S.venkateswara Prasad

O.S.No.1542/20131

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR, N.T.R.NAGAR,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT: Sri.S.VENKATESWARA PRASAD,

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Friday, the First day of May, Two Thousand Twenty

ORIGINAL SUIT No.1542/2013

Between:

Mohammed Hassanuddin (died) per L.Rs., and others ...Plaintiffs

AND

Abdul Sattar and others ...Defendants

This Original Suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Kum.Hima Varshini, Counsel for the Plainitffs and Sri.Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Counsel for the Defendant No.16 to 19 and Sri.K.Shasidar Kumar, Counsel for the Defendants No.2 to 15 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

01.This is a suit for partition of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, into 2 shares and allot 1/3 share (i.e., Ac.4.06 gts.,) to the plaintiff and allot 2/3 share to the defendants (i.e., Ac.9.01 gunta) out of which allot 4/39 share to the defendants 1 to 3 (Ac.0.54.5 gts each), 2/39 share to the defendants 15 (Ac.0.27.02 gts. each), 1/78 share to the defendant NO.4(Ac. 0.6.756 quntas), 7/156" share to the defendants 5 & 6 (Ac.0.23 gts), 1/78th (Ac.0.6.75 gts) /39 share to the defendants 8 & 9(Ac.0.13.5 gts) dnd 78t" share to the defendants 10 to 12 (Ac.0.6.75 gts) for separate

O.S.No.1542/20132

possession and allot 1/3 share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to declare the entries in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property from 1974-75 onwards till date i.e., 2012-2013 as illegal, arbitrary and null and void, direct the defendant No.20 to restore the name of Abdul Razzaq in pattedar and possessor column by deleting the names or K. Sri Ramulu and defendants 16 to 19 and to declare the sale deeds in favour of the defendants No.16 to 19 as null and void and for injunction.

02.As per the plaint averments, plaintiff is the son of

Smt. Yakub Bee who is the daughter of Late Abdul Rehman. The defendants 1 to 15 are the sons and daughter of Abdul Razzak who is son of Abdul Rehman. Originally, Abdul Rehman, the grand father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15 was the original pattedar and possessor of agricultural land covered by

Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as the schedule property). The name of

Abdul Rehman was recorded as pattedar in revenue records such as Khasra pahani and sesala pahani. Abdul Rehman died at about 45 years back leaving behind a son viz., Abdul Razzaq and daughter Yakub Bee. After his death of Abdul Rehman, the name of Abdul Razzaq was mutated in the revenue records being the legal heir of Abdul Rehman.

03.Abdul Razzaq being the elder member in the family,

O.S.No.1542/20133

his name was mutated even though the mother of the plaintiff is having rights and share in the said property.

04.Abdul Razzaq died leaving behind the defendants 1 to

15. Smt. Yakub Bee died leaving behind the plaintiff herein. The suit schedule property is the ancestral mathruka property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to15 and the plaintiff being the son of

Yakub Bee, the daughter of Late Abdul Rehman, the plaintiff is having share and entitled in the suit schedule property.

05.After the death of Abdul Rehman the suit schedule property was devolved on his son and daughter viz., Abdul

Razzaq and Yakub Bee and they used to cultivate the land jointly (since Abdul Razzaq was doing agriculture operation on behalf of the family of the plaintiff being the elder member in the family, his name mutated in the revenue records as pattedar in respect of the suit schedule property. Even though Abdul Razzaq's name is recorded as pattedar, the mother of the plaintiff and Razzaq were enjoying jointly. The mother of the plaintiff being the daughter of Abdul Rehman and as per the Muslim personal law she is entitled to 1/3rd share and Abdul Razzaq being the son is entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

06.Abdu Razzaq died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 15 and Smt.Yakub Bee died leaving behind the plaintiff. Since the suit schedule property is Mathruka and joint family property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15, and that they are in joint possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff demanded the

O.S.No.1542/20134

defendants for partition of 1/3 share in the month of October, 2013 and allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15 did not respond and the plaintiff also tried before the elders seeking partition but it is not materialized. From Khasra pabani i e 1954-55 to 1960-61 the name of Abdul Rehman was recorded as pattedar and there after till 1973-74 the name of Abdul

Razzaq was recorded as pattedar in respect of the Suit schedule property.

07.The name of the defendants 16 to 19 i.e., Sri Ramulu has been incorporated in revenue records as pattedar from 1975-76 onwards. After seeing the said entries of Sri Ramulu, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised and got enquired as to how his name was incorporated in pahanies. It is submitted that the plaintiff got enquired and has made an application for issue of certified copy of Paisal Patti wherein the proceedings of the

Tahsildar will be entered for the change of the name of Sri

Ramulu.

08.Defendant No.20 issued a Memo dated 6-7-2013 as per the entries in Paisal Patti from 1961-62 to 1985-86 no changes have been effected with regard to the mutation of the name of Sri Ramulu in the revenue records and he refused to issue Paisal Patti. The defendant No.20 illegally and without passing orders under ROR Act or Land Revenue Act, entered in the name of Sri Ramulu in the revenue records which is bad, unjust, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Act.

O.S.No.1542/20135

09.On further enquiry defendant No.20 mutated by incorporating the names of defendants 16 to 19 in respect of suit schedule property on the death of their father of K. Sri

Ramulu. The defendant No.20 has divided the suit schedule property and allotted the Sy.NO.136/A admeasuring Ac.7.00 Gts., in favour of defendant No.16 and S.No.136/AA admeasuring

Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant No.17 and Sy.No.136/E admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant No.18 and

Sy.NO.136/EE admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant

No.19.

10.The entries made by defendant No.20 in respect of the name of K. Sri Ramulu, the father of defendants 16 to19 are illegal and contrary to the provisions of ROR act without any proceedings from the competent authority and as such the incorporation of the names of defendants 16 to 19 and splitting up of the suit schedule property Into Sy.No.136/A to 136/EE is illegal and liable to be rectified by restoring the name of Abdul

Razzak.

11.Late Abdul Rehman died intestate on 11.03.1973 and till his death he was cultivating as an absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the agricultural land. That, the alleged sale deed Document No. 346 of 1964 was alleged to be executed on dated 01.06. 1964 by Abdul Razak. That, as on the date of the alleged sale deed the original pattedar Abdul

Ranman was very much alive with a son by name Abdul Razak

O.S.No.1542/20136

daughter by name Smt. Yakoob Bee and moreover during his life time no document was executed., That, Late Abdul Razak was not the exclusive owner of the entire suit schedule property to deal with third parties and thus, the alleged sale deed is sham and ab-initio.

12.The date of sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated 01.06.1964, the suit property was not partitioned with metes and bounds and standing in the name of Abdul Rehman. The sale transaction under Sale deed dt.01.06.1964 to be declared as null and void and inoperative. {Para 7 (a) amended as per the orders in I.A.No.1211 of 2019.

13.Second defendant filed written statement being adopted by defendants No.3 to 15. In the written statement filed by the second defendant being adopted by the defendants

No.3 to 15 all the averments of the plaint are admitted and it is specifically contended in each paragraph that the plaint averments are not in dispute. Therefore they also prayed for partition as per the pleadings of the plaint.

14.Defendants No.16 to 19 filed a separate written statement denying the plaint allegations by contending that the allegations made in the plaint are false and baseless and suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.

15.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants No.16 to 19 are as follows: The present suit is

O.S.No.1542/20137

not maintainable either in law or on facts on record and as such the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. All the allegations mentioned in the plaint are absolutely false, fabricated and baseless. The Plaintiff intentionally suppressed the real tacIs and tiled the present suit to create unwarranted litigation as possible as and for wrongful gain.

16.The Defendant No.16 is the son and 17 to 19 are the daughters of K.Sriramulu. The father of the Defendant No.16 to 19 had purchased agriculture land to the extent of Ac.13-08 guntas in Sy.No.136 of Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar from the original owner one Abdul Razak. Initially on 15-10-1963, the said Abdul Razak agreed to sell the property to K.Sriramulu for total consideration of Rs.6,775/- and received an amount of

Rs.1,400/- as advance, on the same day and passed a receipt.

Then said Atuul Razzak had applied to the then Tahsildar of the

Hyderabad on 30-11-1963 to seeking permission under section 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Act, to alienate the schedule property being agriculture land to an extent of Ac.13-08 guntas in survey no.136 of Narsingi Village,

Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of

K.Sriramulu. The Tahsildar of Hyderabad West Taluq had accorded the permission to the said Abdul Razak to alienate the said property in favour of K.Sriramulu on 25-2-1964 vide proceedings No.A3-18238/1963. Further said Abdul Razzak had received further amounts on various dates ie. 07/05/1964, 25/05/1964 and 30/06/1964. Abdul Razzak had received total

O.S.No.1542/20138

amount of RS.3,525/- as advance and remaining amount was received on date of execution of the sale deed.

17.After purchasing the property, the name of

K.Sriramulu was mutated in the revenue records pertaining to schedule property by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluq and issued land revenue pass book in favour of K.Sriramulu.

Thereafter, the said K.Ramulu had been paying land revenue till 1993-94 and same was noted in the land revenue pass book.

Further, K Sriramulu's name was recorded Pahanies also. Since then K.Sriramulu had been cultivating death in April 2005.

K.Sriramulu's name recorded as Pattedar and Possessor in revenue records/Pahanies up to 2006-07.

18.The father of the Defendant No.16 to 19 namely

K.Sriramulu died on 07-04-2005 due to ill health. During his lite time he executed a registered Will deed on 04-04-2009 bearing registration 145/BoOK No.3/2005 by bequeathing the Schedule

Property to an extent of Ac.7.08 guntas to his son namely

K.Nageswara Rao (Defendant No.16), remaining Ac.6.00 bequeathed equally to his three daughters (Defendant No.17 to 19).i.e. Ac.2.00 Gis each.

19.After death of father of Defendant no.16 to 19 they applied for mutation of their names in revenue records as per shares provided in the Will deed dated 04-04-2005. After due enquiry, the Deputy Collector and Thahsildar, Rajendranagar

Manda, Ranga Reddy District issued proceedings incorporating

O.S.No.1542/20139

the names of the Defendant No.16 to 19 as Pattadars and

Possessors in the Revenue Records vide proceedings dated

B1/1471-74/2008, dated 25-08-2009 and same is evidencing from the Pahanies till date. Further Pattadar Pass Books and Title

Deeds were also issued in favour of Defendant No. 16 to 19 for their respective shares and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Property.

20.HUDA, Hyderabad had issued a notice on l6-03-2005 to Defendant No.16 to 19 to acquire their land and also issued a public notice, however subsequently it was withdrawn. The defendant No.16 to 19 have acquired the title through valid registered sale deed from the rightful owner Abdul Razzak whose name alone was appearing in the Revenue Records. None of the other heirs' names were recorded in the revenue records except Abaul Rdzzak. In any case if the mother of the Plaintiff was the daughter of the Abdul Rahaman and she got any claim over the Schedule Property, she must have claimed the property during her life time. Further, it is strange that the Plaintiff never made any claim or initiated any proceedings for past 50 years over the schedule Property and at the fag end of his life he came with this false claim. The conduct of the Plaintiff makes it clear that he is neither related to said Abdul Razzak anyway nor has any claim over the Schedule Property.

21.Defendant Nos.16 to 19 and their father has been in continues and uninterrupted possession over the Schedule

O.S.No.1542/201310

Property for the past 50 and they have also perfected their title over the schedule property by virtue of long possession of 50 years.

22.The allegations of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is the son of Yakub Bee who is the daughter of the Late.Abdul Rehman and the Defendant No.1 to 15 are sons and daughters of Abdul

Razak who is the son of Abdul Rehman is denied for want of knowledge. Further, the allegations or the Plaintiff Abdul

Rehman is the grandfather of the Plaintiff and they are the original pattadars and possessors of the agriculture land covered by survey no.136 admeasuring Ac.13-07 guntas at Narsingi

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District is denied and the

Plaintiff is put to strict proot of the same. The Plaintiff has not filed any documents evidencing that he is the only son of the said Yakub bee and Yakub Bee was the daughter or the Said

Abdul Rahaman. Similarly the Plaintiff is also not filing any documents to show that the Defendant No.1 to 15, are the heirs of Abdul Razak.

23.The Plaintiff is put to Strict proof that the Defendant

No.1 to 15 are the legal heirs of Abdul Razak and the Plaintiff's the son of the said Yakub Bee and the schedule property is their mathruka property and the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 15 having share and entitled to the paint schedule property.

24.It is denied that after the death of Abdul Rehman the property was devolved upon his son and daughter Abdul Razak

O.S.No.1542/201311

and Yakub Bee and they used to cultivate the land jointly.

Further it is also denied that the said Abdul Razak was doing agriculture on behalf of the family and his name was mutated in ihe Revenue Records as Pattedar and Abdul Razak and Yakub

Bee enjoyed the property jointly, Further, it is also denied that the mother of the Plaintif is entitled to 1/3 share and Abdul

Razak is entitled for 2/3 share in the plaint schedule property.

25.It is denied that Abdul Razak died leaving Defendant

No.1 to 15 and Yakub Bee died leaving the Plaintiff and schedule property mathruka property and the Plaintiff and the Defendant

No.1 to 15 are in joint possession and enjoyment, It is also denied that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant No.1 to 15 for his share in the month of October, 2013, and the Defendant

No.1 to 15 not responded and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same, Further, it is also denied the allegation that this

Plaintiff per-occupied with service and the plaint schedule property kept fallow for several years and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

26.It is incorrect to say that defendant No.20 illegally without passing orders on ROR Act or Land Revenue Act, entered the name of K.Sriramulu in the revenue records which is bad, unjust and arbitrary. After the death of said K.Sriramulu,

Defendant No.16 to 19 names were mutated in the revenue records with respect to the plaint property on the death of their father K.Sriramulu by defendant No.20, Tahsildar by dividing the

O.S.No.1542/201312

land among Defendant No.16 to 19. However, it is incorrect that the defendant No.20 mutated the property illegally.

27.It is denied that Defendant No.20 mutated the name of Siramulu illegally and contrary to the provisions of the ROR

ACt, and incorporation of the names of the Defendant No.16 to 19 by splitting the Patta is illegal and liable to be rectified by the restoring the name of Abdul Razak.

28.It is incorrect to say that the Defendant No.16 to 19 by taking advantage of innocence and preoccupation of the

Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 15 intentionally and deliberately to deprive their rights intending to alienate the property to the third parties.

29.It is incorrect to say that the plaint Schedule property is a mathruka joint family property of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant no.1 to 15 as such the Plaintiff being the legal heir of

Yakub bee, the daughter of Abdul Rehman, as such the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and the Defendant No.1 to 15 being the legal heirs of Abdul Razak, the son of Abdul Rehman are entitled to 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

30.The Plaintiff having no primafacie case and balance of convenience to show Schedule properties is ancestral property which is still in the joint possession of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant No.1 to 15, hence Defendant No.16 to 19 are trying to alienate schedule property by depriving the legitimate share

O.S.No.1542/201313

of the Plaintiff and he will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss does not arise.

31.The Plaintiff grossly failed to establish his alleged possession over the Schedule Property, he is liable to pay court fee under Section 34 (1) as such suit is liable to be rejected on this ground alone, there is no cause of action raised for filing of the suit as such suit is liable to dismissed in limini. The allegations mentioned in the plaint are invented for purpose of filing the present suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not valued properly.

32.The defendants No.16 to 19 filed additional written statement in view of the Orders of amendment in I.A.No.

1211/2019 which is as follows: the plaintiff does not have any locus standi to maintain the suit for declaration nor he has made out any case to seek the relief of declaration as such suit is liable to be dismissed.

33.The plaintiff has filed the present suit in the year 2013 for partition and separate possession with false and frivolous allegations. Then these defendants have filed written statements in the year April 2014. These defendants already placed the entire true facts of the case through their written statement.

34.Thereafter, Interlocutory Application under Order 39,

Rule 1 and 2 was heard in detail by this Hon'ble Court and same

O.S.No.1542/201314

was dismissed the same on 17-10-2014. Aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the

Hon'ble High Court vide CMA No.1086 of 2014 and the same was

dismissed on 05-02-2019.

35.After lapse of Fifty Five long years of the sale, the plaintiffs are trying to get declaratory relief to declare the said sale deed as null and void. Further, even after a lapse of five years, after filing of the suit the plaintiffs are trying to insert declaratory relief to declare the said sale deed as null and void.

As such the suit and the relief sought are hopelessly barred by limitation. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

36.In reply to para 5 of the amended portion, it is incorrect to state that the mother of plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of the Suit Schedule Property and Abdul Razzak being the son of Abdul Rehman is entitled to 2/3rd share in the Suit

Schedule property. It is also incorrect to state that the plaintiff is entitled 1/3d share and the defendants No. 1 to 12 are entitled for the remaining shares as described in the plaint.

37.In reply to para 7 (a), which is amended as per the orders in I.A.No. 1211 of 2019 datedis the 23.12.2019, it is incorrect to state that Late. Abdul Rehman died intestate on 11.03.1973 and till his death he was cultivating as absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the agricultural land and the plaintiff put to strict proof of the same, It is also incorrect to

O.S.No.1542/201315

state that as on the date of the alleged sale deed the original pattadar Abdul Rehman was very much alive with his son by name Abdul Razzak and his daughter Yakub Bee. It is also incorrect to state that the Abdul Rehman has not executed any document. Further it is also incorrect to state that Late. Abdul

Razzak was not the exclusive owner of the entire suit schedule property to deal with third parties and thus the alleged sale deed is sham and void ab initio. It is also incorrect to state that as on the date of the sale deed i.e. 01.06.1964, the suit schedule property was not partitioned with metes and bounds and standing in the name of Abdul Rehman till his death's Sole rights vesting on him. It is also incorrect to state that the sale transaction under the sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated is the 01.06.1964 to be declared as null and void and inoperative. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of each and every allegation made in the plaint.

38.The reliefs prayed for are hopelessly barred by limitation as the father of the defendant purchased the property in the year 1964 and he was put into possession and his name was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1964-65 and since then he has been cultivating the land till his death and thereafter the names of the defendant are mutated in the revenue records and thus has been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration for reason of not seeking necessary consequential reliefs.

O.S.No.1542/201316

39.The deceased plaintiff Hasanuddin who claimed himself to be the son of Yakub Bee allegedly the daughter of

Abdul Rehman was aged about 74 years as on the date of institution of the suit admittedly was resident of the very same village where the suit schedule property was situated.

40.The registered sale deed was executed in favour of K.

Sriramulu by Abdul Razzak in the year 1964 and ever since K

Sriramulu has been in absolute possession of the suit schedule property and he has been cultivating the same as Its absolute owner to the exclusion of all others right under the very nose of plaintiff no.1 and the name of Sriramulu being in long, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property is also reflected in the revenue records. Further plaintiff no.1 who was the resident of the same village where suit schedule property is situated which was being cultivated by

Sriramulu since 1964, never claimed any rights to suit schedule property nor objected the same for almost 50 years and by his very conduct he has acquiesced his rights over suit schedule property, so the other plaintiffs who claims to be the legal heirs of the deceased the plaintiff No.1 also cannot maintain the suit.

The suit framed and filed is hopelessly bad by limitation.

41.The plaintiffs filed rejoinder in response to the

additional written statement filed by the defendants No.16 to

19. The contents of the rejoinder are as follows: Originally,

Abdul Rehman was the original pattedar and possessor of

O.S.No.1542/201317

agricultural land covered by Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. Abdul Rehman died on 11.03.1973 leaving behind a son viz., Abdul Razzaq and daughter Yakub Bee. That, after his death, elder son Abdul Razzaq got mutated his name into the revenue records being the male legal heir and elder member in the family Abdul Rehman as a tenant in common.

That, the rights and interest of Late Yakub Bee the Suit schedule of property are subsisting until the suit property with metes and bounds. That, the issue in the Interlocutory application decided on the basis of the registered Sale deed, which was presently sought for Declaration as null and void by way of amendment orders in l.A. No. 1211 of 2019 dated 23.12.2019.

42.The plaintiff's grandmother Smt.Yakub Bee was the daughter of the Late Abdul Rehman and the plaintiffs were brought on record as her legal heirs by original plaintiff

Late.Mohamd Hassanuddin and that the rights and interests over the suit schedule property are devolved into the plaintiffs and are subsisting until the suit property is partitioned with metes and bounds and therefore, the question of limitation does not arise as long as the suit property stands with the tag of 'ancestral'.

43.The defendants 16 to 19 were never in physical possession of the suit schedule of property, their names were mutated illegally and without noticing the legal heirs of original

O.S.No.1542/201318

pattedar and no proceedings were issued in their favour and that the said illegal entries are questioned in the present suit and sought for restoration of the names of the original pattedars or his surviving legal heirs into the revenue records accordingly.

44.The alleged sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated 1.06.1964 is a void document. The sale deed was never executed by the original pattedar during his lifetime and that the plaintiff's grandmother Smt.Yakoob Bee was a lady, innocent and ignorant, never acted against any of the family members.

She cultivated the suit land till her last breath along with her son i.e. original plaintiff presently the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit schedule of property.

45.During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died, the plaintiff No.2 to 8 are brought on record as legal heirs. The defendants No.1 to 15 are claiming to be legal heirs of one

Abdul Rehman claiming share in the suit schedule property. The defendants No.16 to 19 claim to be the owners of the suit schedule property who have purchased under registered sale deed in the year 1964 and also mutation effected in their names claiming to be in continuous possession and enjoyment over the property since then. The defendant No.20 is the Tahsildar who is proforma party added as the entries of the revenue records are challenged.

46.On the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

O.S.No.1542/201319

01.Whether the plaintiffs are the successors/Legal

Representatives of the late.Abdul Rehman ?

02.Whether the plaintiffs are in the possession of the property ?

03.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession ?

04.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare the sale deed doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964 as null and void?

05.Whether entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property are illegal and arbitrary ?

06.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

07.Whether the Court fee paid is correct ?

47.On behalf of plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 are examined and

Ex.A1 to A35 are marked. On behalf of the defendants DW1 to

DW3 are examined. Ex.B1 to B62 are marked.

48.Heard Arguments. Also perused the Written

Arguments filed by plaintiffs and defendants.

49.In the written arguments filed by the plaintiffs it is contended that late.Abdul Rehman was the pattader and his son and daughter i.e., Abdul Razzaq and Yakoob Bee succeeded the property. In order to establish their case, they marked the documents to show that late.Abdul Rehman was the original

O.S.No.1542/201320

pattadar who died in the year 1973 devolving the property into hands of Smt.Yakoob Bee and Abdul Razzaq. Ex.A27 and A28 are the marriage certificates issued by Government and Waqf

Board. Ex.A29 is the death certificate of Abdul Rehman.

50.It is contended by the plaintiffs that Ex.A31, 32 and 33 are the relevant documents to show that father of the plaintiff is Gulam Moinuddin and the mother is Yakood Bee.

Ex.A33 is the passport issued by the Government showing the name of Yakoob Bee. It is further contended in the written statement that DW2 admitted Ex.B28, B29 and the suit schedule property originally, belonged to late.Abdul Rehman who died instate leaving behind him, Yakoob Bee and Abdul Razaq as successors. It is further contended in the written arguments that crux of the entire case is Ex.B6, DW2 admitted that Sri

Ramulu is not a tenant and Abdul Rehman showed as original pattedar. Ex.B6 cannot be relied on for any purpose. If the landlord intends to sell the land he shall apply to the Tribunal for determining reasonable price.

51.As on the date of Ex.B7 no mutation proceedings in the name of Abdul Rehman and no devolution taken place between Abdul Razaq and Yakoob Bee. Ex.B7 is liable to be declared as void document. The plaintiffs further contend in their written submissions that Exs.A3 to A7 and B30 and B31 disclose the name of Abdul Razaq without mutation proceedings, without noting Abdul Rehman as father. Ex.B32 to B45 cannot

O.S.No.1542/201321

be relied on. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that the question of limitation does not arise so long as the suit property has tag “Mathruka”, the entries were not known to the legal heirs of Abdul Rehman.

52.The Government has not taken possession but only conducted survey according to the defendants. Ex.B21 and B22 are not supporting the evidence of DW3. In the written submissions it is further contended that mutation of the property in the name of one co-sharer would not confine any right or title and would not entitle any one to sell the entire property.

Reliance placed on a decision reported in “Saleem Vs. Yaseen reported in (AIR 1996 All 342)”, and “Dorab Cawasji

Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden reported in 1990 (1)

SCC 332”. Co-owner cannot be said to be in actual physical possession or exclusive possession till partition takes place.

Ex.A27, A28 are genuine documents issued by State Waqf

Board. Exs.A29 is the death certificate of late Abdul Rehman issued by Grampanchayath and Ex.A32 ration card reveals father's name as Gulam Moinuddin. Ex.A35 is the photographs list. The above documents are the conclusive proof that the mother's name is Yakoob Bee and father's name is Gulam

Moinuddin.

53.The defendants No.16 to 19 in their written submissions contended that the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A27 to

A34 to establish that they are the legal heirs, which cannot be

O.S.No.1542/201322

taken into consideration. Ex.A27 is said to be marriage certificate issued for the alleged marriage of Yakoob Bee that took place on 25-10-1926, there is no basis for issuance of such certificate dt.22-12-2013 for the marriage of the year 1926.

When the document is disputed, the plaintiff did not examine any persons to prove the same. Ex.A28 was issued by Waqf

Board based on Ex.A27 for which there is no basis; Waqf Board was formed in the year 1954 and it does not possess any records of the year 1926. Hence both certificates were not issued based on any official records.

54.Ex.A29 death certificate is said to have been issued by Sarpanch, it is not an authority of any register. Sarpanch cannot issue any certificate, Ex.A32 voter card does not show the relationship of Hasanuddin with Abdul Rehman or Yakoob

Bee. Similarly, Ex.A32 ration card in the name of the plaintiff does not establish the relationship with Abdul Rehman or Yakoob

Bee similarly pahanies Ex.A33 only show the name of Yakoob

Bee but not with relationship with Abdul Rehman. It is the specific case of the defendant that Yakoob Bee daughter of

Rehman along with Ex.A35 does not establish that she is the daughter of Abdul Rehman.

55.It is further contended that the plaintiffs have not produced a single document to establish their continuous possession over the property, whereas the defendants established their case on title as well as continuous possession

O.S.No.1542/201323

and enjoyment over the property. The notice issued under land acquisition proceedings by the Government also would establish and confirm their possession for the past fifty years. The plaintiff miserably failed to establish they are the legal heirs of

Abdul Rehman besides, failure to prove their possession for the past fifty years.

56.The document dt.01-06-1964 was never challenged on. The presumption U/Sec.90 of Evidence Act in support of thirty years old document would arise in favour of the defendants. It is further contended that the amended relief for declaration to declare the sale deed as null and void is barred by limitation. The mutation proceedings or revenue records are never challenged for the past fifty years. The plaintiff was aged 74 years as on the date of suit and he was twenty five years old at the time of execution of registered sale deed and though he was resident of same village he never challenged the said document nor possession of the defendants.

57.Late.Sriramulu and thereafter the defendants No.16 to 19 have been in long continuous uninterrupted possession which reflects from revenue records. As there is no joint possession of the suit property the Court fee paid U/Sec.34(2) of

Court Fee Act is also incorrect. There is no single document to show that they are in continuous possession of the property to pay the Court fee U/Sec.34 (2) of the Court Fee Act.

O.S.No.1542/201324

ISSUES No.1 to 3:

58.The plaintiff filed chief affidavit as PW1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A35 which are as follows: Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Khasra Pahani -1954-55, Ex.A2 is the Certified Copy of Sessala – 1955-58,

Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1958-59, Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61, Ex.A5 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62, Ex.A6 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1963, Ex.A7 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65, Ex.A8 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76, Ex.A9 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A10 is the Certified Copy of

Memo in file No.814/2013, dt.06-07-2013, Ex.A11 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A12 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A13 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A14 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A15 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A16 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A17 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A18 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A19 is the Certified

Copy of Nikha Nama (Marriage Certificate), Ex.A20 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74, Ex.A21 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76, Ex.A22 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83, Ex.A23 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.A24 is the

O.S.No.1542/201325

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90, Ex.A25 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.A26 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000, Ex.A27 is the

Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation, Ex.A28 is the

Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19-01-2015 by AP

State Waqf board, Ex.A29 is the Original death certificate of

Abdul Rehman issued by Narsingi, Gram Panchayat with Letter

No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010, Ex.A30 is the Certified Copy

Sale deed Doc.No.346 of 1964, dt.01-06-1964, Ex.A31 is the

Original Election card of Mohd.Hasnuddin, Ex.A32 is the Original

Ration Card of Mohd.Hasnuddin, Ex.A33 is the Original Passport of Mohd. Hasnuddin, Ex.A34 is the Market Valuation certificate,

Ex.A35 is the Certified copy of Voters list.

59.PW2 is the third party who supports the case of the plaintiffs but he has no knowledge about any details with regard to the properties claimed by the plaintiffs. He was aged about eleven years by the date of death of Abdul Rehman as per his affidavit. Similarly, PW3 is also third party from whom no particulars could be elicited in favour of the plaintiffs.

60.Third defendant has filed chief affidavit as DW1 who is sailing with the plaintiffs and claim share in the property in support of the averments made by the plaintiff.

61.The sixteenth defendant filed his chief affidavit as

DW2 in support of their contention that their father purchased the property from Abdul Razaq in the year 1964 after obtaining

O.S.No.1542/201326

permission from Tahsildar. His father's name was mutated, since then they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the property. After demise of their father, defendants

No.16 to 19 applied for mutation and accordingly mutation was effected and pattadar passbooks, pahanies and title deeds were issued.

62.DW2 got marked the following documents on behalf of the defendants: Ex.B1 is the Original receipt dated 15/10/1963 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sri ramulu, Ex.B2 is the Original Challan dated 30/11/1963 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, Sultan Bazar Branch to Abdul

Razak, Ex.B3 is the Original receipt dated 07/05/1964 issued by

Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu, Ex.B4 is the Original receipt dated 25/05/1964 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of

Late K.Sriramulu Ex.B5 is the Original receipt dated 30/06/1964 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu, Ex.B6 is the Original order for permission to alienation of land by the

Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, dated 25/02/1964, Ex.B7 is the

Original sale deed dated 01/06/1964 along with typed copy,

Ex.B8 is the Original tax payment receipt dated 20/05/1965,

Ex.B9 is the Original Pass Book of Late K.Sri Ramulu along with tax payment details, Ex.B10 is the Certified Copy of will dated 04/04/2005 executed by Late.K.Sriramulu in favour of the

Defendant no.16 to 19, Ex.B11 is the Certified Copy of death certificate of Late K.Sriramulu dated 06/04/2005, Ex.B12 is the

Original mutation proceedings of the Deputy Collector and

O.S.No.1542/201327

Tahsildar, dated 25/08/2009 in the name of Defendant No.16 to 19 in ROR proceedings, Ex.B13 is the Original Pattedar Pass

Book of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16), Ex.B14 is the

Original Title Deed of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16),

Ex.B15 is the Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17), Ex.B16 is the Original Title Deed of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17), Ex.B17 is the Original

Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18),

Ex.B18 is the Original Title Deed of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18), Ex.B19 is the Original Pattedar Pass Book of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19), Ex.B20 is the Original Title

Deed of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19), Ex.B21 is the Original

Notice U/Sec.5-A of the L.A.Act dated 16/03/2005, Ex.B22 is the

Certified Copy of Panchanama dated 03/12/2006 conducted by

Mandal Surveyor along with map, Ex.B23 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B24 is the

Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad,

Ex.B25 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the

Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) to the Prl.Secretary to

Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B26 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B27 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1952-53, Ex.B28 is the

Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, Ex.B29 is

O.S.No.1542/201328

the Certified Copy of Seesala Pahani for the year 1955-58,

Ex.B30 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61,

Ex.B31 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65,

Ex.B32 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74,

Ex.B33 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76,

Ex.B34 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1978-79,

Ex.B35 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83,

Ex.B36 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86,

Ex.B37 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1987-88,

Ex.B38 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90,

Ex.B39 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1993-94, Ex.B40 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.B41 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 1999-2000, Ex.B42 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2000-2001, Ex.B43 is the Certified Copy of Adangal

Pahani for year 2001-2002, Ex.B44 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for year 2004-2005, Ex.B45 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2006-2007, Ex.B46 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2009-2010, Ex.B47 is the

Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2011 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for

Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B48 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2012 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B49 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2013 issued in the name of

K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07

O.S.No.1542/201329

Gts, Ex.B50 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B51 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B52 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in

Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B53 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in name of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.No.136/AA, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B54 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in

Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B55 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B56 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B57 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in the name of

Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B58 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B59 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B60 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year

O.S.No.1542/201330

2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in

Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B61 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B62 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in

Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

63.Since this is a suit for partition and separate possession besides other reliefs sought for, first of all, the plaintiffs have to establish that they are the successors and legal heirs of Abdul Rehman and that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants No.16 to 19 seriously contested the suit by contending that they are the owners of the property having purchased the same by their father under registered sale deed vide doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964 from one Abdul Razak after obtaining permission from Tahsildar under the Tenancy Act for sale.

64.As the plaintiffs claim to be successors and legal heirs of late.Abdul Rehman, burden is cast on them to establish that they succeeded the property through Yakoob Bee who is co- owner along with Abdul Razak and any previous transactions were invalid.

65.The plaintiffs must also establish that the plaintiff

No.2 to 8 are the legal heirs of Yakoob Bee and entitled to claim

O.S.No.1542/201331

their share in the property. They need to establish continuous possession and enjoyment over the property besides proof of legal heirs and their relationship with Yakoob Bee and also

Yakoob Bee is the daughter of Abdul Rehman since the defendants dispute that Yakoob Bee is the daughter of late.Abdul Rehman.

66.For considering the claim of the plaintiff, it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish that they are the legal heirs of late.Abdul Rehman through Yakoob Bee. The defendants dispute that Yakoob Bee is the daughter of late.Abdul Rehman and also dispute that the defendants No.1 to 15 are the legal heirs. The probabilities of the case have to be analyzed for considering the claim of the plaintiffs in seeking different reliefs.

67.The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A1 to A34, most of the documents as also reflect from pleadings of the both sides i.e., originally late.Abdul Rehman was the pattader whose name was in revenue records, wayback in the year 1954-1955. The defendants claim started from the year 1964. The pahanies are not in dispute; similarly the entries of late.Sreeramulu and subsequently the names of the defendants No.16 to 19 are also not in dispute from the year 1964.

68.Now the claim of the plaintiffs have to be considered based on the above documents as to whether they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property for the past fifty years, as they never objected for

O.S.No.1542/201332

entries in the revenue records. Ex.A19, 27, 28, 29, 32 and 35 are seriously objected by defendants No.16 to 19 which are marked subject to objection, particularly, Exs.A19 and A27.

Ex.A19 is said to be certified copy of marriage certificate and

Ex.A27 is the Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation,

Ex.A28 is the Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19- 01-2015 by AP State Waqf board, Ex.A29 is the Original death certificate of Abdul Rehman issued by Narsingi, Grampanchayat with Letter No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010,

69.As rightly contended by the defendants No.16 to 19, the above documents are not safe to be relied on. Ex.A31 to

A33 and A35 does not specifically establish the relationship with

Abdul Rehman and Yakoob Bee. Ex.A29 is issued by the then

Sarpanch but not by Executive Officer and not based on any records. Similarly, Ex.A28 is issued based on Ex.A29. The counsel for the defendants contend that Waqf Board was formed in the year 1954 it does not possess any records of the year 1926 which is the year of marriage of Yakoob Bee and how the said documents are produced is not understood when the said documents are in serious dispute.

70.It is the duty of the plaintiffs to place any supporting material or summoning the author of the documents for confirmation as to basis for issuance of such documents. Ex.A27 is dt.29-12-2014 issued for marriage of Yakoob Bee said to have been marked on 25-10-1926. It appears that it is not an extract

O.S.No.1542/201333

of any record of the year 1926. Similarly, there is no basis for issuance of Ex.A28 which is based on Ex.A27. Therefore, the above documents i.e., Ex.A19, A27, A28, A29, A32, A35 have no evidentiary value.

71.Though it is the burden of the plaintiffs to place all the relevant documents to show continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property besides, proof of legal heirs of late.Yakoob Bee claimed through originally

Pattedar Abdul Rehman, the defendants placed their relevant documents. Ex.B1 to B62 in support of their claim that their father purchased the property in the year 1964 under the registered sale deed of the year 1964 the reference of permission proceedings, mutation proceedings etc., The death certificate of their father late.Sreeramulu and the subsequent mutation proceedings in favour of defendants No.16 to 19 are marked in support of their oral evidence. In this regard, the plaintiffs failed to place such evidence though it is their duty in support of their claim.

72.The contention of the plaintiffs that DW2 made certain admissions with regard to the tenancy of late.Sreeramulu and that Ex.B6 proceedings are invalid and that enquiry was not properly conducted in accordance with law is not on correct line of argument at this stage. The conduct of proceedings and enquiry by the Government according permission of mutation proceedings in favour of father of the defendants No.16 to 19

O.S.No.1542/201334

based on the registered sale deed of the year 1964, cannot now be questioned at this stage and which aspect cannot be adjudicated beyond the scope of the suit. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff and entries in the revenue records

Ex.B6 and B7 are malafied is not correct.

73.Similarly, Ex.B30 to B45 some vague admissions by

DW2 with regard to proceedings issued in the year 1964 nor any ignorance expressed for the proceedings, is not a ground to defeat the claim of the defendants; the plaintiffs cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants and it is their burden to prove their case. They have not filed any relevant documents to establish their legal possession besides their failure to prove they are legal heirs of one Yakoob Bee.

74.The plaintiffs contended that the acquisition has not taken place though notice was issued for acquisition under Land

Acquisition Act is not supporting material in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants referred the above aspect only to establish that Government recognized their possession as continuous and therefore besides public notices, notices were issued to them seeking acquisition of land but proposal was subsequently withdrawn.

75.The question needs to be referred is whether notices were issued on rightful owners. Though there was a public notice, the said notice was not challenged by defendants No.1 to

15. As already discussed Ex.A19, A27, A28 are not safe to be

O.S.No.1542/201335

relied on without any records or supporting material. Similarly,

Ex.A29, A32, A35 as referred in the written arguments cannot be relied on.

76.In view of the forgoing discussion, it is reiterated that the plaintiffs have not produced a single document to establish their continuous possession over the suit schedule property besides their failure to establish that they are the legal heirs succeeding from original owner Abdul Rehman and entitled to claim their share at this stage after fifty years. PW1 admitted that there is no single document to show their possession as pattadar or possessor for the last fifty years. He admits about the registered sale deed dt.01-06-1964 in favour of the father of the defendants No.16 to 19 and mutation of their father's name and subsequent mutation in favour of the defendants No.16 to 19 which would disclose that the defendants No.16 to 19 and their father have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as owner and possessors. The purchase of land under registered sale deed and subsequent mutations, the notices issued by the Government under Land

Accusation Act were never challenged.

77.It is highly improbable to believe that the defendants have no knowledge of the proceedings, entries in the revenue records, pattdar pass books and title deeds in favour of the defendants and their possession for the past fifty years.

Therefore, exhibits marked for the defendants No.16 to 19 and

O.S.No.1542/201336

including pahanies for the period of fifty years clearly establish the possession of the defendants for the past fifty years. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the legal heirs and successors of Abdul Rehman and have been in possession of the suit schedule property for the last fifty years. As seen from the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that the defendants No.1 to 15 are sailing with the plaintiffs in claiming the shares in the property almost after fifty years from the date of purchase by the defendants No.16 to 19. Initially they remained exparte which shows the collusive nature and subsequently they came on record but did not contest and filed written statement in causal manner simply admitting the claim of the plaintiff. There is no record placed and proved before Court that they are legal heirs of Abdul Rehman along with plaintiff. An illegal attempt appears to have been made to claim the property purchased by the father of defendant No.16 to 19 under registered sale deed in the year 1964. Issues No.1 to 3 are accordingly answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.5:

78.In view of the findings answered in Issues No.1 to 3, the entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property cannot be held to be illegal and arbitrary, almost after fifty years from the date of registered sale deed vide doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964. Every entry in the revenue records shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved.

Accordingly, the Issue No.5 is answered.

O.S.No.1542/201337

ISSUE No.4:

79.Suit is originally filed seeking partition and separate possession and subsequently the plaintiff got amended seeking the registered sale deed dt.01-06-1964 as null and void. As already discussed the sale deed is more than forty nine years old, it was never challenged. The counsel for the defendants draws reference to Section 90 of Evidence Act which ordains regarding the documents of thirty years old, it has to be accepted and presumed to be genuine document. The learned counsel relies on a decision on the principle of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 1991 (1) SCC 715 and 2014 (2) ALT 245. The counsel submits that the vendee gets rights which will be related back on registration from the date of execution of sale deed and such rights are protected Under/Order XXXVIII Rule 10 CPC r/w.

Section 47 of Registration Act. Therefore, considering the above material, I hold that the said document cannot be declared as void document. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.6:

80.The plaintiffs got amended the plaint, during pendency of the suit seeking declaration to declare the sale deed dt.01-06-1964 as null and void. As already discussed in

Issue No.4, the document of fifty years old is now under challenge, which cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs admitted that they are residents of same village for the past fifty years and moreover the plaintiff was aged about twenty five years at

O.S.No.1542/201338

the time of execution of Ex.B7. Therefore it is improbable to hold that the plaintiffs have no knowledge of the sale deed and continuous possession of the defendants No.16 to 19 and their father and regarding entries in the revenue records.

81.In my opinion, the suit claim for such declaration or cancellation of the sale deed is barred by limitation. The counsel for the defendants No.16 to 19 contends that Article 59 of the Act contemplates period of three years in respect of suits of this nature. Even if it is accepted for a moment that they have knowledge about the sale deed from the date of seeking amendment, still it is beyond three years. By the date of suit the deceased plaintiff Hassanuddin who claimed himself to be the son of Yakoob Bee daughter of Abdul Rehman was aged about 74 years; he was aged about 25 years by the date of sale deed. Therefore, as already discussed the plaintiffs have knowledge about the sale deed in favour of late.Sri Ramulu by

Abdul Razak in the year 1984 itself who is recognized as absolute owner in the revenue records and have been in continuous, uninterrupted and long possession without objection by anybody including the plaintiffs. This Issue is accordingly, answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.7:

82.The plaintiffs failed to establish that they have been in joint possession and enjoyment for the past fifty years as co- owners and that they are the legal heirs and that the suit is also filed within time. Hence the Court fee paid U/Sec.34 (2) of Court

O.S.No.1542/201339

Fee Act is also incorrect. This Issue is accordingly answered against the plaintiffs. In view of the findings answered in the

Issue No.1 to 7 against the plaintiffs, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

83.For the aforesaid reasons, this Original Suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation; corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this Friday, the First day of May, Two Thousand Twenty

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Plaintiff/s:

PW1Mohd.Hameeduddin

PW2Mohd.Moulana

PW3Aziz Khan

On behalf of the Defendant/s:

DW1Abdul Wahab @ Dastagir

DW2K.Nageshwar Rao

DW3K.Satyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Plaintiff/s:

Ex.A1Certified Copy of Khasra Pahani -1954-55

Ex.A2Certified Copy of Sessala – 1955-58

Ex.A3Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1958-59

Ex.A4Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61

Ex.A5Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62

O.S.No.1542/201340

Ex.A6Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1963

Ex.A7Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65

Ex.A8Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A9Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2004-05

Ex.A10Certified Copy of Memo in file No.814/2013, dt.6-7-13

Ex.A11Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A12Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A13Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A14Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A15Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A16Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A17Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A18Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A19Certified Copy of Nikha Nama (Marriage Certificate)

Ex.A20Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74

Ex.A21Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A22Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83

Ex.A23Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex.A24Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.A25Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.A26 Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000,

Ex.A27Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation,

Ex.A28Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19-01- 2015 by AP State Waqf board

Ex.A29Original death certificate of Abdul Rehman issued by

Narsingi,GrampanchayatwithLetter

O.S.No.1542/201341

No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010

Ex.A30Certified Copy Sale deed Doc.No.346 of 1964, dt.01- 06-1964

Ex.A31Original Election card of Mohd.Hasnuddin

Ex.A32Original Ration Card of Mohd.Hasnuddin

Ex.A33Original Passport of Mohd. Hasnuddin

Ex.A34Market Valuation certificate

Ex.A35Certified copy of Voters list.

On behalf of the Defendant/s:

Ex.B1Original receipt dated 15/10/1963 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sri ramulu.

Ex.B2Original Challan dated 30/11/1963 issued by State

Bank of Hyderabad, Sultan Bazar Branch to Abdul

Razak

Ex.B3Original receipt dated 07/05/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B4Original receipt dated 25/05/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B5Original receipt dated 30/06/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B6Original order for permission to alienation of land by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, dated 25/02/1964.

Ex.B7Original sale deed dated 01/06/1964 along with typed copy

Ex.B8Original tax payment receipt dated 20/05/1965

O.S.No.1542/201342

Ex.B9Original Pass Book Of Late K.Sri Ramulu along with tax payment details.

Ex.B10Certified Copy of will dated 04/04/2005 executed by

Late.K.Sriramulu in favour of the Defendant no.16 to 19.

Ex.B11Certified Copy of death certificate of Late K.Sriramulu

dated 06/04/2005

Ex.B12Original mutation proceedings of the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, dated 25/08/2009 in the name of

Defendant No.16 to 19 in ROR proceedings.

Ex.B13Original Pattedar Pass Book of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16)

Ex.B14Original Title Deed of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16)

Ex.B15Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17)

Ex.B16Original Title Deed of Smt.S.Yashoda (D17)

Ex.B17Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18)

Ex.B18Original Title Deed of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18)

Ex.B19Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19)

Ex.B20Original Title Deed of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19)

Ex.B21Original Notice U/Sec.5-A of the L.A.Act dated

O.S.No.1542/201343

16/03/2005.

Ex.B22Certified Copy of Panchanama dated 03/12/2006 conducted by Mandal Surveyor along with map.

Ex.B23Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the K.Nageswar

Rao (Defendant No.16) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt.

MA & UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B24Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA &

UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B25Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.T.Lakshmi

Kumari (Defendant No.18) to the Prl.Secretary to

Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B26Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA &

UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B27Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1952-53

Ex.B28Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55

Ex.B29Certified Copy of Seesala Pahani for the year 1955-58

Ex.B30Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61

Ex.B31Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65

Ex.B32Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74

Ex.B33Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.B34Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1978-79

Ex.B35Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83

EX.B36Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex.B37Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1987-88

O.S.No.1542/201344

Ex.B38Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.B39Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.B40Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.B41Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 1999-2000

Ex.B42Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2000-2001

Ex.B43Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2001-2002

EX.B44Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2004-2005

Ex.B45Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2006-2007

Ex.B46Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2009-2010

Ex.B47Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2011 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B48Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2012 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B49Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2013 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B50Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B51Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B52Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

O.S.No.1542/201345

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B53Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B54Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B55Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B56Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B57Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B58Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B59Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B60Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B61Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011

O.S.No.1542/201346

issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B62Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

O.S.No.1542/20131

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR, N.T.R.NAGAR,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT: Sri.S.VENKATESWARA PRASAD,

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Friday, the First day of May, Two Thousand Twenty

ORIGINAL SUIT No.1542/2013

Between:

Mohammed Hassanuddin (died) per L.Rs., and others ...Plaintiffs

AND

Abdul Sattar and others ...Defendants

This Original Suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Kum.Hima Varshini, Counsel for the Plainitffs and Sri.Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Counsel for the Defendant No.16 to 19 and Sri.K.Shasidar Kumar, Counsel for the Defendants No.2 to 15 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

01.This is a suit for partition of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, into 2 shares and allot 1/3 share (i.e., Ac.4.06 gts.,) to the plaintiff and allot 2/3 share to the defendants (i.e., Ac.9.01 gunta) out of which allot 4/39 share to the defendants 1 to 3 (Ac.0.54.5 gts each), 2/39 share to the defendants 15 (Ac.0.27.02 gts. each), 1/78 share to the defendant NO.4(Ac. 0.6.756 quntas), 7/156" share to the defendants 5 & 6 (Ac.0.23 gts), 1/78th (Ac.0.6.75 gts) /39 share to the defendants 8 & 9(Ac.0.13.5 gts) dnd 78t" share to the defendants 10 to 12 (Ac.0.6.75 gts) for separate

O.S.No.1542/20132

possession and allot 1/3 share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to declare the entries in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property from 1974-75 onwards till date i.e., 2012-2013 as illegal, arbitrary and null and void, direct the defendant No.20 to restore the name of Abdul Razzaq in pattedar and possessor column by deleting the names or K. Sri Ramulu and defendants 16 to 19 and to declare the sale deeds in favour of the defendants No.16 to 19 as null and void and for injunction.

02.As per the plaint averments, plaintiff is the son of

Smt. Yakub Bee who is the daughter of Late Abdul Rehman. The defendants 1 to 15 are the sons and daughter of Abdul Razzak who is son of Abdul Rehman. Originally, Abdul Rehman, the grand father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15 was the original pattedar and possessor of agricultural land covered by

Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as the schedule property). The name of

Abdul Rehman was recorded as pattedar in revenue records such as Khasra pahani and sesala pahani. Abdul Rehman died at about 45 years back leaving behind a son viz., Abdul Razzaq and daughter Yakub Bee. After his death of Abdul Rehman, the name of Abdul Razzaq was mutated in the revenue records being the legal heir of Abdul Rehman.

03.Abdul Razzaq being the elder member in the family,

O.S.No.1542/20133

his name was mutated even though the mother of the plaintiff is having rights and share in the said property.

04.Abdul Razzaq died leaving behind the defendants 1 to

15. Smt. Yakub Bee died leaving behind the plaintiff herein. The suit schedule property is the ancestral mathruka property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to15 and the plaintiff being the son of

Yakub Bee, the daughter of Late Abdul Rehman, the plaintiff is having share and entitled in the suit schedule property.

05.After the death of Abdul Rehman the suit schedule property was devolved on his son and daughter viz., Abdul

Razzaq and Yakub Bee and they used to cultivate the land jointly (since Abdul Razzaq was doing agriculture operation on behalf of the family of the plaintiff being the elder member in the family, his name mutated in the revenue records as pattedar in respect of the suit schedule property. Even though Abdul Razzaq's name is recorded as pattedar, the mother of the plaintiff and Razzaq were enjoying jointly. The mother of the plaintiff being the daughter of Abdul Rehman and as per the Muslim personal law she is entitled to 1/3rd share and Abdul Razzaq being the son is entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

06.Abdu Razzaq died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 15 and Smt.Yakub Bee died leaving behind the plaintiff. Since the suit schedule property is Mathruka and joint family property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15, and that they are in joint possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff demanded the

O.S.No.1542/20134

defendants for partition of 1/3 share in the month of October, 2013 and allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15 did not respond and the plaintiff also tried before the elders seeking partition but it is not materialized. From Khasra pabani i e 1954-55 to 1960-61 the name of Abdul Rehman was recorded as pattedar and there after till 1973-74 the name of Abdul

Razzaq was recorded as pattedar in respect of the Suit schedule property.

07.The name of the defendants 16 to 19 i.e., Sri Ramulu has been incorporated in revenue records as pattedar from 1975-76 onwards. After seeing the said entries of Sri Ramulu, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised and got enquired as to how his name was incorporated in pahanies. It is submitted that the plaintiff got enquired and has made an application for issue of certified copy of Paisal Patti wherein the proceedings of the

Tahsildar will be entered for the change of the name of Sri

Ramulu.

08.Defendant No.20 issued a Memo dated 6-7-2013 as per the entries in Paisal Patti from 1961-62 to 1985-86 no changes have been effected with regard to the mutation of the name of Sri Ramulu in the revenue records and he refused to issue Paisal Patti. The defendant No.20 illegally and without passing orders under ROR Act or Land Revenue Act, entered in the name of Sri Ramulu in the revenue records which is bad, unjust, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Act.

O.S.No.1542/20135

09.On further enquiry defendant No.20 mutated by incorporating the names of defendants 16 to 19 in respect of suit schedule property on the death of their father of K. Sri

Ramulu. The defendant No.20 has divided the suit schedule property and allotted the Sy.NO.136/A admeasuring Ac.7.00 Gts., in favour of defendant No.16 and S.No.136/AA admeasuring

Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant No.17 and Sy.No.136/E admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant No.18 and

Sy.NO.136/EE admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant

No.19.

10.The entries made by defendant No.20 in respect of the name of K. Sri Ramulu, the father of defendants 16 to19 are illegal and contrary to the provisions of ROR act without any proceedings from the competent authority and as such the incorporation of the names of defendants 16 to 19 and splitting up of the suit schedule property Into Sy.No.136/A to 136/EE is illegal and liable to be rectified by restoring the name of Abdul

Razzak.

11.Late Abdul Rehman died intestate on 11.03.1973 and till his death he was cultivating as an absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the agricultural land. That, the alleged sale deed Document No. 346 of 1964 was alleged to be executed on dated 01.06. 1964 by Abdul Razak. That, as on the date of the alleged sale deed the original pattedar Abdul

Ranman was very much alive with a son by name Abdul Razak

O.S.No.1542/20136

daughter by name Smt. Yakoob Bee and moreover during his life time no document was executed., That, Late Abdul Razak was not the exclusive owner of the entire suit schedule property to deal with third parties and thus, the alleged sale deed is sham and ab-initio.

12.The date of sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated 01.06.1964, the suit property was not partitioned with metes and bounds and standing in the name of Abdul Rehman. The sale transaction under Sale deed dt.01.06.1964 to be declared as null and void and inoperative. {Para 7 (a) amended as per the orders in I.A.No.1211 of 2019.

13.Second defendant filed written statement being adopted by defendants No.3 to 15. In the written statement filed by the second defendant being adopted by the defendants

No.3 to 15 all the averments of the plaint are admitted and it is specifically contended in each paragraph that the plaint averments are not in dispute. Therefore they also prayed for partition as per the pleadings of the plaint.

14.Defendants No.16 to 19 filed a separate written statement denying the plaint allegations by contending that the allegations made in the plaint are false and baseless and suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.

15.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants No.16 to 19 are as follows: The present suit is

O.S.No.1542/20137

not maintainable either in law or on facts on record and as such the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. All the allegations mentioned in the plaint are absolutely false, fabricated and baseless. The Plaintiff intentionally suppressed the real tacIs and tiled the present suit to create unwarranted litigation as possible as and for wrongful gain.

16.The Defendant No.16 is the son and 17 to 19 are the daughters of K.Sriramulu. The father of the Defendant No.16 to 19 had purchased agriculture land to the extent of Ac.13-08 guntas in Sy.No.136 of Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar from the original owner one Abdul Razak. Initially on 15-10-1963, the said Abdul Razak agreed to sell the property to K.Sriramulu for total consideration of Rs.6,775/- and received an amount of

Rs.1,400/- as advance, on the same day and passed a receipt.

Then said Atuul Razzak had applied to the then Tahsildar of the

Hyderabad on 30-11-1963 to seeking permission under section 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Act, to alienate the schedule property being agriculture land to an extent of Ac.13-08 guntas in survey no.136 of Narsingi Village,

Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of

K.Sriramulu. The Tahsildar of Hyderabad West Taluq had accorded the permission to the said Abdul Razak to alienate the said property in favour of K.Sriramulu on 25-2-1964 vide proceedings No.A3-18238/1963. Further said Abdul Razzak had received further amounts on various dates ie. 07/05/1964, 25/05/1964 and 30/06/1964. Abdul Razzak had received total

O.S.No.1542/20138

amount of RS.3,525/- as advance and remaining amount was received on date of execution of the sale deed.

17.After purchasing the property, the name of

K.Sriramulu was mutated in the revenue records pertaining to schedule property by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluq and issued land revenue pass book in favour of K.Sriramulu.

Thereafter, the said K.Ramulu had been paying land revenue till 1993-94 and same was noted in the land revenue pass book.

Further, K Sriramulu's name was recorded Pahanies also. Since then K.Sriramulu had been cultivating death in April 2005.

K.Sriramulu's name recorded as Pattedar and Possessor in revenue records/Pahanies up to 2006-07.

18.The father of the Defendant No.16 to 19 namely

K.Sriramulu died on 07-04-2005 due to ill health. During his lite time he executed a registered Will deed on 04-04-2009 bearing registration 145/BoOK No.3/2005 by bequeathing the Schedule

Property to an extent of Ac.7.08 guntas to his son namely

K.Nageswara Rao (Defendant No.16), remaining Ac.6.00 bequeathed equally to his three daughters (Defendant No.17 to 19).i.e. Ac.2.00 Gis each.

19.After death of father of Defendant no.16 to 19 they applied for mutation of their names in revenue records as per shares provided in the Will deed dated 04-04-2005. After due enquiry, the Deputy Collector and Thahsildar, Rajendranagar

Manda, Ranga Reddy District issued proceedings incorporating

O.S.No.1542/20139

the names of the Defendant No.16 to 19 as Pattadars and

Possessors in the Revenue Records vide proceedings dated

B1/1471-74/2008, dated 25-08-2009 and same is evidencing from the Pahanies till date. Further Pattadar Pass Books and Title

Deeds were also issued in favour of Defendant No. 16 to 19 for their respective shares and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Property.

20.HUDA, Hyderabad had issued a notice on l6-03-2005 to Defendant No.16 to 19 to acquire their land and also issued a public notice, however subsequently it was withdrawn. The defendant No.16 to 19 have acquired the title through valid registered sale deed from the rightful owner Abdul Razzak whose name alone was appearing in the Revenue Records. None of the other heirs' names were recorded in the revenue records except Abaul Rdzzak. In any case if the mother of the Plaintiff was the daughter of the Abdul Rahaman and she got any claim over the Schedule Property, she must have claimed the property during her life time. Further, it is strange that the Plaintiff never made any claim or initiated any proceedings for past 50 years over the schedule Property and at the fag end of his life he came with this false claim. The conduct of the Plaintiff makes it clear that he is neither related to said Abdul Razzak anyway nor has any claim over the Schedule Property.

21.Defendant Nos.16 to 19 and their father has been in continues and uninterrupted possession over the Schedule

O.S.No.1542/201310

Property for the past 50 and they have also perfected their title over the schedule property by virtue of long possession of 50 years.

22.The allegations of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is the son of Yakub Bee who is the daughter of the Late.Abdul Rehman and the Defendant No.1 to 15 are sons and daughters of Abdul

Razak who is the son of Abdul Rehman is denied for want of knowledge. Further, the allegations or the Plaintiff Abdul

Rehman is the grandfather of the Plaintiff and they are the original pattadars and possessors of the agriculture land covered by survey no.136 admeasuring Ac.13-07 guntas at Narsingi

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District is denied and the

Plaintiff is put to strict proot of the same. The Plaintiff has not filed any documents evidencing that he is the only son of the said Yakub bee and Yakub Bee was the daughter or the Said

Abdul Rahaman. Similarly the Plaintiff is also not filing any documents to show that the Defendant No.1 to 15, are the heirs of Abdul Razak.

23.The Plaintiff is put to Strict proof that the Defendant

No.1 to 15 are the legal heirs of Abdul Razak and the Plaintiff's the son of the said Yakub Bee and the schedule property is their mathruka property and the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 15 having share and entitled to the paint schedule property.

24.It is denied that after the death of Abdul Rehman the property was devolved upon his son and daughter Abdul Razak

O.S.No.1542/201311

and Yakub Bee and they used to cultivate the land jointly.

Further it is also denied that the said Abdul Razak was doing agriculture on behalf of the family and his name was mutated in ihe Revenue Records as Pattedar and Abdul Razak and Yakub

Bee enjoyed the property jointly, Further, it is also denied that the mother of the Plaintif is entitled to 1/3 share and Abdul

Razak is entitled for 2/3 share in the plaint schedule property.

25.It is denied that Abdul Razak died leaving Defendant

No.1 to 15 and Yakub Bee died leaving the Plaintiff and schedule property mathruka property and the Plaintiff and the Defendant

No.1 to 15 are in joint possession and enjoyment, It is also denied that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant No.1 to 15 for his share in the month of October, 2013, and the Defendant

No.1 to 15 not responded and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same, Further, it is also denied the allegation that this

Plaintiff per-occupied with service and the plaint schedule property kept fallow for several years and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

26.It is incorrect to say that defendant No.20 illegally without passing orders on ROR Act or Land Revenue Act, entered the name of K.Sriramulu in the revenue records which is bad, unjust and arbitrary. After the death of said K.Sriramulu,

Defendant No.16 to 19 names were mutated in the revenue records with respect to the plaint property on the death of their father K.Sriramulu by defendant No.20, Tahsildar by dividing the

O.S.No.1542/201312

land among Defendant No.16 to 19. However, it is incorrect that the defendant No.20 mutated the property illegally.

27.It is denied that Defendant No.20 mutated the name of Siramulu illegally and contrary to the provisions of the ROR

ACt, and incorporation of the names of the Defendant No.16 to 19 by splitting the Patta is illegal and liable to be rectified by the restoring the name of Abdul Razak.

28.It is incorrect to say that the Defendant No.16 to 19 by taking advantage of innocence and preoccupation of the

Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 15 intentionally and deliberately to deprive their rights intending to alienate the property to the third parties.

29.It is incorrect to say that the plaint Schedule property is a mathruka joint family property of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant no.1 to 15 as such the Plaintiff being the legal heir of

Yakub bee, the daughter of Abdul Rehman, as such the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and the Defendant No.1 to 15 being the legal heirs of Abdul Razak, the son of Abdul Rehman are entitled to 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

30.The Plaintiff having no primafacie case and balance of convenience to show Schedule properties is ancestral property which is still in the joint possession of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant No.1 to 15, hence Defendant No.16 to 19 are trying to alienate schedule property by depriving the legitimate share

O.S.No.1542/201313

of the Plaintiff and he will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss does not arise.

31.The Plaintiff grossly failed to establish his alleged possession over the Schedule Property, he is liable to pay court fee under Section 34 (1) as such suit is liable to be rejected on this ground alone, there is no cause of action raised for filing of the suit as such suit is liable to dismissed in limini. The allegations mentioned in the plaint are invented for purpose of filing the present suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not valued properly.

32.The defendants No.16 to 19 filed additional written statement in view of the Orders of amendment in I.A.No.

1211/2019 which is as follows: the plaintiff does not have any locus standi to maintain the suit for declaration nor he has made out any case to seek the relief of declaration as such suit is liable to be dismissed.

33.The plaintiff has filed the present suit in the year 2013 for partition and separate possession with false and frivolous allegations. Then these defendants have filed written statements in the year April 2014. These defendants already placed the entire true facts of the case through their written statement.

34.Thereafter, Interlocutory Application under Order 39,

Rule 1 and 2 was heard in detail by this Hon'ble Court and same

O.S.No.1542/201314

was dismissed the same on 17-10-2014. Aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the

Hon'ble High Court vide CMA No.1086 of 2014 and the same was

dismissed on 05-02-2019.

35.After lapse of Fifty Five long years of the sale, the plaintiffs are trying to get declaratory relief to declare the said sale deed as null and void. Further, even after a lapse of five years, after filing of the suit the plaintiffs are trying to insert declaratory relief to declare the said sale deed as null and void.

As such the suit and the relief sought are hopelessly barred by limitation. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

36.In reply to para 5 of the amended portion, it is incorrect to state that the mother of plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of the Suit Schedule Property and Abdul Razzak being the son of Abdul Rehman is entitled to 2/3rd share in the Suit

Schedule property. It is also incorrect to state that the plaintiff is entitled 1/3d share and the defendants No. 1 to 12 are entitled for the remaining shares as described in the plaint.

37.In reply to para 7 (a), which is amended as per the orders in I.A.No. 1211 of 2019 datedis the 23.12.2019, it is incorrect to state that Late. Abdul Rehman died intestate on 11.03.1973 and till his death he was cultivating as absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the agricultural land and the plaintiff put to strict proof of the same, It is also incorrect to

O.S.No.1542/201315

state that as on the date of the alleged sale deed the original pattadar Abdul Rehman was very much alive with his son by name Abdul Razzak and his daughter Yakub Bee. It is also incorrect to state that the Abdul Rehman has not executed any document. Further it is also incorrect to state that Late. Abdul

Razzak was not the exclusive owner of the entire suit schedule property to deal with third parties and thus the alleged sale deed is sham and void ab initio. It is also incorrect to state that as on the date of the sale deed i.e. 01.06.1964, the suit schedule property was not partitioned with metes and bounds and standing in the name of Abdul Rehman till his death's Sole rights vesting on him. It is also incorrect to state that the sale transaction under the sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated is the 01.06.1964 to be declared as null and void and inoperative. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of each and every allegation made in the plaint.

38.The reliefs prayed for are hopelessly barred by limitation as the father of the defendant purchased the property in the year 1964 and he was put into possession and his name was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1964-65 and since then he has been cultivating the land till his death and thereafter the names of the defendant are mutated in the revenue records and thus has been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration for reason of not seeking necessary consequential reliefs.

O.S.No.1542/201316

39.The deceased plaintiff Hasanuddin who claimed himself to be the son of Yakub Bee allegedly the daughter of

Abdul Rehman was aged about 74 years as on the date of institution of the suit admittedly was resident of the very same village where the suit schedule property was situated.

40.The registered sale deed was executed in favour of K.

Sriramulu by Abdul Razzak in the year 1964 and ever since K

Sriramulu has been in absolute possession of the suit schedule property and he has been cultivating the same as Its absolute owner to the exclusion of all others right under the very nose of plaintiff no.1 and the name of Sriramulu being in long, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property is also reflected in the revenue records. Further plaintiff no.1 who was the resident of the same village where suit schedule property is situated which was being cultivated by

Sriramulu since 1964, never claimed any rights to suit schedule property nor objected the same for almost 50 years and by his very conduct he has acquiesced his rights over suit schedule property, so the other plaintiffs who claims to be the legal heirs of the deceased the plaintiff No.1 also cannot maintain the suit.

The suit framed and filed is hopelessly bad by limitation.

41.The plaintiffs filed rejoinder in response to the

additional written statement filed by the defendants No.16 to

19. The contents of the rejoinder are as follows: Originally,

Abdul Rehman was the original pattedar and possessor of

O.S.No.1542/201317

agricultural land covered by Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. Abdul Rehman died on 11.03.1973 leaving behind a son viz., Abdul Razzaq and daughter Yakub Bee. That, after his death, elder son Abdul Razzaq got mutated his name into the revenue records being the male legal heir and elder member in the family Abdul Rehman as a tenant in common.

That, the rights and interest of Late Yakub Bee the Suit schedule of property are subsisting until the suit property with metes and bounds. That, the issue in the Interlocutory application decided on the basis of the registered Sale deed, which was presently sought for Declaration as null and void by way of amendment orders in l.A. No. 1211 of 2019 dated 23.12.2019.

42.The plaintiff's grandmother Smt.Yakub Bee was the daughter of the Late Abdul Rehman and the plaintiffs were brought on record as her legal heirs by original plaintiff

Late.Mohamd Hassanuddin and that the rights and interests over the suit schedule property are devolved into the plaintiffs and are subsisting until the suit property is partitioned with metes and bounds and therefore, the question of limitation does not arise as long as the suit property stands with the tag of 'ancestral'.

43.The defendants 16 to 19 were never in physical possession of the suit schedule of property, their names were mutated illegally and without noticing the legal heirs of original

O.S.No.1542/201318

pattedar and no proceedings were issued in their favour and that the said illegal entries are questioned in the present suit and sought for restoration of the names of the original pattedars or his surviving legal heirs into the revenue records accordingly.

44.The alleged sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated 1.06.1964 is a void document. The sale deed was never executed by the original pattedar during his lifetime and that the plaintiff's grandmother Smt.Yakoob Bee was a lady, innocent and ignorant, never acted against any of the family members.

She cultivated the suit land till her last breath along with her son i.e. original plaintiff presently the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit schedule of property.

45.During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died, the plaintiff No.2 to 8 are brought on record as legal heirs. The defendants No.1 to 15 are claiming to be legal heirs of one

Abdul Rehman claiming share in the suit schedule property. The defendants No.16 to 19 claim to be the owners of the suit schedule property who have purchased under registered sale deed in the year 1964 and also mutation effected in their names claiming to be in continuous possession and enjoyment over the property since then. The defendant No.20 is the Tahsildar who is proforma party added as the entries of the revenue records are challenged.

46.On the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

O.S.No.1542/201319

01.Whether the plaintiffs are the successors/Legal

Representatives of the late.Abdul Rehman ?

02.Whether the plaintiffs are in the possession of the property ?

03.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession ?

04.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare the sale deed doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964 as null and void?

05.Whether entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property are illegal and arbitrary ?

06.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

07.Whether the Court fee paid is correct ?

47.On behalf of plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 are examined and

Ex.A1 to A35 are marked. On behalf of the defendants DW1 to

DW3 are examined. Ex.B1 to B62 are marked.

48.Heard Arguments. Also perused the Written

Arguments filed by plaintiffs and defendants.

49.In the written arguments filed by the plaintiffs it is contended that late.Abdul Rehman was the pattader and his son and daughter i.e., Abdul Razzaq and Yakoob Bee succeeded the property. In order to establish their case, they marked the documents to show that late.Abdul Rehman was the original

O.S.No.1542/201320

pattadar who died in the year 1973 devolving the property into hands of Smt.Yakoob Bee and Abdul Razzaq. Ex.A27 and A28 are the marriage certificates issued by Government and Waqf

Board. Ex.A29 is the death certificate of Abdul Rehman.

50.It is contended by the plaintiffs that Ex.A31, 32 and 33 are the relevant documents to show that father of the plaintiff is Gulam Moinuddin and the mother is Yakood Bee.

Ex.A33 is the passport issued by the Government showing the name of Yakoob Bee. It is further contended in the written statement that DW2 admitted Ex.B28, B29 and the suit schedule property originally, belonged to late.Abdul Rehman who died instate leaving behind him, Yakoob Bee and Abdul Razaq as successors. It is further contended in the written arguments that crux of the entire case is Ex.B6, DW2 admitted that Sri

Ramulu is not a tenant and Abdul Rehman showed as original pattedar. Ex.B6 cannot be relied on for any purpose. If the landlord intends to sell the land he shall apply to the Tribunal for determining reasonable price.

51.As on the date of Ex.B7 no mutation proceedings in the name of Abdul Rehman and no devolution taken place between Abdul Razaq and Yakoob Bee. Ex.B7 is liable to be declared as void document. The plaintiffs further contend in their written submissions that Exs.A3 to A7 and B30 and B31 disclose the name of Abdul Razaq without mutation proceedings, without noting Abdul Rehman as father. Ex.B32 to B45 cannot

O.S.No.1542/201321

be relied on. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that the question of limitation does not arise so long as the suit property has tag “Mathruka”, the entries were not known to the legal heirs of Abdul Rehman.

52.The Government has not taken possession but only conducted survey according to the defendants. Ex.B21 and B22 are not supporting the evidence of DW3. In the written submissions it is further contended that mutation of the property in the name of one co-sharer would not confine any right or title and would not entitle any one to sell the entire property.

Reliance placed on a decision reported in “Saleem Vs. Yaseen reported in (AIR 1996 All 342)”, and “Dorab Cawasji

Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden reported in 1990 (1)

SCC 332”. Co-owner cannot be said to be in actual physical possession or exclusive possession till partition takes place.

Ex.A27, A28 are genuine documents issued by State Waqf

Board. Exs.A29 is the death certificate of late Abdul Rehman issued by Grampanchayath and Ex.A32 ration card reveals father's name as Gulam Moinuddin. Ex.A35 is the photographs list. The above documents are the conclusive proof that the mother's name is Yakoob Bee and father's name is Gulam

Moinuddin.

53.The defendants No.16 to 19 in their written submissions contended that the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A27 to

A34 to establish that they are the legal heirs, which cannot be

O.S.No.1542/201322

taken into consideration. Ex.A27 is said to be marriage certificate issued for the alleged marriage of Yakoob Bee that took place on 25-10-1926, there is no basis for issuance of such certificate dt.22-12-2013 for the marriage of the year 1926.

When the document is disputed, the plaintiff did not examine any persons to prove the same. Ex.A28 was issued by Waqf

Board based on Ex.A27 for which there is no basis; Waqf Board was formed in the year 1954 and it does not possess any records of the year 1926. Hence both certificates were not issued based on any official records.

54.Ex.A29 death certificate is said to have been issued by Sarpanch, it is not an authority of any register. Sarpanch cannot issue any certificate, Ex.A32 voter card does not show the relationship of Hasanuddin with Abdul Rehman or Yakoob

Bee. Similarly, Ex.A32 ration card in the name of the plaintiff does not establish the relationship with Abdul Rehman or Yakoob

Bee similarly pahanies Ex.A33 only show the name of Yakoob

Bee but not with relationship with Abdul Rehman. It is the specific case of the defendant that Yakoob Bee daughter of

Rehman along with Ex.A35 does not establish that she is the daughter of Abdul Rehman.

55.It is further contended that the plaintiffs have not produced a single document to establish their continuous possession over the property, whereas the defendants established their case on title as well as continuous possession

O.S.No.1542/201323

and enjoyment over the property. The notice issued under land acquisition proceedings by the Government also would establish and confirm their possession for the past fifty years. The plaintiff miserably failed to establish they are the legal heirs of

Abdul Rehman besides, failure to prove their possession for the past fifty years.

56.The document dt.01-06-1964 was never challenged on. The presumption U/Sec.90 of Evidence Act in support of thirty years old document would arise in favour of the defendants. It is further contended that the amended relief for declaration to declare the sale deed as null and void is barred by limitation. The mutation proceedings or revenue records are never challenged for the past fifty years. The plaintiff was aged 74 years as on the date of suit and he was twenty five years old at the time of execution of registered sale deed and though he was resident of same village he never challenged the said document nor possession of the defendants.

57.Late.Sriramulu and thereafter the defendants No.16 to 19 have been in long continuous uninterrupted possession which reflects from revenue records. As there is no joint possession of the suit property the Court fee paid U/Sec.34(2) of

Court Fee Act is also incorrect. There is no single document to show that they are in continuous possession of the property to pay the Court fee U/Sec.34 (2) of the Court Fee Act.

O.S.No.1542/201324

ISSUES No.1 to 3:

58.The plaintiff filed chief affidavit as PW1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A35 which are as follows: Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Khasra Pahani -1954-55, Ex.A2 is the Certified Copy of Sessala – 1955-58,

Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1958-59, Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61, Ex.A5 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62, Ex.A6 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1963, Ex.A7 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65, Ex.A8 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76, Ex.A9 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A10 is the Certified Copy of

Memo in file No.814/2013, dt.06-07-2013, Ex.A11 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A12 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A13 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A14 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A15 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A16 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A17 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A18 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A19 is the Certified

Copy of Nikha Nama (Marriage Certificate), Ex.A20 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74, Ex.A21 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76, Ex.A22 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83, Ex.A23 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.A24 is the

O.S.No.1542/201325

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90, Ex.A25 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.A26 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000, Ex.A27 is the

Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation, Ex.A28 is the

Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19-01-2015 by AP

State Waqf board, Ex.A29 is the Original death certificate of

Abdul Rehman issued by Narsingi, Gram Panchayat with Letter

No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010, Ex.A30 is the Certified Copy

Sale deed Doc.No.346 of 1964, dt.01-06-1964, Ex.A31 is the

Original Election card of Mohd.Hasnuddin, Ex.A32 is the Original

Ration Card of Mohd.Hasnuddin, Ex.A33 is the Original Passport of Mohd. Hasnuddin, Ex.A34 is the Market Valuation certificate,

Ex.A35 is the Certified copy of Voters list.

59.PW2 is the third party who supports the case of the plaintiffs but he has no knowledge about any details with regard to the properties claimed by the plaintiffs. He was aged about eleven years by the date of death of Abdul Rehman as per his affidavit. Similarly, PW3 is also third party from whom no particulars could be elicited in favour of the plaintiffs.

60.Third defendant has filed chief affidavit as DW1 who is sailing with the plaintiffs and claim share in the property in support of the averments made by the plaintiff.

61.The sixteenth defendant filed his chief affidavit as

DW2 in support of their contention that their father purchased the property from Abdul Razaq in the year 1964 after obtaining

O.S.No.1542/201326

permission from Tahsildar. His father's name was mutated, since then they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the property. After demise of their father, defendants

No.16 to 19 applied for mutation and accordingly mutation was effected and pattadar passbooks, pahanies and title deeds were issued.

62.DW2 got marked the following documents on behalf of the defendants: Ex.B1 is the Original receipt dated 15/10/1963 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sri ramulu, Ex.B2 is the Original Challan dated 30/11/1963 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, Sultan Bazar Branch to Abdul

Razak, Ex.B3 is the Original receipt dated 07/05/1964 issued by

Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu, Ex.B4 is the Original receipt dated 25/05/1964 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of

Late K.Sriramulu Ex.B5 is the Original receipt dated 30/06/1964 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu, Ex.B6 is the Original order for permission to alienation of land by the

Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, dated 25/02/1964, Ex.B7 is the

Original sale deed dated 01/06/1964 along with typed copy,

Ex.B8 is the Original tax payment receipt dated 20/05/1965,

Ex.B9 is the Original Pass Book of Late K.Sri Ramulu along with tax payment details, Ex.B10 is the Certified Copy of will dated 04/04/2005 executed by Late.K.Sriramulu in favour of the

Defendant no.16 to 19, Ex.B11 is the Certified Copy of death certificate of Late K.Sriramulu dated 06/04/2005, Ex.B12 is the

Original mutation proceedings of the Deputy Collector and

O.S.No.1542/201327

Tahsildar, dated 25/08/2009 in the name of Defendant No.16 to 19 in ROR proceedings, Ex.B13 is the Original Pattedar Pass

Book of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16), Ex.B14 is the

Original Title Deed of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16),

Ex.B15 is the Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17), Ex.B16 is the Original Title Deed of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17), Ex.B17 is the Original

Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18),

Ex.B18 is the Original Title Deed of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18), Ex.B19 is the Original Pattedar Pass Book of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19), Ex.B20 is the Original Title

Deed of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19), Ex.B21 is the Original

Notice U/Sec.5-A of the L.A.Act dated 16/03/2005, Ex.B22 is the

Certified Copy of Panchanama dated 03/12/2006 conducted by

Mandal Surveyor along with map, Ex.B23 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B24 is the

Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad,

Ex.B25 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the

Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) to the Prl.Secretary to

Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B26 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B27 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1952-53, Ex.B28 is the

Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, Ex.B29 is

O.S.No.1542/201328

the Certified Copy of Seesala Pahani for the year 1955-58,

Ex.B30 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61,

Ex.B31 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65,

Ex.B32 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74,

Ex.B33 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76,

Ex.B34 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1978-79,

Ex.B35 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83,

Ex.B36 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86,

Ex.B37 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1987-88,

Ex.B38 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90,

Ex.B39 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1993-94, Ex.B40 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.B41 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 1999-2000, Ex.B42 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2000-2001, Ex.B43 is the Certified Copy of Adangal

Pahani for year 2001-2002, Ex.B44 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for year 2004-2005, Ex.B45 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2006-2007, Ex.B46 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2009-2010, Ex.B47 is the

Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2011 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for

Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B48 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2012 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B49 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2013 issued in the name of

K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07

O.S.No.1542/201329

Gts, Ex.B50 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B51 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B52 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in

Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B53 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in name of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.No.136/AA, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B54 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in

Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B55 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B56 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B57 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in the name of

Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B58 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B59 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B60 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year

O.S.No.1542/201330

2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in

Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B61 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B62 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in

Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

63.Since this is a suit for partition and separate possession besides other reliefs sought for, first of all, the plaintiffs have to establish that they are the successors and legal heirs of Abdul Rehman and that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants No.16 to 19 seriously contested the suit by contending that they are the owners of the property having purchased the same by their father under registered sale deed vide doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964 from one Abdul Razak after obtaining permission from Tahsildar under the Tenancy Act for sale.

64.As the plaintiffs claim to be successors and legal heirs of late.Abdul Rehman, burden is cast on them to establish that they succeeded the property through Yakoob Bee who is co- owner along with Abdul Razak and any previous transactions were invalid.

65.The plaintiffs must also establish that the plaintiff

No.2 to 8 are the legal heirs of Yakoob Bee and entitled to claim

O.S.No.1542/201331

their share in the property. They need to establish continuous possession and enjoyment over the property besides proof of legal heirs and their relationship with Yakoob Bee and also

Yakoob Bee is the daughter of Abdul Rehman since the defendants dispute that Yakoob Bee is the daughter of late.Abdul Rehman.

66.For considering the claim of the plaintiff, it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish that they are the legal heirs of late.Abdul Rehman through Yakoob Bee. The defendants dispute that Yakoob Bee is the daughter of late.Abdul Rehman and also dispute that the defendants No.1 to 15 are the legal heirs. The probabilities of the case have to be analyzed for considering the claim of the plaintiffs in seeking different reliefs.

67.The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A1 to A34, most of the documents as also reflect from pleadings of the both sides i.e., originally late.Abdul Rehman was the pattader whose name was in revenue records, wayback in the year 1954-1955. The defendants claim started from the year 1964. The pahanies are not in dispute; similarly the entries of late.Sreeramulu and subsequently the names of the defendants No.16 to 19 are also not in dispute from the year 1964.

68.Now the claim of the plaintiffs have to be considered based on the above documents as to whether they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property for the past fifty years, as they never objected for

O.S.No.1542/201332

entries in the revenue records. Ex.A19, 27, 28, 29, 32 and 35 are seriously objected by defendants No.16 to 19 which are marked subject to objection, particularly, Exs.A19 and A27.

Ex.A19 is said to be certified copy of marriage certificate and

Ex.A27 is the Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation,

Ex.A28 is the Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19- 01-2015 by AP State Waqf board, Ex.A29 is the Original death certificate of Abdul Rehman issued by Narsingi, Grampanchayat with Letter No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010,

69.As rightly contended by the defendants No.16 to 19, the above documents are not safe to be relied on. Ex.A31 to

A33 and A35 does not specifically establish the relationship with

Abdul Rehman and Yakoob Bee. Ex.A29 is issued by the then

Sarpanch but not by Executive Officer and not based on any records. Similarly, Ex.A28 is issued based on Ex.A29. The counsel for the defendants contend that Waqf Board was formed in the year 1954 it does not possess any records of the year 1926 which is the year of marriage of Yakoob Bee and how the said documents are produced is not understood when the said documents are in serious dispute.

70.It is the duty of the plaintiffs to place any supporting material or summoning the author of the documents for confirmation as to basis for issuance of such documents. Ex.A27 is dt.29-12-2014 issued for marriage of Yakoob Bee said to have been marked on 25-10-1926. It appears that it is not an extract

O.S.No.1542/201333

of any record of the year 1926. Similarly, there is no basis for issuance of Ex.A28 which is based on Ex.A27. Therefore, the above documents i.e., Ex.A19, A27, A28, A29, A32, A35 have no evidentiary value.

71.Though it is the burden of the plaintiffs to place all the relevant documents to show continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property besides, proof of legal heirs of late.Yakoob Bee claimed through originally

Pattedar Abdul Rehman, the defendants placed their relevant documents. Ex.B1 to B62 in support of their claim that their father purchased the property in the year 1964 under the registered sale deed of the year 1964 the reference of permission proceedings, mutation proceedings etc., The death certificate of their father late.Sreeramulu and the subsequent mutation proceedings in favour of defendants No.16 to 19 are marked in support of their oral evidence. In this regard, the plaintiffs failed to place such evidence though it is their duty in support of their claim.

72.The contention of the plaintiffs that DW2 made certain admissions with regard to the tenancy of late.Sreeramulu and that Ex.B6 proceedings are invalid and that enquiry was not properly conducted in accordance with law is not on correct line of argument at this stage. The conduct of proceedings and enquiry by the Government according permission of mutation proceedings in favour of father of the defendants No.16 to 19

O.S.No.1542/201334

based on the registered sale deed of the year 1964, cannot now be questioned at this stage and which aspect cannot be adjudicated beyond the scope of the suit. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff and entries in the revenue records

Ex.B6 and B7 are malafied is not correct.

73.Similarly, Ex.B30 to B45 some vague admissions by

DW2 with regard to proceedings issued in the year 1964 nor any ignorance expressed for the proceedings, is not a ground to defeat the claim of the defendants; the plaintiffs cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants and it is their burden to prove their case. They have not filed any relevant documents to establish their legal possession besides their failure to prove they are legal heirs of one Yakoob Bee.

74.The plaintiffs contended that the acquisition has not taken place though notice was issued for acquisition under Land

Acquisition Act is not supporting material in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants referred the above aspect only to establish that Government recognized their possession as continuous and therefore besides public notices, notices were issued to them seeking acquisition of land but proposal was subsequently withdrawn.

75.The question needs to be referred is whether notices were issued on rightful owners. Though there was a public notice, the said notice was not challenged by defendants No.1 to

15. As already discussed Ex.A19, A27, A28 are not safe to be

O.S.No.1542/201335

relied on without any records or supporting material. Similarly,

Ex.A29, A32, A35 as referred in the written arguments cannot be relied on.

76.In view of the forgoing discussion, it is reiterated that the plaintiffs have not produced a single document to establish their continuous possession over the suit schedule property besides their failure to establish that they are the legal heirs succeeding from original owner Abdul Rehman and entitled to claim their share at this stage after fifty years. PW1 admitted that there is no single document to show their possession as pattadar or possessor for the last fifty years. He admits about the registered sale deed dt.01-06-1964 in favour of the father of the defendants No.16 to 19 and mutation of their father's name and subsequent mutation in favour of the defendants No.16 to 19 which would disclose that the defendants No.16 to 19 and their father have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as owner and possessors. The purchase of land under registered sale deed and subsequent mutations, the notices issued by the Government under Land

Accusation Act were never challenged.

77.It is highly improbable to believe that the defendants have no knowledge of the proceedings, entries in the revenue records, pattdar pass books and title deeds in favour of the defendants and their possession for the past fifty years.

Therefore, exhibits marked for the defendants No.16 to 19 and

O.S.No.1542/201336

including pahanies for the period of fifty years clearly establish the possession of the defendants for the past fifty years. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the legal heirs and successors of Abdul Rehman and have been in possession of the suit schedule property for the last fifty years. As seen from the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that the defendants No.1 to 15 are sailing with the plaintiffs in claiming the shares in the property almost after fifty years from the date of purchase by the defendants No.16 to 19. Initially they remained exparte which shows the collusive nature and subsequently they came on record but did not contest and filed written statement in causal manner simply admitting the claim of the plaintiff. There is no record placed and proved before Court that they are legal heirs of Abdul Rehman along with plaintiff. An illegal attempt appears to have been made to claim the property purchased by the father of defendant No.16 to 19 under registered sale deed in the year 1964. Issues No.1 to 3 are accordingly answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.5:

78.In view of the findings answered in Issues No.1 to 3, the entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property cannot be held to be illegal and arbitrary, almost after fifty years from the date of registered sale deed vide doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964. Every entry in the revenue records shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved.

Accordingly, the Issue No.5 is answered.

O.S.No.1542/201337

ISSUE No.4:

79.Suit is originally filed seeking partition and separate possession and subsequently the plaintiff got amended seeking the registered sale deed dt.01-06-1964 as null and void. As already discussed the sale deed is more than forty nine years old, it was never challenged. The counsel for the defendants draws reference to Section 90 of Evidence Act which ordains regarding the documents of thirty years old, it has to be accepted and presumed to be genuine document. The learned counsel relies on a decision on the principle of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 1991 (1) SCC 715 and 2014 (2) ALT 245. The counsel submits that the vendee gets rights which will be related back on registration from the date of execution of sale deed and such rights are protected Under/Order XXXVIII Rule 10 CPC r/w.

Section 47 of Registration Act. Therefore, considering the above material, I hold that the said document cannot be declared as void document. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.6:

80.The plaintiffs got amended the plaint, during pendency of the suit seeking declaration to declare the sale deed dt.01-06-1964 as null and void. As already discussed in

Issue No.4, the document of fifty years old is now under challenge, which cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs admitted that they are residents of same village for the past fifty years and moreover the plaintiff was aged about twenty five years at

O.S.No.1542/201338

the time of execution of Ex.B7. Therefore it is improbable to hold that the plaintiffs have no knowledge of the sale deed and continuous possession of the defendants No.16 to 19 and their father and regarding entries in the revenue records.

81.In my opinion, the suit claim for such declaration or cancellation of the sale deed is barred by limitation. The counsel for the defendants No.16 to 19 contends that Article 59 of the Act contemplates period of three years in respect of suits of this nature. Even if it is accepted for a moment that they have knowledge about the sale deed from the date of seeking amendment, still it is beyond three years. By the date of suit the deceased plaintiff Hassanuddin who claimed himself to be the son of Yakoob Bee daughter of Abdul Rehman was aged about 74 years; he was aged about 25 years by the date of sale deed. Therefore, as already discussed the plaintiffs have knowledge about the sale deed in favour of late.Sri Ramulu by

Abdul Razak in the year 1984 itself who is recognized as absolute owner in the revenue records and have been in continuous, uninterrupted and long possession without objection by anybody including the plaintiffs. This Issue is accordingly, answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.7:

82.The plaintiffs failed to establish that they have been in joint possession and enjoyment for the past fifty years as co- owners and that they are the legal heirs and that the suit is also filed within time. Hence the Court fee paid U/Sec.34 (2) of Court

O.S.No.1542/201339

Fee Act is also incorrect. This Issue is accordingly answered against the plaintiffs. In view of the findings answered in the

Issue No.1 to 7 against the plaintiffs, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

83.For the aforesaid reasons, this Original Suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation; corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this Friday, the First day of May, Two Thousand Twenty

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Plaintiff/s:

PW1Mohd.Hameeduddin

PW2Mohd.Moulana

PW3Aziz Khan

On behalf of the Defendant/s:

DW1Abdul Wahab @ Dastagir

DW2K.Nageshwar Rao

DW3K.Satyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Plaintiff/s:

Ex.A1Certified Copy of Khasra Pahani -1954-55

Ex.A2Certified Copy of Sessala – 1955-58

Ex.A3Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1958-59

Ex.A4Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61

Ex.A5Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62

O.S.No.1542/201340

Ex.A6Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1963

Ex.A7Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65

Ex.A8Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A9Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2004-05

Ex.A10Certified Copy of Memo in file No.814/2013, dt.6-7-13

Ex.A11Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A12Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A13Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A14Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A15Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A16Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A17Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A18Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A19Certified Copy of Nikha Nama (Marriage Certificate)

Ex.A20Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74

Ex.A21Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A22Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83

Ex.A23Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex.A24Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.A25Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.A26 Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000,

Ex.A27Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation,

Ex.A28Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19-01- 2015 by AP State Waqf board

Ex.A29Original death certificate of Abdul Rehman issued by

Narsingi,GrampanchayatwithLetter

O.S.No.1542/201341

No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010

Ex.A30Certified Copy Sale deed Doc.No.346 of 1964, dt.01- 06-1964

Ex.A31Original Election card of Mohd.Hasnuddin

Ex.A32Original Ration Card of Mohd.Hasnuddin

Ex.A33Original Passport of Mohd. Hasnuddin

Ex.A34Market Valuation certificate

Ex.A35Certified copy of Voters list.

On behalf of the Defendant/s:

Ex.B1Original receipt dated 15/10/1963 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sri ramulu.

Ex.B2Original Challan dated 30/11/1963 issued by State

Bank of Hyderabad, Sultan Bazar Branch to Abdul

Razak

Ex.B3Original receipt dated 07/05/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B4Original receipt dated 25/05/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B5Original receipt dated 30/06/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B6Original order for permission to alienation of land by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, dated 25/02/1964.

Ex.B7Original sale deed dated 01/06/1964 along with typed copy

Ex.B8Original tax payment receipt dated 20/05/1965

O.S.No.1542/201342

Ex.B9Original Pass Book Of Late K.Sri Ramulu along with tax payment details.

Ex.B10Certified Copy of will dated 04/04/2005 executed by

Late.K.Sriramulu in favour of the Defendant no.16 to 19.

Ex.B11Certified Copy of death certificate of Late K.Sriramulu

dated 06/04/2005

Ex.B12Original mutation proceedings of the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, dated 25/08/2009 in the name of

Defendant No.16 to 19 in ROR proceedings.

Ex.B13Original Pattedar Pass Book of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16)

Ex.B14Original Title Deed of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16)

Ex.B15Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17)

Ex.B16Original Title Deed of Smt.S.Yashoda (D17)

Ex.B17Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18)

Ex.B18Original Title Deed of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18)

Ex.B19Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19)

Ex.B20Original Title Deed of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19)

Ex.B21Original Notice U/Sec.5-A of the L.A.Act dated

O.S.No.1542/201343

16/03/2005.

Ex.B22Certified Copy of Panchanama dated 03/12/2006 conducted by Mandal Surveyor along with map.

Ex.B23Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the K.Nageswar

Rao (Defendant No.16) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt.

MA & UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B24Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA &

UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B25Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.T.Lakshmi

Kumari (Defendant No.18) to the Prl.Secretary to

Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B26Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA &

UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B27Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1952-53

Ex.B28Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55

Ex.B29Certified Copy of Seesala Pahani for the year 1955-58

Ex.B30Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61

Ex.B31Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65

Ex.B32Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74

Ex.B33Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.B34Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1978-79

Ex.B35Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83

EX.B36Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex.B37Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1987-88

O.S.No.1542/201344

Ex.B38Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.B39Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.B40Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.B41Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 1999-2000

Ex.B42Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2000-2001

Ex.B43Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2001-2002

EX.B44Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2004-2005

Ex.B45Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2006-2007

Ex.B46Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2009-2010

Ex.B47Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2011 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B48Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2012 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B49Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2013 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B50Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B51Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B52Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

O.S.No.1542/201345

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B53Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B54Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B55Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B56Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B57Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B58Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B59Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B60Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B61Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011

O.S.No.1542/201346

issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B62Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

O.S.No.1542/20131

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR, N.T.R.NAGAR,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT: Sri.S.VENKATESWARA PRASAD,

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Friday, the First day of May, Two Thousand Twenty

ORIGINAL SUIT No.1542/2013

Between:

Mohammed Hassanuddin (died) per L.Rs., and others ...Plaintiffs

AND

Abdul Sattar and others ...Defendants

This Original Suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Kum.Hima Varshini, Counsel for the Plainitffs and Sri.Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Counsel for the Defendant No.16 to 19 and Sri.K.Shasidar Kumar, Counsel for the Defendants No.2 to 15 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

01.This is a suit for partition of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, into 2 shares and allot 1/3 share (i.e., Ac.4.06 gts.,) to the plaintiff and allot 2/3 share to the defendants (i.e., Ac.9.01 gunta) out of which allot 4/39 share to the defendants 1 to 3 (Ac.0.54.5 gts each), 2/39 share to the defendants 15 (Ac.0.27.02 gts. each), 1/78 share to the defendant NO.4(Ac. 0.6.756 quntas), 7/156" share to the defendants 5 & 6 (Ac.0.23 gts), 1/78th (Ac.0.6.75 gts) /39 share to the defendants 8 & 9(Ac.0.13.5 gts) dnd 78t" share to the defendants 10 to 12 (Ac.0.6.75 gts) for separate

O.S.No.1542/20132

possession and allot 1/3 share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to declare the entries in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property from 1974-75 onwards till date i.e., 2012-2013 as illegal, arbitrary and null and void, direct the defendant No.20 to restore the name of Abdul Razzaq in pattedar and possessor column by deleting the names or K. Sri Ramulu and defendants 16 to 19 and to declare the sale deeds in favour of the defendants No.16 to 19 as null and void and for injunction.

02.As per the plaint averments, plaintiff is the son of

Smt. Yakub Bee who is the daughter of Late Abdul Rehman. The defendants 1 to 15 are the sons and daughter of Abdul Razzak who is son of Abdul Rehman. Originally, Abdul Rehman, the grand father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15 was the original pattedar and possessor of agricultural land covered by

Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as the schedule property). The name of

Abdul Rehman was recorded as pattedar in revenue records such as Khasra pahani and sesala pahani. Abdul Rehman died at about 45 years back leaving behind a son viz., Abdul Razzaq and daughter Yakub Bee. After his death of Abdul Rehman, the name of Abdul Razzaq was mutated in the revenue records being the legal heir of Abdul Rehman.

03.Abdul Razzaq being the elder member in the family,

O.S.No.1542/20133

his name was mutated even though the mother of the plaintiff is having rights and share in the said property.

04.Abdul Razzaq died leaving behind the defendants 1 to

15. Smt. Yakub Bee died leaving behind the plaintiff herein. The suit schedule property is the ancestral mathruka property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to15 and the plaintiff being the son of

Yakub Bee, the daughter of Late Abdul Rehman, the plaintiff is having share and entitled in the suit schedule property.

05.After the death of Abdul Rehman the suit schedule property was devolved on his son and daughter viz., Abdul

Razzaq and Yakub Bee and they used to cultivate the land jointly (since Abdul Razzaq was doing agriculture operation on behalf of the family of the plaintiff being the elder member in the family, his name mutated in the revenue records as pattedar in respect of the suit schedule property. Even though Abdul Razzaq's name is recorded as pattedar, the mother of the plaintiff and Razzaq were enjoying jointly. The mother of the plaintiff being the daughter of Abdul Rehman and as per the Muslim personal law she is entitled to 1/3rd share and Abdul Razzaq being the son is entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

06.Abdu Razzaq died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 15 and Smt.Yakub Bee died leaving behind the plaintiff. Since the suit schedule property is Mathruka and joint family property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15, and that they are in joint possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff demanded the

O.S.No.1542/20134

defendants for partition of 1/3 share in the month of October, 2013 and allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15 did not respond and the plaintiff also tried before the elders seeking partition but it is not materialized. From Khasra pabani i e 1954-55 to 1960-61 the name of Abdul Rehman was recorded as pattedar and there after till 1973-74 the name of Abdul

Razzaq was recorded as pattedar in respect of the Suit schedule property.

07.The name of the defendants 16 to 19 i.e., Sri Ramulu has been incorporated in revenue records as pattedar from 1975-76 onwards. After seeing the said entries of Sri Ramulu, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised and got enquired as to how his name was incorporated in pahanies. It is submitted that the plaintiff got enquired and has made an application for issue of certified copy of Paisal Patti wherein the proceedings of the

Tahsildar will be entered for the change of the name of Sri

Ramulu.

08.Defendant No.20 issued a Memo dated 6-7-2013 as per the entries in Paisal Patti from 1961-62 to 1985-86 no changes have been effected with regard to the mutation of the name of Sri Ramulu in the revenue records and he refused to issue Paisal Patti. The defendant No.20 illegally and without passing orders under ROR Act or Land Revenue Act, entered in the name of Sri Ramulu in the revenue records which is bad, unjust, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Act.

O.S.No.1542/20135

09.On further enquiry defendant No.20 mutated by incorporating the names of defendants 16 to 19 in respect of suit schedule property on the death of their father of K. Sri

Ramulu. The defendant No.20 has divided the suit schedule property and allotted the Sy.NO.136/A admeasuring Ac.7.00 Gts., in favour of defendant No.16 and S.No.136/AA admeasuring

Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant No.17 and Sy.No.136/E admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant No.18 and

Sy.NO.136/EE admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts., in favour of defendant

No.19.

10.The entries made by defendant No.20 in respect of the name of K. Sri Ramulu, the father of defendants 16 to19 are illegal and contrary to the provisions of ROR act without any proceedings from the competent authority and as such the incorporation of the names of defendants 16 to 19 and splitting up of the suit schedule property Into Sy.No.136/A to 136/EE is illegal and liable to be rectified by restoring the name of Abdul

Razzak.

11.Late Abdul Rehman died intestate on 11.03.1973 and till his death he was cultivating as an absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the agricultural land. That, the alleged sale deed Document No. 346 of 1964 was alleged to be executed on dated 01.06. 1964 by Abdul Razak. That, as on the date of the alleged sale deed the original pattedar Abdul

Ranman was very much alive with a son by name Abdul Razak

O.S.No.1542/20136

daughter by name Smt. Yakoob Bee and moreover during his life time no document was executed., That, Late Abdul Razak was not the exclusive owner of the entire suit schedule property to deal with third parties and thus, the alleged sale deed is sham and ab-initio.

12.The date of sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated 01.06.1964, the suit property was not partitioned with metes and bounds and standing in the name of Abdul Rehman. The sale transaction under Sale deed dt.01.06.1964 to be declared as null and void and inoperative. {Para 7 (a) amended as per the orders in I.A.No.1211 of 2019.

13.Second defendant filed written statement being adopted by defendants No.3 to 15. In the written statement filed by the second defendant being adopted by the defendants

No.3 to 15 all the averments of the plaint are admitted and it is specifically contended in each paragraph that the plaint averments are not in dispute. Therefore they also prayed for partition as per the pleadings of the plaint.

14.Defendants No.16 to 19 filed a separate written statement denying the plaint allegations by contending that the allegations made in the plaint are false and baseless and suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.

15.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants No.16 to 19 are as follows: The present suit is

O.S.No.1542/20137

not maintainable either in law or on facts on record and as such the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. All the allegations mentioned in the plaint are absolutely false, fabricated and baseless. The Plaintiff intentionally suppressed the real tacIs and tiled the present suit to create unwarranted litigation as possible as and for wrongful gain.

16.The Defendant No.16 is the son and 17 to 19 are the daughters of K.Sriramulu. The father of the Defendant No.16 to 19 had purchased agriculture land to the extent of Ac.13-08 guntas in Sy.No.136 of Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar from the original owner one Abdul Razak. Initially on 15-10-1963, the said Abdul Razak agreed to sell the property to K.Sriramulu for total consideration of Rs.6,775/- and received an amount of

Rs.1,400/- as advance, on the same day and passed a receipt.

Then said Atuul Razzak had applied to the then Tahsildar of the

Hyderabad on 30-11-1963 to seeking permission under section 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Act, to alienate the schedule property being agriculture land to an extent of Ac.13-08 guntas in survey no.136 of Narsingi Village,

Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of

K.Sriramulu. The Tahsildar of Hyderabad West Taluq had accorded the permission to the said Abdul Razak to alienate the said property in favour of K.Sriramulu on 25-2-1964 vide proceedings No.A3-18238/1963. Further said Abdul Razzak had received further amounts on various dates ie. 07/05/1964, 25/05/1964 and 30/06/1964. Abdul Razzak had received total

O.S.No.1542/20138

amount of RS.3,525/- as advance and remaining amount was received on date of execution of the sale deed.

17.After purchasing the property, the name of

K.Sriramulu was mutated in the revenue records pertaining to schedule property by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluq and issued land revenue pass book in favour of K.Sriramulu.

Thereafter, the said K.Ramulu had been paying land revenue till 1993-94 and same was noted in the land revenue pass book.

Further, K Sriramulu's name was recorded Pahanies also. Since then K.Sriramulu had been cultivating death in April 2005.

K.Sriramulu's name recorded as Pattedar and Possessor in revenue records/Pahanies up to 2006-07.

18.The father of the Defendant No.16 to 19 namely

K.Sriramulu died on 07-04-2005 due to ill health. During his lite time he executed a registered Will deed on 04-04-2009 bearing registration 145/BoOK No.3/2005 by bequeathing the Schedule

Property to an extent of Ac.7.08 guntas to his son namely

K.Nageswara Rao (Defendant No.16), remaining Ac.6.00 bequeathed equally to his three daughters (Defendant No.17 to 19).i.e. Ac.2.00 Gis each.

19.After death of father of Defendant no.16 to 19 they applied for mutation of their names in revenue records as per shares provided in the Will deed dated 04-04-2005. After due enquiry, the Deputy Collector and Thahsildar, Rajendranagar

Manda, Ranga Reddy District issued proceedings incorporating

O.S.No.1542/20139

the names of the Defendant No.16 to 19 as Pattadars and

Possessors in the Revenue Records vide proceedings dated

B1/1471-74/2008, dated 25-08-2009 and same is evidencing from the Pahanies till date. Further Pattadar Pass Books and Title

Deeds were also issued in favour of Defendant No. 16 to 19 for their respective shares and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Property.

20.HUDA, Hyderabad had issued a notice on l6-03-2005 to Defendant No.16 to 19 to acquire their land and also issued a public notice, however subsequently it was withdrawn. The defendant No.16 to 19 have acquired the title through valid registered sale deed from the rightful owner Abdul Razzak whose name alone was appearing in the Revenue Records. None of the other heirs' names were recorded in the revenue records except Abaul Rdzzak. In any case if the mother of the Plaintiff was the daughter of the Abdul Rahaman and she got any claim over the Schedule Property, she must have claimed the property during her life time. Further, it is strange that the Plaintiff never made any claim or initiated any proceedings for past 50 years over the schedule Property and at the fag end of his life he came with this false claim. The conduct of the Plaintiff makes it clear that he is neither related to said Abdul Razzak anyway nor has any claim over the Schedule Property.

21.Defendant Nos.16 to 19 and their father has been in continues and uninterrupted possession over the Schedule

O.S.No.1542/201310

Property for the past 50 and they have also perfected their title over the schedule property by virtue of long possession of 50 years.

22.The allegations of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is the son of Yakub Bee who is the daughter of the Late.Abdul Rehman and the Defendant No.1 to 15 are sons and daughters of Abdul

Razak who is the son of Abdul Rehman is denied for want of knowledge. Further, the allegations or the Plaintiff Abdul

Rehman is the grandfather of the Plaintiff and they are the original pattadars and possessors of the agriculture land covered by survey no.136 admeasuring Ac.13-07 guntas at Narsingi

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District is denied and the

Plaintiff is put to strict proot of the same. The Plaintiff has not filed any documents evidencing that he is the only son of the said Yakub bee and Yakub Bee was the daughter or the Said

Abdul Rahaman. Similarly the Plaintiff is also not filing any documents to show that the Defendant No.1 to 15, are the heirs of Abdul Razak.

23.The Plaintiff is put to Strict proof that the Defendant

No.1 to 15 are the legal heirs of Abdul Razak and the Plaintiff's the son of the said Yakub Bee and the schedule property is their mathruka property and the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 15 having share and entitled to the paint schedule property.

24.It is denied that after the death of Abdul Rehman the property was devolved upon his son and daughter Abdul Razak

O.S.No.1542/201311

and Yakub Bee and they used to cultivate the land jointly.

Further it is also denied that the said Abdul Razak was doing agriculture on behalf of the family and his name was mutated in ihe Revenue Records as Pattedar and Abdul Razak and Yakub

Bee enjoyed the property jointly, Further, it is also denied that the mother of the Plaintif is entitled to 1/3 share and Abdul

Razak is entitled for 2/3 share in the plaint schedule property.

25.It is denied that Abdul Razak died leaving Defendant

No.1 to 15 and Yakub Bee died leaving the Plaintiff and schedule property mathruka property and the Plaintiff and the Defendant

No.1 to 15 are in joint possession and enjoyment, It is also denied that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant No.1 to 15 for his share in the month of October, 2013, and the Defendant

No.1 to 15 not responded and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same, Further, it is also denied the allegation that this

Plaintiff per-occupied with service and the plaint schedule property kept fallow for several years and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

26.It is incorrect to say that defendant No.20 illegally without passing orders on ROR Act or Land Revenue Act, entered the name of K.Sriramulu in the revenue records which is bad, unjust and arbitrary. After the death of said K.Sriramulu,

Defendant No.16 to 19 names were mutated in the revenue records with respect to the plaint property on the death of their father K.Sriramulu by defendant No.20, Tahsildar by dividing the

O.S.No.1542/201312

land among Defendant No.16 to 19. However, it is incorrect that the defendant No.20 mutated the property illegally.

27.It is denied that Defendant No.20 mutated the name of Siramulu illegally and contrary to the provisions of the ROR

ACt, and incorporation of the names of the Defendant No.16 to 19 by splitting the Patta is illegal and liable to be rectified by the restoring the name of Abdul Razak.

28.It is incorrect to say that the Defendant No.16 to 19 by taking advantage of innocence and preoccupation of the

Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 15 intentionally and deliberately to deprive their rights intending to alienate the property to the third parties.

29.It is incorrect to say that the plaint Schedule property is a mathruka joint family property of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant no.1 to 15 as such the Plaintiff being the legal heir of

Yakub bee, the daughter of Abdul Rehman, as such the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and the Defendant No.1 to 15 being the legal heirs of Abdul Razak, the son of Abdul Rehman are entitled to 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

30.The Plaintiff having no primafacie case and balance of convenience to show Schedule properties is ancestral property which is still in the joint possession of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant No.1 to 15, hence Defendant No.16 to 19 are trying to alienate schedule property by depriving the legitimate share

O.S.No.1542/201313

of the Plaintiff and he will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss does not arise.

31.The Plaintiff grossly failed to establish his alleged possession over the Schedule Property, he is liable to pay court fee under Section 34 (1) as such suit is liable to be rejected on this ground alone, there is no cause of action raised for filing of the suit as such suit is liable to dismissed in limini. The allegations mentioned in the plaint are invented for purpose of filing the present suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not valued properly.

32.The defendants No.16 to 19 filed additional written statement in view of the Orders of amendment in I.A.No.

1211/2019 which is as follows: the plaintiff does not have any locus standi to maintain the suit for declaration nor he has made out any case to seek the relief of declaration as such suit is liable to be dismissed.

33.The plaintiff has filed the present suit in the year 2013 for partition and separate possession with false and frivolous allegations. Then these defendants have filed written statements in the year April 2014. These defendants already placed the entire true facts of the case through their written statement.

34.Thereafter, Interlocutory Application under Order 39,

Rule 1 and 2 was heard in detail by this Hon'ble Court and same

O.S.No.1542/201314

was dismissed the same on 17-10-2014. Aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the

Hon'ble High Court vide CMA No.1086 of 2014 and the same was

dismissed on 05-02-2019.

35.After lapse of Fifty Five long years of the sale, the plaintiffs are trying to get declaratory relief to declare the said sale deed as null and void. Further, even after a lapse of five years, after filing of the suit the plaintiffs are trying to insert declaratory relief to declare the said sale deed as null and void.

As such the suit and the relief sought are hopelessly barred by limitation. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

36.In reply to para 5 of the amended portion, it is incorrect to state that the mother of plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of the Suit Schedule Property and Abdul Razzak being the son of Abdul Rehman is entitled to 2/3rd share in the Suit

Schedule property. It is also incorrect to state that the plaintiff is entitled 1/3d share and the defendants No. 1 to 12 are entitled for the remaining shares as described in the plaint.

37.In reply to para 7 (a), which is amended as per the orders in I.A.No. 1211 of 2019 datedis the 23.12.2019, it is incorrect to state that Late. Abdul Rehman died intestate on 11.03.1973 and till his death he was cultivating as absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the agricultural land and the plaintiff put to strict proof of the same, It is also incorrect to

O.S.No.1542/201315

state that as on the date of the alleged sale deed the original pattadar Abdul Rehman was very much alive with his son by name Abdul Razzak and his daughter Yakub Bee. It is also incorrect to state that the Abdul Rehman has not executed any document. Further it is also incorrect to state that Late. Abdul

Razzak was not the exclusive owner of the entire suit schedule property to deal with third parties and thus the alleged sale deed is sham and void ab initio. It is also incorrect to state that as on the date of the sale deed i.e. 01.06.1964, the suit schedule property was not partitioned with metes and bounds and standing in the name of Abdul Rehman till his death's Sole rights vesting on him. It is also incorrect to state that the sale transaction under the sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated is the 01.06.1964 to be declared as null and void and inoperative. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of each and every allegation made in the plaint.

38.The reliefs prayed for are hopelessly barred by limitation as the father of the defendant purchased the property in the year 1964 and he was put into possession and his name was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1964-65 and since then he has been cultivating the land till his death and thereafter the names of the defendant are mutated in the revenue records and thus has been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration for reason of not seeking necessary consequential reliefs.

O.S.No.1542/201316

39.The deceased plaintiff Hasanuddin who claimed himself to be the son of Yakub Bee allegedly the daughter of

Abdul Rehman was aged about 74 years as on the date of institution of the suit admittedly was resident of the very same village where the suit schedule property was situated.

40.The registered sale deed was executed in favour of K.

Sriramulu by Abdul Razzak in the year 1964 and ever since K

Sriramulu has been in absolute possession of the suit schedule property and he has been cultivating the same as Its absolute owner to the exclusion of all others right under the very nose of plaintiff no.1 and the name of Sriramulu being in long, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property is also reflected in the revenue records. Further plaintiff no.1 who was the resident of the same village where suit schedule property is situated which was being cultivated by

Sriramulu since 1964, never claimed any rights to suit schedule property nor objected the same for almost 50 years and by his very conduct he has acquiesced his rights over suit schedule property, so the other plaintiffs who claims to be the legal heirs of the deceased the plaintiff No.1 also cannot maintain the suit.

The suit framed and filed is hopelessly bad by limitation.

41.The plaintiffs filed rejoinder in response to the

additional written statement filed by the defendants No.16 to

19. The contents of the rejoinder are as follows: Originally,

Abdul Rehman was the original pattedar and possessor of

O.S.No.1542/201317

agricultural land covered by Sy.No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 gts., situated at Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. Abdul Rehman died on 11.03.1973 leaving behind a son viz., Abdul Razzaq and daughter Yakub Bee. That, after his death, elder son Abdul Razzaq got mutated his name into the revenue records being the male legal heir and elder member in the family Abdul Rehman as a tenant in common.

That, the rights and interest of Late Yakub Bee the Suit schedule of property are subsisting until the suit property with metes and bounds. That, the issue in the Interlocutory application decided on the basis of the registered Sale deed, which was presently sought for Declaration as null and void by way of amendment orders in l.A. No. 1211 of 2019 dated 23.12.2019.

42.The plaintiff's grandmother Smt.Yakub Bee was the daughter of the Late Abdul Rehman and the plaintiffs were brought on record as her legal heirs by original plaintiff

Late.Mohamd Hassanuddin and that the rights and interests over the suit schedule property are devolved into the plaintiffs and are subsisting until the suit property is partitioned with metes and bounds and therefore, the question of limitation does not arise as long as the suit property stands with the tag of 'ancestral'.

43.The defendants 16 to 19 were never in physical possession of the suit schedule of property, their names were mutated illegally and without noticing the legal heirs of original

O.S.No.1542/201318

pattedar and no proceedings were issued in their favour and that the said illegal entries are questioned in the present suit and sought for restoration of the names of the original pattedars or his surviving legal heirs into the revenue records accordingly.

44.The alleged sale deed No. 346 of 1964 dated 1.06.1964 is a void document. The sale deed was never executed by the original pattedar during his lifetime and that the plaintiff's grandmother Smt.Yakoob Bee was a lady, innocent and ignorant, never acted against any of the family members.

She cultivated the suit land till her last breath along with her son i.e. original plaintiff presently the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit schedule of property.

45.During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died, the plaintiff No.2 to 8 are brought on record as legal heirs. The defendants No.1 to 15 are claiming to be legal heirs of one

Abdul Rehman claiming share in the suit schedule property. The defendants No.16 to 19 claim to be the owners of the suit schedule property who have purchased under registered sale deed in the year 1964 and also mutation effected in their names claiming to be in continuous possession and enjoyment over the property since then. The defendant No.20 is the Tahsildar who is proforma party added as the entries of the revenue records are challenged.

46.On the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

O.S.No.1542/201319

01.Whether the plaintiffs are the successors/Legal

Representatives of the late.Abdul Rehman ?

02.Whether the plaintiffs are in the possession of the property ?

03.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession ?

04.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare the sale deed doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964 as null and void?

05.Whether entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property are illegal and arbitrary ?

06.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

07.Whether the Court fee paid is correct ?

47.On behalf of plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 are examined and

Ex.A1 to A35 are marked. On behalf of the defendants DW1 to

DW3 are examined. Ex.B1 to B62 are marked.

48.Heard Arguments. Also perused the Written

Arguments filed by plaintiffs and defendants.

49.In the written arguments filed by the plaintiffs it is contended that late.Abdul Rehman was the pattader and his son and daughter i.e., Abdul Razzaq and Yakoob Bee succeeded the property. In order to establish their case, they marked the documents to show that late.Abdul Rehman was the original

O.S.No.1542/201320

pattadar who died in the year 1973 devolving the property into hands of Smt.Yakoob Bee and Abdul Razzaq. Ex.A27 and A28 are the marriage certificates issued by Government and Waqf

Board. Ex.A29 is the death certificate of Abdul Rehman.

50.It is contended by the plaintiffs that Ex.A31, 32 and 33 are the relevant documents to show that father of the plaintiff is Gulam Moinuddin and the mother is Yakood Bee.

Ex.A33 is the passport issued by the Government showing the name of Yakoob Bee. It is further contended in the written statement that DW2 admitted Ex.B28, B29 and the suit schedule property originally, belonged to late.Abdul Rehman who died instate leaving behind him, Yakoob Bee and Abdul Razaq as successors. It is further contended in the written arguments that crux of the entire case is Ex.B6, DW2 admitted that Sri

Ramulu is not a tenant and Abdul Rehman showed as original pattedar. Ex.B6 cannot be relied on for any purpose. If the landlord intends to sell the land he shall apply to the Tribunal for determining reasonable price.

51.As on the date of Ex.B7 no mutation proceedings in the name of Abdul Rehman and no devolution taken place between Abdul Razaq and Yakoob Bee. Ex.B7 is liable to be declared as void document. The plaintiffs further contend in their written submissions that Exs.A3 to A7 and B30 and B31 disclose the name of Abdul Razaq without mutation proceedings, without noting Abdul Rehman as father. Ex.B32 to B45 cannot

O.S.No.1542/201321

be relied on. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that the question of limitation does not arise so long as the suit property has tag “Mathruka”, the entries were not known to the legal heirs of Abdul Rehman.

52.The Government has not taken possession but only conducted survey according to the defendants. Ex.B21 and B22 are not supporting the evidence of DW3. In the written submissions it is further contended that mutation of the property in the name of one co-sharer would not confine any right or title and would not entitle any one to sell the entire property.

Reliance placed on a decision reported in “Saleem Vs. Yaseen reported in (AIR 1996 All 342)”, and “Dorab Cawasji

Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden reported in 1990 (1)

SCC 332”. Co-owner cannot be said to be in actual physical possession or exclusive possession till partition takes place.

Ex.A27, A28 are genuine documents issued by State Waqf

Board. Exs.A29 is the death certificate of late Abdul Rehman issued by Grampanchayath and Ex.A32 ration card reveals father's name as Gulam Moinuddin. Ex.A35 is the photographs list. The above documents are the conclusive proof that the mother's name is Yakoob Bee and father's name is Gulam

Moinuddin.

53.The defendants No.16 to 19 in their written submissions contended that the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A27 to

A34 to establish that they are the legal heirs, which cannot be

O.S.No.1542/201322

taken into consideration. Ex.A27 is said to be marriage certificate issued for the alleged marriage of Yakoob Bee that took place on 25-10-1926, there is no basis for issuance of such certificate dt.22-12-2013 for the marriage of the year 1926.

When the document is disputed, the plaintiff did not examine any persons to prove the same. Ex.A28 was issued by Waqf

Board based on Ex.A27 for which there is no basis; Waqf Board was formed in the year 1954 and it does not possess any records of the year 1926. Hence both certificates were not issued based on any official records.

54.Ex.A29 death certificate is said to have been issued by Sarpanch, it is not an authority of any register. Sarpanch cannot issue any certificate, Ex.A32 voter card does not show the relationship of Hasanuddin with Abdul Rehman or Yakoob

Bee. Similarly, Ex.A32 ration card in the name of the plaintiff does not establish the relationship with Abdul Rehman or Yakoob

Bee similarly pahanies Ex.A33 only show the name of Yakoob

Bee but not with relationship with Abdul Rehman. It is the specific case of the defendant that Yakoob Bee daughter of

Rehman along with Ex.A35 does not establish that she is the daughter of Abdul Rehman.

55.It is further contended that the plaintiffs have not produced a single document to establish their continuous possession over the property, whereas the defendants established their case on title as well as continuous possession

O.S.No.1542/201323

and enjoyment over the property. The notice issued under land acquisition proceedings by the Government also would establish and confirm their possession for the past fifty years. The plaintiff miserably failed to establish they are the legal heirs of

Abdul Rehman besides, failure to prove their possession for the past fifty years.

56.The document dt.01-06-1964 was never challenged on. The presumption U/Sec.90 of Evidence Act in support of thirty years old document would arise in favour of the defendants. It is further contended that the amended relief for declaration to declare the sale deed as null and void is barred by limitation. The mutation proceedings or revenue records are never challenged for the past fifty years. The plaintiff was aged 74 years as on the date of suit and he was twenty five years old at the time of execution of registered sale deed and though he was resident of same village he never challenged the said document nor possession of the defendants.

57.Late.Sriramulu and thereafter the defendants No.16 to 19 have been in long continuous uninterrupted possession which reflects from revenue records. As there is no joint possession of the suit property the Court fee paid U/Sec.34(2) of

Court Fee Act is also incorrect. There is no single document to show that they are in continuous possession of the property to pay the Court fee U/Sec.34 (2) of the Court Fee Act.

O.S.No.1542/201324

ISSUES No.1 to 3:

58.The plaintiff filed chief affidavit as PW1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A35 which are as follows: Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Khasra Pahani -1954-55, Ex.A2 is the Certified Copy of Sessala – 1955-58,

Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1958-59, Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61, Ex.A5 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62, Ex.A6 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1963, Ex.A7 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65, Ex.A8 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76, Ex.A9 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A10 is the Certified Copy of

Memo in file No.814/2013, dt.06-07-2013, Ex.A11 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A12 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A13 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A14 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A15 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A16 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A17 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A18 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13, Ex.A19 is the Certified

Copy of Nikha Nama (Marriage Certificate), Ex.A20 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74, Ex.A21 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76, Ex.A22 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83, Ex.A23 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.A24 is the

O.S.No.1542/201325

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90, Ex.A25 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.A26 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000, Ex.A27 is the

Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation, Ex.A28 is the

Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19-01-2015 by AP

State Waqf board, Ex.A29 is the Original death certificate of

Abdul Rehman issued by Narsingi, Gram Panchayat with Letter

No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010, Ex.A30 is the Certified Copy

Sale deed Doc.No.346 of 1964, dt.01-06-1964, Ex.A31 is the

Original Election card of Mohd.Hasnuddin, Ex.A32 is the Original

Ration Card of Mohd.Hasnuddin, Ex.A33 is the Original Passport of Mohd. Hasnuddin, Ex.A34 is the Market Valuation certificate,

Ex.A35 is the Certified copy of Voters list.

59.PW2 is the third party who supports the case of the plaintiffs but he has no knowledge about any details with regard to the properties claimed by the plaintiffs. He was aged about eleven years by the date of death of Abdul Rehman as per his affidavit. Similarly, PW3 is also third party from whom no particulars could be elicited in favour of the plaintiffs.

60.Third defendant has filed chief affidavit as DW1 who is sailing with the plaintiffs and claim share in the property in support of the averments made by the plaintiff.

61.The sixteenth defendant filed his chief affidavit as

DW2 in support of their contention that their father purchased the property from Abdul Razaq in the year 1964 after obtaining

O.S.No.1542/201326

permission from Tahsildar. His father's name was mutated, since then they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the property. After demise of their father, defendants

No.16 to 19 applied for mutation and accordingly mutation was effected and pattadar passbooks, pahanies and title deeds were issued.

62.DW2 got marked the following documents on behalf of the defendants: Ex.B1 is the Original receipt dated 15/10/1963 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sri ramulu, Ex.B2 is the Original Challan dated 30/11/1963 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, Sultan Bazar Branch to Abdul

Razak, Ex.B3 is the Original receipt dated 07/05/1964 issued by

Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu, Ex.B4 is the Original receipt dated 25/05/1964 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of

Late K.Sriramulu Ex.B5 is the Original receipt dated 30/06/1964 issued by Abdul Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu, Ex.B6 is the Original order for permission to alienation of land by the

Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, dated 25/02/1964, Ex.B7 is the

Original sale deed dated 01/06/1964 along with typed copy,

Ex.B8 is the Original tax payment receipt dated 20/05/1965,

Ex.B9 is the Original Pass Book of Late K.Sri Ramulu along with tax payment details, Ex.B10 is the Certified Copy of will dated 04/04/2005 executed by Late.K.Sriramulu in favour of the

Defendant no.16 to 19, Ex.B11 is the Certified Copy of death certificate of Late K.Sriramulu dated 06/04/2005, Ex.B12 is the

Original mutation proceedings of the Deputy Collector and

O.S.No.1542/201327

Tahsildar, dated 25/08/2009 in the name of Defendant No.16 to 19 in ROR proceedings, Ex.B13 is the Original Pattedar Pass

Book of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16), Ex.B14 is the

Original Title Deed of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16),

Ex.B15 is the Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17), Ex.B16 is the Original Title Deed of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17), Ex.B17 is the Original

Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18),

Ex.B18 is the Original Title Deed of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18), Ex.B19 is the Original Pattedar Pass Book of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19), Ex.B20 is the Original Title

Deed of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19), Ex.B21 is the Original

Notice U/Sec.5-A of the L.A.Act dated 16/03/2005, Ex.B22 is the

Certified Copy of Panchanama dated 03/12/2006 conducted by

Mandal Surveyor along with map, Ex.B23 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B24 is the

Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad,

Ex.B25 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the

Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) to the Prl.Secretary to

Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B26 is the Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad, Ex.B27 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1952-53, Ex.B28 is the

Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, Ex.B29 is

O.S.No.1542/201328

the Certified Copy of Seesala Pahani for the year 1955-58,

Ex.B30 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61,

Ex.B31 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65,

Ex.B32 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74,

Ex.B33 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76,

Ex.B34 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1978-79,

Ex.B35 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83,

Ex.B36 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86,

Ex.B37 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1987-88,

Ex.B38 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90,

Ex.B39 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1993-94, Ex.B40 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.B41 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 1999-2000, Ex.B42 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2000-2001, Ex.B43 is the Certified Copy of Adangal

Pahani for year 2001-2002, Ex.B44 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for year 2004-2005, Ex.B45 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2006-2007, Ex.B46 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2009-2010, Ex.B47 is the

Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2011 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for

Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B48 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2012 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B49 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2013 issued in the name of

K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07

O.S.No.1542/201329

Gts, Ex.B50 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts, Ex.B51 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B52 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in

Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B53 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in name of

Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.No.136/AA, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B54 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in

Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B55 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B56 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B57 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in the name of

Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B58 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B59 is the Certified

Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B60 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year

O.S.No.1542/201330

2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in

Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts, Ex.B61 is the Certified Copy of

Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of

Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00

Gts, Ex.B62 is the Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) in

Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

63.Since this is a suit for partition and separate possession besides other reliefs sought for, first of all, the plaintiffs have to establish that they are the successors and legal heirs of Abdul Rehman and that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants No.16 to 19 seriously contested the suit by contending that they are the owners of the property having purchased the same by their father under registered sale deed vide doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964 from one Abdul Razak after obtaining permission from Tahsildar under the Tenancy Act for sale.

64.As the plaintiffs claim to be successors and legal heirs of late.Abdul Rehman, burden is cast on them to establish that they succeeded the property through Yakoob Bee who is co- owner along with Abdul Razak and any previous transactions were invalid.

65.The plaintiffs must also establish that the plaintiff

No.2 to 8 are the legal heirs of Yakoob Bee and entitled to claim

O.S.No.1542/201331

their share in the property. They need to establish continuous possession and enjoyment over the property besides proof of legal heirs and their relationship with Yakoob Bee and also

Yakoob Bee is the daughter of Abdul Rehman since the defendants dispute that Yakoob Bee is the daughter of late.Abdul Rehman.

66.For considering the claim of the plaintiff, it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish that they are the legal heirs of late.Abdul Rehman through Yakoob Bee. The defendants dispute that Yakoob Bee is the daughter of late.Abdul Rehman and also dispute that the defendants No.1 to 15 are the legal heirs. The probabilities of the case have to be analyzed for considering the claim of the plaintiffs in seeking different reliefs.

67.The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A1 to A34, most of the documents as also reflect from pleadings of the both sides i.e., originally late.Abdul Rehman was the pattader whose name was in revenue records, wayback in the year 1954-1955. The defendants claim started from the year 1964. The pahanies are not in dispute; similarly the entries of late.Sreeramulu and subsequently the names of the defendants No.16 to 19 are also not in dispute from the year 1964.

68.Now the claim of the plaintiffs have to be considered based on the above documents as to whether they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property for the past fifty years, as they never objected for

O.S.No.1542/201332

entries in the revenue records. Ex.A19, 27, 28, 29, 32 and 35 are seriously objected by defendants No.16 to 19 which are marked subject to objection, particularly, Exs.A19 and A27.

Ex.A19 is said to be certified copy of marriage certificate and

Ex.A27 is the Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation,

Ex.A28 is the Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19- 01-2015 by AP State Waqf board, Ex.A29 is the Original death certificate of Abdul Rehman issued by Narsingi, Grampanchayat with Letter No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010,

69.As rightly contended by the defendants No.16 to 19, the above documents are not safe to be relied on. Ex.A31 to

A33 and A35 does not specifically establish the relationship with

Abdul Rehman and Yakoob Bee. Ex.A29 is issued by the then

Sarpanch but not by Executive Officer and not based on any records. Similarly, Ex.A28 is issued based on Ex.A29. The counsel for the defendants contend that Waqf Board was formed in the year 1954 it does not possess any records of the year 1926 which is the year of marriage of Yakoob Bee and how the said documents are produced is not understood when the said documents are in serious dispute.

70.It is the duty of the plaintiffs to place any supporting material or summoning the author of the documents for confirmation as to basis for issuance of such documents. Ex.A27 is dt.29-12-2014 issued for marriage of Yakoob Bee said to have been marked on 25-10-1926. It appears that it is not an extract

O.S.No.1542/201333

of any record of the year 1926. Similarly, there is no basis for issuance of Ex.A28 which is based on Ex.A27. Therefore, the above documents i.e., Ex.A19, A27, A28, A29, A32, A35 have no evidentiary value.

71.Though it is the burden of the plaintiffs to place all the relevant documents to show continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property besides, proof of legal heirs of late.Yakoob Bee claimed through originally

Pattedar Abdul Rehman, the defendants placed their relevant documents. Ex.B1 to B62 in support of their claim that their father purchased the property in the year 1964 under the registered sale deed of the year 1964 the reference of permission proceedings, mutation proceedings etc., The death certificate of their father late.Sreeramulu and the subsequent mutation proceedings in favour of defendants No.16 to 19 are marked in support of their oral evidence. In this regard, the plaintiffs failed to place such evidence though it is their duty in support of their claim.

72.The contention of the plaintiffs that DW2 made certain admissions with regard to the tenancy of late.Sreeramulu and that Ex.B6 proceedings are invalid and that enquiry was not properly conducted in accordance with law is not on correct line of argument at this stage. The conduct of proceedings and enquiry by the Government according permission of mutation proceedings in favour of father of the defendants No.16 to 19

O.S.No.1542/201334

based on the registered sale deed of the year 1964, cannot now be questioned at this stage and which aspect cannot be adjudicated beyond the scope of the suit. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff and entries in the revenue records

Ex.B6 and B7 are malafied is not correct.

73.Similarly, Ex.B30 to B45 some vague admissions by

DW2 with regard to proceedings issued in the year 1964 nor any ignorance expressed for the proceedings, is not a ground to defeat the claim of the defendants; the plaintiffs cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants and it is their burden to prove their case. They have not filed any relevant documents to establish their legal possession besides their failure to prove they are legal heirs of one Yakoob Bee.

74.The plaintiffs contended that the acquisition has not taken place though notice was issued for acquisition under Land

Acquisition Act is not supporting material in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants referred the above aspect only to establish that Government recognized their possession as continuous and therefore besides public notices, notices were issued to them seeking acquisition of land but proposal was subsequently withdrawn.

75.The question needs to be referred is whether notices were issued on rightful owners. Though there was a public notice, the said notice was not challenged by defendants No.1 to

15. As already discussed Ex.A19, A27, A28 are not safe to be

O.S.No.1542/201335

relied on without any records or supporting material. Similarly,

Ex.A29, A32, A35 as referred in the written arguments cannot be relied on.

76.In view of the forgoing discussion, it is reiterated that the plaintiffs have not produced a single document to establish their continuous possession over the suit schedule property besides their failure to establish that they are the legal heirs succeeding from original owner Abdul Rehman and entitled to claim their share at this stage after fifty years. PW1 admitted that there is no single document to show their possession as pattadar or possessor for the last fifty years. He admits about the registered sale deed dt.01-06-1964 in favour of the father of the defendants No.16 to 19 and mutation of their father's name and subsequent mutation in favour of the defendants No.16 to 19 which would disclose that the defendants No.16 to 19 and their father have been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as owner and possessors. The purchase of land under registered sale deed and subsequent mutations, the notices issued by the Government under Land

Accusation Act were never challenged.

77.It is highly improbable to believe that the defendants have no knowledge of the proceedings, entries in the revenue records, pattdar pass books and title deeds in favour of the defendants and their possession for the past fifty years.

Therefore, exhibits marked for the defendants No.16 to 19 and

O.S.No.1542/201336

including pahanies for the period of fifty years clearly establish the possession of the defendants for the past fifty years. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the legal heirs and successors of Abdul Rehman and have been in possession of the suit schedule property for the last fifty years. As seen from the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that the defendants No.1 to 15 are sailing with the plaintiffs in claiming the shares in the property almost after fifty years from the date of purchase by the defendants No.16 to 19. Initially they remained exparte which shows the collusive nature and subsequently they came on record but did not contest and filed written statement in causal manner simply admitting the claim of the plaintiff. There is no record placed and proved before Court that they are legal heirs of Abdul Rehman along with plaintiff. An illegal attempt appears to have been made to claim the property purchased by the father of defendant No.16 to 19 under registered sale deed in the year 1964. Issues No.1 to 3 are accordingly answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.5:

78.In view of the findings answered in Issues No.1 to 3, the entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property cannot be held to be illegal and arbitrary, almost after fifty years from the date of registered sale deed vide doc.No.346/1964 dt.01-06-1964. Every entry in the revenue records shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved.

Accordingly, the Issue No.5 is answered.

O.S.No.1542/201337

ISSUE No.4:

79.Suit is originally filed seeking partition and separate possession and subsequently the plaintiff got amended seeking the registered sale deed dt.01-06-1964 as null and void. As already discussed the sale deed is more than forty nine years old, it was never challenged. The counsel for the defendants draws reference to Section 90 of Evidence Act which ordains regarding the documents of thirty years old, it has to be accepted and presumed to be genuine document. The learned counsel relies on a decision on the principle of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 1991 (1) SCC 715 and 2014 (2) ALT 245. The counsel submits that the vendee gets rights which will be related back on registration from the date of execution of sale deed and such rights are protected Under/Order XXXVIII Rule 10 CPC r/w.

Section 47 of Registration Act. Therefore, considering the above material, I hold that the said document cannot be declared as void document. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.6:

80.The plaintiffs got amended the plaint, during pendency of the suit seeking declaration to declare the sale deed dt.01-06-1964 as null and void. As already discussed in

Issue No.4, the document of fifty years old is now under challenge, which cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs admitted that they are residents of same village for the past fifty years and moreover the plaintiff was aged about twenty five years at

O.S.No.1542/201338

the time of execution of Ex.B7. Therefore it is improbable to hold that the plaintiffs have no knowledge of the sale deed and continuous possession of the defendants No.16 to 19 and their father and regarding entries in the revenue records.

81.In my opinion, the suit claim for such declaration or cancellation of the sale deed is barred by limitation. The counsel for the defendants No.16 to 19 contends that Article 59 of the Act contemplates period of three years in respect of suits of this nature. Even if it is accepted for a moment that they have knowledge about the sale deed from the date of seeking amendment, still it is beyond three years. By the date of suit the deceased plaintiff Hassanuddin who claimed himself to be the son of Yakoob Bee daughter of Abdul Rehman was aged about 74 years; he was aged about 25 years by the date of sale deed. Therefore, as already discussed the plaintiffs have knowledge about the sale deed in favour of late.Sri Ramulu by

Abdul Razak in the year 1984 itself who is recognized as absolute owner in the revenue records and have been in continuous, uninterrupted and long possession without objection by anybody including the plaintiffs. This Issue is accordingly, answered against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.7:

82.The plaintiffs failed to establish that they have been in joint possession and enjoyment for the past fifty years as co- owners and that they are the legal heirs and that the suit is also filed within time. Hence the Court fee paid U/Sec.34 (2) of Court

O.S.No.1542/201339

Fee Act is also incorrect. This Issue is accordingly answered against the plaintiffs. In view of the findings answered in the

Issue No.1 to 7 against the plaintiffs, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

83.For the aforesaid reasons, this Original Suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation; corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this Friday, the First day of May, Two Thousand Twenty

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Plaintiff/s:

PW1Mohd.Hameeduddin

PW2Mohd.Moulana

PW3Aziz Khan

On behalf of the Defendant/s:

DW1Abdul Wahab @ Dastagir

DW2K.Nageshwar Rao

DW3K.Satyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Plaintiff/s:

Ex.A1Certified Copy of Khasra Pahani -1954-55

Ex.A2Certified Copy of Sessala – 1955-58

Ex.A3Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1958-59

Ex.A4Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61

Ex.A5Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62

O.S.No.1542/201340

Ex.A6Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1963

Ex.A7Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65

Ex.A8Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A9Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2004-05

Ex.A10Certified Copy of Memo in file No.814/2013, dt.6-7-13

Ex.A11Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A12Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A13Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A14Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A15Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A16Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A17Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A18Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A19Certified Copy of Nikha Nama (Marriage Certificate)

Ex.A20Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74

Ex.A21Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A22Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83

Ex.A23Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex.A24Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.A25Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.A26 Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000,

Ex.A27Original Fatwa dated. 19-11-2013 with translation,

Ex.A28Original copy of Marriage Certificate issued on 19-01- 2015 by AP State Waqf board

Ex.A29Original death certificate of Abdul Rehman issued by

Narsingi,GrampanchayatwithLetter

O.S.No.1542/201341

No.G.P.No.12/2010, dt.16-07-2010

Ex.A30Certified Copy Sale deed Doc.No.346 of 1964, dt.01- 06-1964

Ex.A31Original Election card of Mohd.Hasnuddin

Ex.A32Original Ration Card of Mohd.Hasnuddin

Ex.A33Original Passport of Mohd. Hasnuddin

Ex.A34Market Valuation certificate

Ex.A35Certified copy of Voters list.

On behalf of the Defendant/s:

Ex.B1Original receipt dated 15/10/1963 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sri ramulu.

Ex.B2Original Challan dated 30/11/1963 issued by State

Bank of Hyderabad, Sultan Bazar Branch to Abdul

Razak

Ex.B3Original receipt dated 07/05/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B4Original receipt dated 25/05/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B5Original receipt dated 30/06/1964 issued by Abdul

Razakh in favour of Late K.Sriramulu.

Ex.B6Original order for permission to alienation of land by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, dated 25/02/1964.

Ex.B7Original sale deed dated 01/06/1964 along with typed copy

Ex.B8Original tax payment receipt dated 20/05/1965

O.S.No.1542/201342

Ex.B9Original Pass Book Of Late K.Sri Ramulu along with tax payment details.

Ex.B10Certified Copy of will dated 04/04/2005 executed by

Late.K.Sriramulu in favour of the Defendant no.16 to 19.

Ex.B11Certified Copy of death certificate of Late K.Sriramulu

dated 06/04/2005

Ex.B12Original mutation proceedings of the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, dated 25/08/2009 in the name of

Defendant No.16 to 19 in ROR proceedings.

Ex.B13Original Pattedar Pass Book of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16)

Ex.B14Original Title Deed of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16)

Ex.B15Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17)

Ex.B16Original Title Deed of Smt.S.Yashoda (D17)

Ex.B17Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18)

Ex.B18Original Title Deed of Smt.T.Lakshmi Kumari (Defendant No.18)

Ex.B19Original Pattedar Pass Book of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19)

Ex.B20Original Title Deed of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19)

Ex.B21Original Notice U/Sec.5-A of the L.A.Act dated

O.S.No.1542/201343

16/03/2005.

Ex.B22Certified Copy of Panchanama dated 03/12/2006 conducted by Mandal Surveyor along with map.

Ex.B23Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the K.Nageswar

Rao (Defendant No.16) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt.

MA & UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B24Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA &

UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B25Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.T.Lakshmi

Kumari (Defendant No.18) to the Prl.Secretary to

Govt. MA & UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B26Letter dated 16/06/2007 given by the Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant No.19) to the Prl.Secretary to Govt. MA &

UDD, Hyderabad

Ex.B27Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1952-53

Ex.B28Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55

Ex.B29Certified Copy of Seesala Pahani for the year 1955-58

Ex.B30Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61

Ex.B31Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65

Ex.B32Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1973-74

Ex.B33Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.B34Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1978-79

Ex.B35Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83

EX.B36Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex.B37Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1987-88

O.S.No.1542/201344

Ex.B38Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.B39Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.B40Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.B41Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 1999-2000

Ex.B42Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2000-2001

Ex.B43Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2001-2002

EX.B44Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2004-2005

Ex.B45Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2006-2007

Ex.B46Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2009-2010

Ex.B47Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2011 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B48Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2012 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B49Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for year 2013 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant No.16) in

Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B50Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of K.Nageswar Rao (Defendant

No.16) in Sy.o.136/A, for Ac.7.07 Gts.

Ex.B51Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B52Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

O.S.No.1542/201345

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B53Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B54Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.S.Yashoda (Defendant

No.17) in Sy.o.136/AA, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B55Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B56Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B57Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B58Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2014 issued in the name of Smt.T.Laxmi Kumari (Defendant

No.18) in Sy.o.136/E, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B59Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B60Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B61Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011

O.S.No.1542/201346

issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

Ex.B62Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011 issued in the name of Smt.S.Parvathi (Defendant

No.19) in Sy.o.136/EE, for Ac.2.00 Gts.

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

S.C.No.25 / 2020 1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR, N.T.R.NAGAR,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT: Sri.S.VENKATESWARA PRASAD,

V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Thursday, the Thirtieth day of April, Two Thousand Twenty

SESSIONS CASE No.25 / 2020

Name of the Complainant :P.S. Shameerpet rep. by

Additional Public Prosecutor

Name of the Accused:

01.Kasula Subash @ Bose, S/o.Narsinga Rao, Age: 29 yrs, Occ: Pvt., Employee, R/o.H.No.1-1/A, Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District

02.Samraj Sanev @ Samba, S/o.Dayand, Age: 24 yrs, Occ: Fastfood Center, R/o.H.No.3-1/C, Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District

03.Kasula Karunakar, S/o.Narsinga Rao, Age: 31 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-1/A, Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District

04.Kasula Madhusudan Goud @ Babu, S/o.Rajaiah, Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-85, Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District.

05.Kasula Vamshi, S/o.late.Muthyalu, Age: 20 yrs, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.3-23, Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District.

06.Thumkunta Sai Baba @ Sai, S/o.Chandram, Age: 26 yrs, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.3-88/1, Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District.

07.Kusugundla Deepak Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Chicken Shop Business, R/o.H.No.2-12, Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District.

Crime No.: 519/2018

Offence Under Sections: 302, 365, 341, 326 r/w.34 IPC

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Court: Not guilty

S.C.No.25 / 2020 2

Prosecution conducted by : Sri.T.Venkateswara Prasad

Accused defended by: Sri.G.Jithender Reddy, Advocate

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.Venkateswara Prasad, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.G.Jithender

Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusal of the material on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

01.The Inspector of Police, PS Shameerpet filed Charge

Sheet against A1 to A7 U/Sec.302, 365, 341, 326 r/w. 34 IPC on the following allegations: The defacto Complainant Munigonda Naresh is the brother of One Ramesh @ Chintu (deceased),

R/o.Thumkunta Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal District.

A1,A3 are brothers and A4 to A7 are their relatives. Three years ago, the deceased and A1’s Uncle’s daughter fell in love and eloped. A1 and A3 searched for them and traced at Siddipet Town and taken their uncle’s daughter to their house. Since then, the deceased bore grudge against the accused. On 08-12-2018 at about 16.30 Hrs, the deceased along with his friends went to Balaji

Sweet House with small knives and claim, had an altercation, abused the shop Proprietor and enquired about the owner of the building. Then A1,A3,A4 came there. The deceased quarreled with

A3,A4 and tried to stab with knife. When Police mobile came there, the deceased along with him friends ran away. Thereafter, at about 21.30 hours, at Dongala Maisamma X Roads when the deceased came along with his friends LW8 (Ch.Narender Babu), All accused came there. A1 came in his car bearing No.TS.07.FD.4059 and A3 came on his Motor Bike TS.08.FM.4059. A3 beat LW8, A2,A4,A5

S.C.No.25 / 2020 3 forcibly taken the deceased in the car ; A1 to A6 beat the deceased with Fiber Lati and Kiked with legs. A1 hit the head of the deceased to a boulder. The deceased received bleeding injuries to his head. A7 beat the deceased and LW8. Thereafter A1 to A3 tied the hands and legs of the deceased, kept him in Car dicky to take him to Siddipet hospital. After the deceased was removed from the dickey, the deceased again threatened A1,A2 that he would kill them. Then A1,A2 decided to eliminate him, strangulated the deceased with a towel, hit him with a granite stone on the head, and killed him. Then they rolled the body of the deceased with a mat and kept in Car dicky and at about 5.15 hrs on 09-12-2018, they thrown the blood stained stone and clothes of

A1,A2 in bushes. Thereafter, near toll plaza in the limits of

Dubbada, they had thrown away the towel in the bushes.

Thereafter, when they reached Jyothismati College, in the limits of

Thukapally, A1,A2 thrown away the mat, then they started towards Bimarspet Village, they stopped the car and thrown the dead body of the deceased in the Culvert and fled away. The investigation revealed that A1 to A7 are liable to be punished

U/Sec.302,365,341,326 r/w 34 IPC.

02.The case is taken on file U/Sec.302,365,341,326 r/w.34

IPC against accused and Committed to the Court of Sessions by

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal. Accused and examined

U/Sec.328 Cr.PC, and CrPC, and Charges are framed against A1,A2

U/Sec.302,201,326 r/w.34 IPC and against A3 to A7 U/Sec.109,365,

S.C.No.25 / 2020 4 326 r/w 34 IPC read over and explained. Accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.

03.Pws.1 to 18 are examined for Prosecution and Exs.P1 to

P43 are marked. Mos.1 to 5 marked.

04.Heard Arguments. Perused record.

05.The point for determination in whether prosecution is able to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

06.Out of the eighteen witnesses examined for prosecution, PW1 is the defacto Complainant and brother of the deceased ; PW2 is the mother and PW3 is the father of the deceased. PW4 is the Cousin brother of the deceased. PW5 is the friend of the deceased. PW7 is the eye witness. Pws.1 to 5 and

PW7 are declared hostile by prosecution. Pws.7,8,9,10,11 are also declared hostile. PW6 is the photographer; PW12 is the Manager at

Toll Plaze, HKR Road Ways. PW14 is the Asst.Professor, Gandhi

Medical College who conducted Post Mortem over the dead body of the deceased. Pws.13,15,16 are also declared hostile. Pws 17 and 18 are the VRO’s who were present as witnesses for the scene of offence Panchanama, rough sketch and recovery of Mos.1 to 5.

Pws.17 and 18 are also declared hostile.

07.Pws.1,2,3,4 are the material witnesses who turned hostile. PW1 is the brother of the deceased and defacto complainant.

S.C.No.25 / 2020 5

08.According to PW1, on 09-12-2018 he came to know about the death of the deceased, than he went to Upperapally main road and found the dead body of the deceased in open fields, with head injury.

09.He did not know A1 to A7 on 09-12-2018 Police obtained his signature Ex.P1 on the complaint, dt.09-12-2018, but he was not aware of the contents ; somebody wrote the contents and he was asked to sign. To his knowledge, there are no

Complaints or disputes between the deceased and any other person or persons. When Cross-examined by Addl.PP, he denied the suggestion that he gave statement Ex.P4 before Police that on the Previous day, there was a Confrontation between the deceased and accused near Balaji Sweet Shop and thereafter on the next day. A1 and A3 with some others picked up the deceased in a Car as informed by one Rafiuddin (PW5) and later he found the deceased dead.

10.Pws.2 and 3 who are the mother and father of the deceased turned hostile ; they denied that they gave statements

before Police as in Exs.P3,P4 respectively. They stated that they

came to know about the death of the deceased but they do not know the cause of death. Previously there were some disputes between deceased and some persons who are not known to them.

Police never examined them. PW4 also stated that he does not know the cause of death of the deceased.

S.C.No.25 / 2020 6

11.PW6 is the Photographer who simply stated that he took photos of the deceased and handed over the CD to Police. Pws.7 to 11 are declared hostile.

12.PW12 deposed that he worked as Manager at Toll Plaza,

HKR Road ways and Police verified the CCTV fortage. He did not disclose the details of date, time and record collected by police. He did not handover any record to show that he was the Manager ;

Similarly, the details regarding issuance of receipt of toll fee.

13.PW14 is the doctor who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased on 10-12-2018 and noticed 7 injuries. He opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries 24 hrs prior to PM examination and accordingly issued Ex.P13 report.

14.The Inquest Panchayatder PW15 is declared hostile. He admits his signatures Ex.P14, P15 on the inquest Panchanama, dt.09-12-2018 and on rough sketch Ex.P16. Another Panch witness

PW16 also was declared hostile. He admits his signatures Exs.P17,

P18 and P19 respectively but denies that Police conducted any

Panchanama in his presence.

15.PW17 is the VRO, Qutbullapur who deposed that on 13- 12-2018 he was called by Police to act as a Panch witness. He speaks about recovery of Granite stone MO1, but did not draft any reports. On the way, during night time, Police recovered one stick and blood stained clothes from the side of road. On the next day,

Police prepared the seizure and Panchanama reports in Police station and obtained his signatures. Exs.P20, P21, P22, P23, P24,

S.C.No.25 / 2020 7

P25, P26 and his signatures pertaining to seizure of blood stained clothes (MO2), stick (MO3), towel (MO4) and Mat (MO5). Exs.P.27 to P31 are his signatures on the confessional statements of A3 to

A7. During Cross-examination, he could not give the descriptive particulars of the material objects seized and also about the place of seizure. Pws.18 another panch witness also is declared hostile.

16.He admits his signatures Exs.P32 to P38. Similarly his signatures Exs.P39 to P.43 on the confessional statements of A3 to

A7 and but he could not identity them.

17.Out of the 18 witnesses examined for prosecution, except the doctor who conducted postmortem examination, all turned hostile including material witnesses, ie., Pws.1 to 4. The brother and parents of the deceased stated that they came to know about the death of the deceased but they are not aware of any disputes between deceased and any other persons. Absolutely there is no incriminating material against accused from the evidence of any of the witnesses. In view of the total hostile evidence, the prosecution has given up the rest of the evidence on record as no useful purpose is served. The motive behind the alleged incident also seem to be not convincing and connected to the death of the deceased. According to prosecution, three years prior to the incident, there was love affair between deceased and cousin of A1 and A3; subsequently she was married to a different person. No continuity of disputes or quarrels or grudges between the long period of 3 years is reported.

S.C.No.25 / 2020 8

18.Coming to the evidence of Panch witnesses, it is strange to note that Mos.1 to 5 were recovered by Police but no reports were drafted. Some items were recovered during night time from the side of the road viz., blood stained stone, cloth, stick etc. It is pertinent to note that the panch witnesses were again called to police station on the next day and reports were prepared and signatures of Pws.17,18 were obtained. They did not depose from where the items were recovered. Hence it cannot be said that recoveries are made with proper procedure. The photographer says he took photos of the dead body of deceased and handed over CD to police, but no such material is marked. Pws.17,18 also state that police recorded confessional statements of A3 to A5 ; the said confession is not leading to recovery of any incriminating material but only regarding alleged offence. Hence it has no evidentiary value ; particularly when they admit only their signature. The Toll gate Manager PW12 did not state any thing about the details of the probe made by police, the time and date and details of vehicle recorded in their files, nor the details of the toll fee paid by a particular vehicle etc.,

19.None of the allegations made or charges framed are spoken to by any of the witnesses including the material witnesses i.e., father, mother and brother of the deceased. The seizure panchayatdars also are declared hostile. Since absolutely there is no incriminating material from any of the witnesses examined, examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and the Court has no option but the find the accused not guilty for any of the

S.C.No.25 / 2020 9

Charges framed and they are entitled to be acquitted.

20.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty U/Sec.302 r/w.34 IPC, the accused No.3 to 7 are found not guilty U/Sec.109 IPC, the accused No.3 to 7 are found not guilty

U/Sec.365 r/w.34 IPC, the accused No.1 to 7 are found not guilty

U/Sec.326 IPC r/w.34 IPC, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty U/Sec.201 r/w.34 IPC and the accused No.1 to 7 are accordingly acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months. Mo.1 to 5 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e., Mobile phones, bullet motorcycle, Honda Activa,

Brezze Car ordered to be given to interim custody to the petitioners / owners shall be retained with them after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, and corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this Thursday, the Thirtieth day of April, Two Thousand Twenty.

V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

PW1M.Naresh

PW2M.Shantham

PW3M.Devendar

PW4M.Ranga Rao

PW5Syed Rateefullah

PW6B.Ramesh

PW7Athiv Ahmed

PW8Md.Waheed

PW9C.Nagendra Babu

PW10M.Jagadeesh

S.C.No.25 / 2020 10

PW11Narayana Reddy

PW12Kiran Kumar

PW13Veeresham Goud

PW14K.Venkata Nagaraju

PW15P.Pandu

PW16M.Rakesh

PW17N.Yadagiri

PW18B.Parandama

On behalf of the Defence: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

Ex.P1Signature on complaint

Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P6161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5

Ex.P7161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7

Ex.P8161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8

Ex.P9161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9

Ex.P10161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10

Ex.P11161 Cr.P.C statement of PW11

Ex.P12161 Cr.P.C statement of PW13

Ex.P13Postmortem Examination Report

Ex.P14Signature on inquest

Ex.P15Signature on Seizure panchanama

Ex.P16Signature on Rough sketch

Ex.P17Signature on inquest

Ex.P18Signature on Seizure panchanama

Ex.P19Signature on rough sketch

Ex.P20Signature on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P21Signature on Rough sketch-cum-seizure report

Ex.P22Signature on Blood stained earth

Ex.P23Signature on seizure report of clothes

S.C.No.25 / 2020 11

Ex.P24Signature on seizure report of towel

Ex.P25Signature on seizure of mat

Ex.P26Signature on confession statement of A1 and A2

Ex.P27Signature on Confession statement of A3

Ex.P28Signature on Confession statement of A4

Ex.P29Signature on Confession statement of A5

Ex.P30Signature on Confession statement of A6

Ex.P31Signature on Confession statement of A7

Ex.P32Signature on scene of offence

Ex.P33Signature on Rough sketch

Ex.P34Signature on seizure report of blood stained earth

Ex.P35Signature on seizure report of clothes

Ex.P36Signature on seizure report of towel

Ex.P37Signature on seizure report of mat

Ex.P38Signature on confession statement of A1 and A2

Ex.P39Signature on Confession statement of A3

Ex.P40Signature on Confession statement of A4

Ex.P41Signature on Confession statement of A5

Ex.P42Signature on Confession statement of A6

Ex.P43Signature on Confession statement of A7

On behalf of the Defence: NIL

Material Objects:

Mo.1 Granite stone

Mo.2 Blood stained clothes

Mo.3 Stick

Mo.4 Towel

Mo.5 Mat

V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Crl.App.No.375/20191

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR, N.T.R.NAGAR, HYDERABAD,

TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT:Sri.S.VENKATESWARA PRASAD,

V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Tuesday, the Fifth day of May, Two Thousand Twenty

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.375 / 2019

Between:

Kusume Dinesh ...Appellant/Accused

AND

The State of Telangana rep.by its APP ...Respondent/Complainant

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN S.C.No.814/2016 ON THE FILE OF IX ASCJ, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Between:

The State of Telangana rep.by its APP ...Complainant

AND

Kusume Dinesh ...Accused

This Criminal Appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.E.Sreenivas Reddy, learned Advocate for the Appellant / Accused and Sri.T.Venkateswara Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

01.This is a Criminal Appeal filed by Appellant / Accused praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed in

S.C.No.814/2016 on the file of learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Rangareddy wherein the learned Judge found the accused guilty

U/Sec.354-D, 366 and 307 IPC and convicted and sentenced to suffer SI for two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- IDSI for three months

U/Sec.354-D IPC and SI for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- IDSI for three months U/Sec.366 IPC and SI for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-

IDSI for three months U/Sec.307 IPC. The parties are referred to as arrayed before Lower court.

02.As per the case of the prosecution, the accused had

Crl.App.No.375/20192 acquaintance with the de-facto complainant while studying

Intermediate, thereafter, he used to follow her and misbehave and was forcing her to marry and made advances for sexual favours and staking.

After completion of Intermediate in the year 2009 the de-facto complainant shifted her residence to Hyderabad due to her father's transfer of job on 14-12-2014, the accused made a phone call informing that he changed his behaviour and asked her to meet him once, then the complainant went on his bike and they had taken some snacks and tea. Thereafter he had taken her to isolated place and threatened her asking whether she will marry him or not. She stated she will not marry unless her parents permission is given. Then suddenly the accused took out knife from his back and stabbed her on the neck, hands and chest.

Out of fear, the complainant agreed to marry him, then he had taken her to hospital on his bike informing that she sustained injuries by falling from bike. Then he was taken into custody and handed over to Police.

03.In the grounds of appeal it was urged that Lower court has not appreciated the evidence properly and there was never any complaint from the victim earlier and that she voluntarily went with the accused and that the accused never forced her to marry.

04.Heard arguments. Perused record and the Judgment passed by the Lower Court.

05.The point for determination is: Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court is justified with reasons ?

POINT:

06.PW1 is the victim, PW2 is the security officer at the hospital where the victim was brought by the accused for treatment. PW7 is the

Doctor who made phone call to Police and informed, and PW4 went to the hospital to whom entire incident was narrated by the victim. PW8 is

Crl.App.No.375/20193 the person who accommodated PW1 into the hospital by noticing the blood stains on her body.

07.PW1 who is the de-facto complainant and victim deposed that the accused developed acquaintance with her on the pretext of love marriage while she was studying Intermediate and she refused her proposal to marry him. They were shifted to Hyderabad in the year 2009, on 14-12-2014 at about 04-00 pm., on the request of the accused she went on the two wheeler where he had taken her to Kokapet Cross

Roads and insisted her to marry him and she refused saying that without permission of her parents she cannot marry. Then he took out knife and stabbed her and out of fear she agreed for marriage. Then the accused brought her to hospital and admitting her informing that she sustained injuries in the accident. But she revealed to the Doctor that the accused stabbed her with knife, then Doctor called Police.

Ex.P1 is her statement given to Police.

08.PW2 is the Assistant Security Officer, who noticed the accused bringing the victim to the hospital. PW3 is the another staff of the hospital who was informed that there was a suspicious case and treatment should be started. The accused informed him due to some differences with the victim he caused injuries to her.

09.PW4 is the father of the victim who came to know about the incident through PW1. PW5 is the attestor of scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Mo.1 is the knife, Mo.2 is the cell phone, in his presence the accused confessed about the offence which is Ex.P4 and two wheeler was seized under Ex.P5.

10.The Sub-Inspector of Police PW6 deposed that he received the phone call from the Security Officer of the hospital, then he went to hospital and noticed PW1 with bleeding injuries. As he came to know

Crl.App.No.375/20194 that the offence had taken place pertaining to Jurisdiction of Narsingi

Police Station immediately he informed to the concerned Police.

11.PW7 is the Doctor who treated the injured person and issued wound certificate Ex.P6 and she found that there was deep injuries. The victim informed her that person who brought her to hospital caused injuries. PW8 is declared as hostile. He showed the address of the hospital to the accused and victim and denies about other allegations.

He denied his statement before Police as in Ex.P7.

12.PW9 is the Investigating Officer who deposed that he received phone call from Sub-Inspector of Police regarding injuries sustained by PW1 and then he reached to the hospital and recorded her statement basing on confession of the accused in the presence of PW5 and he went to the scene of offence seized the knife, motorbike under the cover of panchanama report. Ex.P5 is the confessional panchanama leading to scene of offence and seizure of Mo.1 and 2. He further deposed that he did not examine the mother and brother of PW1 nor examined her classmates nor collected call data of PW1 and the accused.

13.Analyzing overall material coupled with the cross- examination of the material witnesses, the following points would emerge: when there was a offence of staking and harassment from the year 2009 itself, the de-facto complainant nor her parents made any complaint against the accused. From West Godavari District the de- facto complainant came to Hyderabad due to her father's transfer and started living at Hyderabad there were never any complaints against the accused between the year 2009 and 2014. The alleged incident happened on 14-12-2014.

14.It is an admitted fact that the victim girl voluntarily went

Crl.App.No.375/20195 along with the accused on 14-12-2014 on his bike. Why she voluntarily went with him on the motorcycle after five years, is not explained by

PW1. Therefore, the alleged offence attracting the offence of staking outraging the modesty, does not attract against the accused for proving the guilt U/Secs.354-D and 366 IPC. The alleged confession before the third party by the accused cannot be treated as valid and credible in the eye of law. These aspects were not discussed by the learned Judge while appreciating the evidence on record. I, therefore, feel that the prosecution failed to establish the offence against the accused

U/Sec.354-D and 366 IPC.

15.Coming to the offence U/Sec.307 IPC, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused still under the guise of the friendship insisted her to marry under the pretext of love for which she refused. As she refused the accused grew wild and caused injuries with the knife. This part of evidence is established from the evidence of PW1, other evidence and the evidence adduced by Doctor, the would certificate ad also from the evidence of Investigating Officer. However, it cannot be said that the accused made an attempt to kill her attracting offence

U/Sec.307 IPC. Oral evidence coupled with the medical evidence would only establish lesser offence i.e., offence U/Sec.324 IPC. Therefore, I feel that the prosecution is not able to establish guilt of the accused

U/Sec.307 IPC. However, the accused is found guilty U/Sec.324 IPC.

Section 324 IPC is defined as voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon.

16.Considering the over all material, I hold that the accused/appellant not guilty U/Sec.354-D and 366 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is also not guilty U/Sec.307 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec.235 (1)

Crl.App.No.375/20196

Cr.P.C. Instead the accused is found guilty U/Sec.324 IPC and it is a lesser offence and he is accordingly convicted for the said offence.

Considering the circumstances, including age of the accused he was a student at the time of registering the case, I feel the ends of Justice would be met if fine is imposed U/Sec.324 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the Lower Court is set aside and instead the accused is found guilty U/Sec.324 IPC and it is a lesser offence and he is accordingly convicted for the said offence and the accused is sentenced to fine of Rs.50,000/- IDSI for three months out of the said fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the victim i.e., PW1 and Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited towards state. Accordingly the point is answered.

17.In the result, I found accused/appellant not guilty U/Sec.354-

D and 366 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is also found not guilty U/Sec.307 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Instead the accused is found guilty

U/Sec.324 IPC and he is accordingly convicted for the said offence. I feel the ends of Justice would be met if fine is imposed U/Sec.324 IPC.

The accused is sentenced U/Sec.324 IPC to fine of Rs.50,000/- IDSI for three months out of the said fine amount of Rs.50,000/- Rs.40,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the victim i.e., PW1 and Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited towards state. Accordingly this Criminal Appeal is allowed partly.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him; corrected and pronounced by me in the Open

Court on this Tuesday, the Fifth day of May, Two Thousand Twenty.

V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: NIL

V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT