
PT rights of their fathers in the suit land. He says that he has no knowledge about the suit in O.S.No. 12/1986 and the compromise between the parties in the said suit. But he denied the case of the plaintiffs that Narani Jangaiah has no exclusive rights in the suit land and he did not sell the suit land. Simply because DW1 stated that he does not know about Narani Narsaiah jointly cultivating the suit land, it cannot prove the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs who have come to the Court have to establish their own case.
33.The case of the defendants is amply strengthened by the evidence of the plaintiffs in the cross examination. In this case, plaintiff No. 3 examined as
PW3 is the son of Narani Jangaiah through whom the defendants are claiming to have purchased the property. Similarly 1st plaintiff examined as PW2 is the son of Narani Rajaiah who is the brother of Narani Jangaiah. The son of executant of Ex-A1 that is PW3 in his cross examination admits that after the death of Narani Narsaiah, there was partition of the properties between his father and Narani Rajaiah about 15-20 years back and as per the partition, the names of his father and Narani Rajaiah were mutated in the revenue records in respect of their properties after partition. This proves the case of the defendants that there was partition between Narani Rajaiah and Narani
Jangaiah in respect of the properties of their father. Further PW3 admits that survey Nos. 299 and 551 were mutated in the name of Narani Rajaiah. Coming to PW2, he too in the cross examination admits that the name of Narani
Jangaiah was mutated in the revenue record after the death of Narani
Narsaiah in respect of the suit land. PW2 admitted that there are other lands in other survey numbers other than the suit land belonging to his father and his junior paternal uncle Jangaiah. He admits that the land in other survey numbers other than the suit land is standing in the name of himself and plaintiff No. 3 in the revenue record since about 12 years. But no record is placed to prove the said fact. Thus the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 establishes the partition between the sons of Narani Narsaiah namely Rajaiah and Jangaiah.
There is no dispute that Narani Rajaiah is elder to Narani Jangaiah. So, if there was no partition and the suit land not being fallen to the share of Jangaiah, the 18 name of Jangaiah would not have been mutated in respect of the suit land.
Thus it is proved that there was partition between the sons of Narani Narsaiah and the suit land fell to the share of Jangaiah and Narani Jangaiah became the absolute owner of the suit land and under Ex-A1, he sold the suit land to the defendants 1 to 3.
34.Though the evidence of DW2 Vatnala Jangaiah is filed, the said witness could not be produced by the defendants and so his evidence has been eschewed from consideration.
35.DW3/M. Yadaiah of Sahebguda H/o. Mangalpally gave evidence in support of the defendants regarding the sons of Narani Narsaiah namely
Rajaiah and Jangaiah succeeding to the property and in the partition, suit land falling to the share of Jangaiah and Jangaiah executing the sale deed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 under Ex-A1. Nothing material could be collected from the cross examination of DW3 in favour of the plaintiffs. Though it is elicited from the cross examination that DW1 is the brother-in-law of DW3, he stated that plaintiffs are also related to him. Admittedly plaintiffs and defendants are related to each other. So, basing on the relationship of DW3 with the defendant No. 1, his evidence cannot be thrown away. DW3 is one of the attesting witness to the registered sale deed Ex-A1 and the said fact is not disputed by the plaintiffs in the cross examination. The fact that Babaiah son of Jangaiah also attested the document Ex-A1 could not be rebutted by the plaintiffs. So, the evidence of DW3 establishes Ex-A1 being executed by
Jangaiah in favour of defendants 1 to 3.
36.The evidence of DW4/Pothuraju Balraj, a resident of Sahebguda also gave same evidence as that of DW3. In the cross examination, DW4 denied the case of the plaintiffs. He admitted that Pothuraju Bixapathi is his younger brother and the said Bixapathi is the co-brother of 1st defendant. Basing on this fact, the counsel for the plaintiffs argues that evidence of DW4 cannot be accepted. But simply because of the relationship, I am unable to reject the evidence of DW4 which is amply supported by the documentary evidence of
Ex-A1 and also strengthened by the evidence of plaintiffs in the cross examination of PWs 2 and 3.
19
37.Coming to the documents produced by the defendants, Ex-B1 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-92. It shows the name of Narani
Jangaiah son of Narani Narsaiah as pattedar and possessor of the suit land. Ex-
B2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-93 showing the same particulars as in Ex-B1.
38.Ex-B3 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94. It shows Narani
Jangaiah son of Narani Narsaiah as pattedar of the suit land while Narani
Jangaiah son of Narsaiah, Narani Jangaiah son of Rajaiah, Narani Shankaraiah son of Ramaiah, Potti Kistaiah son of Gandaiah and Narani Jangaiah as persons in possession of the said land each Ac.0-23gutnas. Ex-B4 certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-95 also shows the same particulars as in Ex-B3.
39.Ex-B5 certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96 shows the name of
Narani Jangaiah son of Narsaiah as pattedar while Narani Bavaiah, Narani
Jangaiah son of Rajaiah, Narani Shankaraiah son of Ramaiah, Potti Jangaiah son of Late P. Pentaiah and Potti Kistaiah son of Late P. Gandaiah are shown as persons in possession of Ac.0-23gutnas each therein. Exs-B6 to B13 certified copies of pahanies for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001- 02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 also show the same particulars as in Ex-B5.
40.Ex-B14 certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 shows the names of defendants 1 to 3 as pattedars of Ac.0-39guntas, Ac.0-38guntas and Ac.0- 38guntas in survey Nos. 300/ఉ, 300/ఉ 1, 300/ఉ 2 of Mangalpally village and showing Narani Bavaiah and Narsimha jointly, Narani Jangaiah, Narani
Shankaraiah, Potti Jangaiah, Potti Kistaiah as persons in possession of Ac.- 023guntas each therein. The pahanies produced by the defendants also show the same particulars as the pahanies produced by the plaintiffs and there is no difference between them.
41.Ex-B15 is certificate dated 3-9-12 issued by the Canara Bank, Saidabad colony branch certifying that M/s. Yadalaxmi Poultry Farm, MP Patel Guda a partnership firm availed term loan from the bank for their Poultry Farm against the mortgage of the landed properties in the name of P. Laxmipathi Goud, P.
Anjaneyulu Goud and P. Kamalakar Goud and the original pattedar pass books were with the bank. It does not reflect the survey numbers of the lands which were mortgaged to the bank. So, this certificate is of no much use to the defendants.
20
42.Ex-B16 is pattedar pass book in the name of wife of defendant No. 2. Ex-
B17 is the title deed book of Pasham Mangamma (defendant No. 4) wife of defendant No. 2. Ex-B16 is the title deed book of defendant No. 4 showing her as pattedar and possessor of Ac.0-38guntas of land in survey No. 300/ఉ 1 of
Mangalpally village.
43.With regard to Exs-A14, A16 and A17 reflecting the name of defendants as pattedars of the suit land, the counsel for the plaintiffs argued that in view of the dismissal of the application for mutation under Ex-A16 pending decision in the appeal, it is not known as to when the proceedings were issued to the defendants and the proceedings are not filed and therefore they cannot be looked into. In the evidence of DW1, he stated that pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal by the RDO (Ex-A24), the MRO got mutated their names in respect of the suit land and as a result of which pattedar pass book and title deeds were issued in their favour.
44.As could be seen from Ex-A24, it was disposed of on 10-8-2005 i.e. even prior to the filing of the suit as admitted by PW1. As could be seen from Ex-
B14, Proceedings No. D/721/05 is shown for mutating the names of defendants 1, 3 and 4. Exs-B17 and B18 also reflect the same proceedings
dated 17-8-2005. So, one week after the dismissal of the appeal by the RDO,
the mutation was effected. Simply because of the non-production of ROR proceedings, it cannot be said that the implementation of the names of the defendants 1, 3 and 4 in the revenue record and issuance of the pattedar pass book and title deed cannot be discarded. At any rate, the defendants’ case is not resting on the entries in the revenue record with regard to their rights under Ex-A1. In fact, the revenue entries made in the revenue record are based on Ex-A1 which is questioned in this suit.
45.The enquiry in this suit pertains to the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit land to make it a document liable for cancellation. As already discussed, the evidence produced by the plaintiffs is not sufficient to hold that the suit land was jointly cultivated by Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah along with Narani
Narsaiah as protected tenants and they had rights in the suit land succeeded by their children/the plaintiffs and so the sale deed is liable for cancellation as null and void. Simply because plaintiff No. 1 son of Narani Rajaiah and 21 plaintiffs 2 and 3 sons of Narani Jangaiah are also parties to the suit contending that Narani Ramaiah and Potti Pentaiah are also joint protected tenants along with Narani Narsaiah, it cannot be held so. Father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 is proved to have executed Ex-A1 in favour of defendants 1 to 3. Still they came to the Court disputing the execution of the document by their father and failed to do so.
46.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
M. Mallaiah v. C. Balaiah [1976(2)APLJ (NRC)] for the proposition of law that if a protected tenancy certificate is issued in the name of one person, it enures to the benefit of all the joint tenants and they all will become protected tenants.
47.There is no dispute about this proposition of law. But in this case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that though the tenancy certificate was issued in the name of Narani Narsaiah they are also joint tenants to get the benefit of the certificate to all of them.
48.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Kedar Prasad v. Ganga Prasad [AIR 1980 Allahabad 85] for the proposition of law that where property belonging to the joint family is sold by one member to third party, other members though not party to the instruments can bring suit for cancellation of sale deed as their interests would be seriously injured if the sale deed is left unchallenged as held in paragraph 16. There is no dispute about this decision. In this case, the plaintiffs have to establish that the property is joint property and therefore, the sale deed is liable for cancellation.
49.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and others [2013 (6) ALT 1 (SC)] for the proposition of law that coparcener has no definite share in coparcenary property but he had an undivided interest therein and that the share of the coparcener enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births in the family. There is no dispute about decision. But I am of the view that this decision is not of any use to the plaintiffs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
50.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Dr. Yadla Ramesh Naidu v. Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam [2009 (1)
ALT 256] as held in paragraph No. 19 that mere registration of a document by the registering authority under the provisions of the Registration Act does not 22 confer any title. There is no dispute about this decision. In this case, admittedly, 38E certificate was issued in the name of Narani Narsaiah and it is proved that there was partition between the sons of Narani Narsaiah namely
Rajaiah and Jangaiah and the suit land fell to the share of Jangaiah. So the document executed by Jangaiah in favour of defendants 1 to 3 is held to be with title and the sale deed Ex-A1 was made by Narani Jangaiah with absolute rights in the property. This decision is therefore of no help to the plaintiffs.
51.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation of the registered sale deed document No. 1828/1994
dated 12-8-1994 as null and void and it is held that the said sale deed is
genuine one. These two issues are accordingly held against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
52.Issue No. 3:
The registered sale deed Ex-A1 is dated 12-8-1994. Article 59 of the
Limitation Act prescribes 3 years limitation for filing a suit to cancel an instrument. Period of limitation begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to seek the instrument cancelled first become known to him. In the plaint, plaintiffs contended that the cause of action arose on 4-4-2005 when they came to know about the petition filed by the defendants for grant of patta in their favour on the basis of registered sale deed. The suit was filed on 5-10-2005.
53.PWs 1 to 4 stated in their evidence also that they came to know about the filing of the application by the defendants before the MRO on 21-2-2005 and 4-4-2005. But PW2 plaintiff No. 1 in his cross examination admitted that he came to know about the registration of the sale deed in favour of defendants after six months of the registration. This shows that the plaintiffs got knowledge about the registration of the sale deed six months after the registration of the sale deed. As the sale deed is dated 12-8-1994, the plaintiffs got knowledge about the same in or about 1995 and the suit must have been filed within three years thereafter. But the suit is filed in the year 2005 after a long lapse of time. In view of the admission of PW2 on this aspect, the suit is clearly barred by time.
23
54.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises i.e. the right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means and the suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by defendant against whom the suit is instituted. In this case, Article 59 does not speak of right to sue. It says that the limitation starts from the date of knowledge. In Article 113 which deals with any suit for which no period of limitation is not provided anywhere in the schedule, the time from which the time begins to run is when the right to sue accrues. As far as Article 59 is concerned, in view of a clear terminology used in the article, the time to file the suit for cancellation of the document runs from the date of knowledge and in this case as it is long after period of limitation, the suit is clearly barred by time. This issue is accordingly held against the plaintiffs and in favour the defendants.
55.Issue No. 4: The defendants have taken the plea that the cause of action is created and that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit is valued under S. 34(2) of Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and the market value of the property for the purpose of Court fees is the same for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court. The suit has been valued @
Rs.26000/- on the value of the document and so I am of the view that this
Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
56.As far as cause of action is concerned, the plaintiffs placed evidence about the petition made by the defendants for implementation of their names in the revenue record and about plaintiffs filing objections thereto which is made basis for the cause of action and the same is proved. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action for the suit. May be the suit is beyond limitation as held in Issue No. 3 but it cannot be said that there is no cause of action for the suit. Accordingly, this issue is held.
57.Issue No. 5: The plaintiffs stated that the defendants are no way concerned with the ownership or possession of the suit land and they interfered in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land and they went to the suit land on 2-10-2005 and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land with a view to occupy the same. Basing on the said cause of action, they also sought for the relief of perpetual injunction 24 against the defendants. The plaintiffs as PWs 1 to 4 in their chief examination re-iterated the said fact. The defendants contended that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land and so question of interference does not arise and so there is no cause of action for the suit and it is filed only to harass the defendants for wrongful gain. The same is denied by PWs 1 to 4.
58.The pahanies produced by the defendants from the year 1993-94 under
Ex-B3 shows the possession of the plaintiffs though the name of Narani
Jangaiah is shown as pattedar. Even the pahani of the year 2005-06 in which the names of defendants 1, 3 and 4 were shown as pattedars, the names of plaintiffs are reflected in the possession column. Except stating that the entries were made by the plaintiffs in collusion with revenue officials, no basis is made by the defendants to show that revenue entries are made falsely. The plaintiffs also produced pahanies under Exs-A6 to A15, A22 and A23 up to the year 2010-11 showing their names in possession column of the suit land. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs is also supported by the documents produced by the defendants with regard to the possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs. Thus it is clear that the plaintiffs are in settled possession of the suit land though the defendants obtained Ex-A1 sale deed and they made application for implementation of their names only in 2005. As could be seen from Ex-A16 which resulted in the cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit and as there is no explanation from the defendants as to why they did not get mutation of their names in the revenue record since 1994 till 2005. Though they contended that they are in possession of the suit land, except under Ex-B17 pattedar pass book of defendant No. 4 showing her in possession of Ac.0-38guntas of land in survey No. 300/ఉ 1, no other document is placed to prove their possession in the suit land. Simply because of Ex-B17 which is a pass book, I am of the view that the defendants are unable to establish their possession over the suit land.
59.Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in B.S.V. Temple v. P. Krishna Murthi [AIR 1973 SC 1299] for the proposition of law that a presumption arising from several entries in the revenue records of large number of years in respect of ownership and possession of land with certain person does not stand rebutted by mere stray 25 entries in favour of others when the evidence is of uncertain character and is inadequate as held in paragraph No. 8. There is no dispute about this decision.
60.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [2002 (5) ALD 532 (DB)] for the proposition of law as held in paragraph No. 96 that the entries made in the Record of rights carry with them a very great evidentiary value, provided the record of rights is prepared and maintained under the provisions of the relevant statues or the regulations, as the case may be and further provided that the entries therein are made after holding public enquiries. DW1 in his cross examination stated that no enquiry was conducted on their application before issuing the order for mutation and no notices were issued to anybody about their application. This shows that the proceedings in favour of the defendants mutating their names and issuance of the pattedar pass books was not made by issuing notices to the all concerned and making before enquiry. So, in view of the decision relied upon by the plaintiffs, these entries cannot enure to the benefit of the defendants.
61.The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in State of
A.P. v. S. Laxmi Gunti (died) by LRs and others [2001 ALD (LGC) 33] for the proposition of law that the entries in the revenue records ought generally to be accepted at their face value but the presumption of correctness does not apply to fraudulent or manipulated entries when true facts are known and original ownership could be traced. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. In this case though the defendants contended that the entries in the revenue record showing the names of the plaintiffs were manipulated, no basis is made to show that they are manipulated records. Therefore, this decision is of no help to the defendants.
62.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Mohd. Khasim v. Selection Grade City Municipal Corporation [2012 (2) ALT 665] for the proposition of law as held in Para No. 20 of the said decision that it is well settled legal proposition that a person who is in settled possession of the property is entitled for the relief of injunction irrespective of the fact whether he succeeded in proving his title to the property or not. This decision is not disputed.
26
63.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Ramavath Hasala Naik v. Sabahavath Gomli Bai [2011 (2) ALT 690] for the proposition of law that in a suit for injunction simpliciter aspect of possession of suit property by plaintiff on date of suit rather than the issue of title. The present suit is not only for perpetual injunction but also for cancellation of the sale deed. The ratio laid down by the decision is that in a suit for injunction, the material aspect of possession to the property has to be seen as on the date of the suit.
64.Except suggesting that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and the same was not interfered by the defendants, nothing material could be elicited by the defendants from the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 regarding cause of action. So the plaintiffs are able to establish the interference by the defendants in their possession of the suit land.
65.Accordingly, I am of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction against the defendants from causing interference in their possession and enjoyment of the suit land otherwise than under law.
66.Issue No. 6:
In view of the findings on issues 1 to 5, the plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation of the registered sale deed as prayed for. But in view of their settled possession in the suit land, they are entitled for an injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit land directing the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs except with due process of law.
67.In the result, the suit is dismissed as far as relief of cancellation of sale deed document dated 1828/1994 dated 12-8-1994 and it is decreed partly directing the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land otherwise than under due process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of May, 2015.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
IBRAHIMPATAN
27
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For Plaintiffs:
PW1 : N. Shankaraiah PW2 : N. Jangaiah PW3 : N. Narsimha PW4 : Potti Kistaiah PW5 : N. Narsimha
For Defendants:
DW1 : P. Anjaneyulu DW2 : V. Jangaiah (Eschewed from consideration) DW3 : M. Yadaiah DW4 : Pothuraju Balraj
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiffs:
Ex-A1 : is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No. 1828/1994
dated 12-8-1994
Ex-A2 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-81 Ex-A3 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1986-87 Ex-A4 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1987-88 Ex-A5 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1988-89 Ex-A6 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex-A7 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex-A8 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01 Ex-A9 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02 Ex-A10 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex-A11 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex-A12 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex-A13 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex-A14 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex-A15 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex-A16: is proceedings of the MRO, Ibrahimpatan in D/721/05 dated 20-6-2005 Ex-A17 : is certified copy of Judgment, decree and memo of compromise in
O.S.No. 12/1986 dated 22-8-1991 on the file of the Prl. Subordinate
Judge, Ranga Reddy District
Ex-A18 : is copy of Appeal in file No. 3504/2002 Ex-A19 : is counter filed in ROR Appeal No. 3504/2002 Ex-A20 : is certified copy of PT Nakal Ex-A21 : is Faisal Patti of 1997-98 Ex-A22 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91 Ex-A23 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex-A24 : is certified copy of order dt. 10-8-2005 on the file of the Spl. Grade Dy. Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division 28
For Defendants:
Ex-B1 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-92 Ex-B2 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-93 Ex-B3 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94 Ex-B4 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex-B5 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96 Ex-B6 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1996-97 Ex-B7 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex-B8 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex-B9 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01 Ex-B10 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02 Ex-B11 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex-B12 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex-B13 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex-B14 : is certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex-B15 : is certificate dated 3-9-12 issued by the Canara Bank, Saidabad colony branch Ex-B16 : is pattedar pass book Ex-B17 : is title deed book
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
IBRAHIMPATAN