Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 1I ASCJ, KKD
IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KAKINADA
PRESENT: - Sri Y.Gopala Krishna
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada
SATURDAY, THE 1st DAY OF APRIL, 2023
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.161/2017
Between:
1. Mangalampalli Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o. late Sethu Madhava Swamy, Hindu, aged 53 years, private service, resident of D.No.11-2-481, Namalagundu, Secunderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Courts jurisdiction.
2. Mangalampalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. late Sethu Madhava Swamy, Hindu, aged 51 years, private service, resident of D. No.1-8-678/20, Musheerabad, Azamabad, Hyderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Courts Jurisdiction.
3. Mangalampalli Sriramachandra Murthy, S/o. late Sethu Madhava Swamy, Hindu, aged 44 years, private service, resident of Door No.1-8-678/20, Musheerabad, Azamabad, Hyderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Courts jurisdiction.
..Plaintiffs.
AND
Chodisetty Ramaswamy alias Rambabu, S/o. Buchibabu, Hindu, aged 46 years, Occupation not known, Door No.2-129, Rayudupalem, Ra- manayyapeta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada Junior Civil Judge's Court's Jurisdiction.
..Defendant.
This suit coming on 02-02-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri O.Sudhakar, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri B.Radha Krishna, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs, seeking the reliefs: (i) to declare the title of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule site and consequentially for recovery of possession of the same; (ii) consequent upon such declaration of title of the plaintiffs, to send communication to the Sub Regsitrar, Samalkot, to enter in its registers that sale deed dt. 27.05.2014 and all its link documents are illegal and invalid; and (iii) to award costs.
2.Main case of plaintiffs, in brief is that, plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property.
Their father, Mangalampalli Sethu Madhava Swamy, worked in the District
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 2I ASCJ, KKD
Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada, at Alamuru branch. While he was in employment, he joined as a member of Cooperative Employees Cooperative
Building Society, registered No. C481, Kakinada, under membership No. 123.
The said society acquired land in Thimmapuram village for the purpose of providing house sites to its members and represented that the layout was approved by the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs’ father, late Sethu Madhava
Swamy, was allotted Plot No. 5 of said layout. Madhava Swamy purchased the said plot under a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1987 for consideration of Rs. 3,300/-. Plaintiffs’ father was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said site with absolute rights as owner thereof.
While so, he died intestate on 06.11.2002, leaving behind his sons (plaintiffs) his wife(Mangalampalli Subbalakshmi) and two married daughters by the names of Kotra Padma Sri and Chanduri Vasantha Sri, as his legal heirs. All of them, including the plaintiffs, inherited the plaint schedule property, and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the mother and sisters of plaintiffs conveyed their undivided 3/6th share in the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiffs with equal rights by executing a registered gift deed dated 24.03.2014.
Thereby, plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property of 300 square yards of vacant site.
In view of their employment, all the plaintiffs are residents of
Hyderabad. Therefore, they entrusted the plaint schedule site to one of their friends by the name of Tatikonda Venkata Suresh Kumar, who is a resident of
Kakinada. He, in turn, used to visit the plaint schedule site now and then.
Plaintiffs also erected a board in the plaint schedule site mentioning their cell numbers and informing the general public that the plaint schedule site belongs to them.
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 3I ASCJ, KKD
While so, recently, on 03.04.2017 the said Tatikonda Venkata
Suresh Kumar happened to pass by the site and found that there were pits dug for laying the foundation at plaint schedule site. At that time, some workers were present. On enquiry, they informed Tatikonda Venkata Suresh
Kumar that the construction was being done at the behest of the defendant.
Immediately, Tatikonda Venkata Suresh Kumar informed the plaintiffs through phone about the same. Then all the plaintiffs came down to
Kakinada on 05.04.2017. When they went to the plaint schedule site on that day, the work was in progress, but no foundations had been laid by then.
When asked about the defendant, workers at the schedule site called him.
Till then, the plaintiffs had no acquaintance whatsoever with the defendant, and for the first time, they saw him on that day. Plaintiffs informed him of their title and asked him to stop the construction work, which is being done illegally. The defendant requested the plaintiffs give him photostat copies of their title deeds. So that, he can verify the same from his alleged predecessors-in-title. As the documents of the plaintiffs are in Hyderabad, they informed the defendant that they will give him the encumbrance certificate obtained through the Internet, and he can obtain copies of the documents from the Sub Registrar's Office if he so desires. On 06.04.2017 the plaintiffs obtained the encumbrance certificate in on line and handed over the defendant. He, in turn, informed them that he would verify it at the sub-registrar's office and would contact the plaintiffs within short time promised that till then he would not proceed with the construction work in the schedule site. Therefore, plaintiffs returned to Hyderabad on 08.04.2017.
It is a surprise to the plaintiffs; on 11-04-2017 they received copies of caveat petitions said to have been filed by the defendant. Then the plaintiffs realised that the defendant had misled them and filed caveat petitions to thwart the legal action that would be taken by the plaintiffs. On receipt of the
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 4I ASCJ, KKD caveat petition, 3rd plaintiff came down to Kakinada on 15.04.2017 and found that the defendant was proceeding with the construction work at lightning speed, probably on some expert advice. He tried to contact the defendant, but he avoided meeting the third plaintiff. Therefore, the 3rd plaintiff got photographs of constructions. On 16.04.2017 the plaintiffs got issued a reply notice in reply to the caveat petition filed by the defendant against them. The 3rd plaintiff also lodged a complaint before the Station
House Officer, Thimmapuram Police Station, Thimmapuram, on 16.04.2017.
But the police authorities kept the matter stating without registering the same. Then he sent a copy of the complaint to the Station House Officer,
Thimmapuram Police Station, Thimmapuram, by registered post.
The defendant has no right, title, or interest whatsoever in the plaint schedule property, which is their absolute property devolved upon them. Except the father of the plaintiffs and subsequently the plaintiffs, no one else has any right, title, or interest in the plaint schedule property. The occupation of the defendant under the alleged registered sale deed dated 27-05-2013 is absolutely illegal and highhanded. The defendant is proceeding with the construction on the schedule site with lightening speed, knowing that his documents are false and fictitious. In view of the circumstances, he filed the present suit for declaration and consequential recovery of possession and for other reliefs.
3.On the other hand, the defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing a written statement. The defendant denied the plaintiffs’ case and flow of title to them as well. He refuted the averments of plaint specifically. In summary, the defendant's main case is that, plaint schedule property and the property purchased by the defendant are different. The defendant purchased the property under a
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 5I ASCJ, KKD registered sale deed dated 27.05.2013 from one Kovvuri Venu Gopala Reddy with the following boundaries:
East: Road 20
South: Plot No 18
West : Plot No 4
North: Property belong to Kiran Eye Hospital
Therefore, the property purchased by the defendant and the property claimed by the plaintiff are not the same. But, the plaintiffs took advantage of the alleged documents, without verifying the identity of the properties that were covered under the alleged sale deeds of the plaintiff, they filed a present suit over the properties of the defendant.
His vendor, Venugopala Reddy, purchased the property under a sale deed dated 24.08.2010 from Sigatapu Boorayya, and since then he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property until he alienated the property to defendant. Therefore, the allegation that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by affixing a display board was created for the purpose of filing the suit. After receipt of plaint and the documents, he made enquiries. His enquiries reveal that the alleged sale deed executed in the name of the plaintiffs’ father is not a validly executed document, and the executant of the document has no power to execute the same. Further, the executant never acted as secretary of the employee cooperative society. Moreover, the plan attached to the sale deed is not true and correct. By the time of the purchase of his property, there was never any board, as mentioned in the plaint and even by the time of the purchase of his vendor, there were no plaintiffs or their father ever in possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by the defendant. Plaintiffs made a false claim based on an alleged sale deed executed by an unauthorised person representing the society, and plaintiffs’ father never got any rights
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 6I ASCJ, KKD over the property. Thereby, the plaintiffs never got any right, title, or possession over the plaint schedule property.
The defendant, his vendors, and their vendors are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, that was purchased by the defendantto the knowledge of all, including the plaintiffs herein. Defendant started making constructions in the property purchased long after three years from the date of the purchase. Therefore, the contrary allegation that the defendant occupied the property highhandedly and started making constriction at lightning speed on expert advice is nothing but invented for the purpose of filing the suit. The defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. Having invested huge amounts in the proposed construction, heis suffering a lot due to the false litigation. The present suit is barred by limitation. The valuation of the suit is not correct. The suit in its present form is not maintainable under law. The suit is bad for the non- joinder of necessary parties and the mis-joinder of causes of action. Hence, he urged the court to dismiss the suit.
4.After hearing both sides and basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed following issues:-
1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title over the schedule property as prayed for?
2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of schedule property after removing the constructions made by defendant?
3.Whether plaintiffs can seek for direction to the Sub-
Registrar, Samalkota to declare the sale deed dated 27.05.2013 pertaining to the defendant and all its link documents as illegal and invalid?
4.To what relief?
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 7I ASCJ, KKD
It is relevant to note that the plaintiff sought relief of recovery of possession as a consequential relief to the main relief of the declaration. The second issue, however, is framed as if the plaintiff sought relief of recovery of possession independently. Therefore, the above issue has to be recasted.
Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC empowers the court to frame additional issues or recast issues at any stage of the suit before pronouncing judgment. In view of the above facts and circumstances and Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC, above issue No. 2 is recasted as follows:
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential relief of recovery of possession of schedule property after removing the constructions made by defendant?
5.At the trial, the plaintiffs examined P.W.1, while relying on Exs.A1 to A17. On the other hand, defendant examined DW1 and exhibited B1 to B5.
6.Heard arguments.
7.Perused record.
Issue No.1:
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title over the schedule property as prayed for?
Both parties' cases are summarized below:
8.It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father, Sethu Madhava
Swamy, purchased plaint schedule property for consideration of Rs. 3300/- under a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1987 and since then he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. He died intestate, leaving behind his wife, Subbalakshmi, and two married daughters, Kotra
Padma Sri and Chanduri Vasantha Sri, and sons (plaintiffs) as his legal heirs, and subsequently, the mother and sisters of plaintiffs executed a registered gift deed dated 24.03.2014 conveying their undivided 3/6th share to the plaintiffs equally, and thereby, they became the absolute owners of plaint schedule property, plaintiffs contended further. On the other hand, defendant
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 8I ASCJ, KKD denied the claim of the plaintiffs, questioning the validity of the sale deed of the plaintiffs’ father and the flow of title to the plaintiffs.
Arguments of the defendant regarding disposing of the suit based on the discrepancy alone in the evidence of PW1 on possession:
9.In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the defendant invited the attention of this court on the evidence of PW1 and submitted that there are glaring discrepancies on possession of plaintiffs and their predecessor, and thereby, plaintiffs failed to show possession. Since possession of plaintiffs is not established at any point of time, suit is to be disallowed without examining the title aspect, learned counsel further submitted. To fortify his contentions, he relied upon Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.
Kamala and others reported in 2020 (6) ALD 183 (SC).
10.This is a suit filed for declaration of title and consequential possession and other reliefs. Since relief of possession is consequential, without examining the title, the suit cannot be disposed of. In Maria
Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira1, it has been held that:
"A title suit for possession has two parts first, adjudication of title, and second, adjudication of possession. If the title dispute is removed and the title is established in one or the other, then, in effect, it becomes a suit for ejectment where the defendant must plead and prove why he must not be ejected."
11.In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami &
V.P. temple and another2, it was held that,
In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the Court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored with him.
1(2012) 5 SCC 370 22003 (8) SCC 752
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 9I ASCJ, KKD
12.It is clear from the above that, in a suit for title and possession, first the title of the plaintiff shall be examined, and thereafter, the entitlement to the plaintiff's possession would be looked into. In Nazir
Mohamed’s case, cited by the learned counsel for the defendant, the Hon’ble
Apex Court did not hold that without examining title, suit may be disallowed on the basis of the possession aspect alone. In that authority also, the court believed the title of plaintiff and defendant regarding their respective portions. Since the plaintiff failed to show his possession for more than 12 years and failed to establish alleged tenancy, the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff therein is not entitled to possession.
However, this Judgment will be discussed at the appropriate time.
13.In view of the above jurisprudenceand nature of the present suit, the title of the parties (this issue) has to be determined.
Defence of the defendant:
14.Reverting to issue No. 1, defendant objected to the claim of plaintiffs on three grounds: one is that the sale deed of plaintiffs’ father was not validly executed as the executant had no power to execute the same, and he never acted as secretary of the employees co-operative society; the second is that he purchased property under a validly registered sale deed from valid title holders; and the third is that there is a dispute regarding the identity of plaint schedule property.
15.In view of the rival contentions of both parties, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove the title of their father and the flow of title to them.
Oral Evidence of Plaintiffs:
16.In order to prove the same, the third plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 10I ASCJ, KKD affidavit. The defendant cross-examined him. In the cross-examination, the defendant focused on his personal details, such as PW1’s year of birth, work place, place of growing up, place of employment, native place, residence place, death of his father, etc. Further, he cross-examined PW1 regarding the layout of the plaint schedule property, the conversion of the property to non- agricultural land, the payment of conversion charges, the possession of the property, the property covered under the documents of the defendant, etc.
Documentary Evidence of Plaintiffs:
17.Besides oral evidence, plaintiffs strongly relied on Exs.A1 to A17.
Among them, Exs.A1 and A2 (sale deed dated 15.07.1987 under a registered gift deed dated 24.08.2014) are most relevant to the present issue.
Ex.A1/registered sale deed dated 15.07.1987 reveals that the plaintiffs’ father (Sethu Madhav Swamy) purchased the plaint schedule plot. Further, it reveals that Balloju Mallayya was authorized by the cooperative employees cooperative building society limited in the society's board of directors meeting held on 18.10.1981. It further reveals, Sethu Madhav Swamy paid
Rs. 3300/- of sale consideration.
18.Ex.A17/death certificate of Sethu Madhav Swamy, evinces that he died on 08.11.2002. Of course, the death of Sethu Madhav Swamy is not in dispute in this suit. Further, the relationship of the plaintiffs with Sethu
Madhav Swamy is also not in dispute.
19.Ex.A2/registered gift deed dated 24.03.2014 discloses that Subba
Lakshmi was his wife, K. Padma Sri, and Ch.Vasantha Sri are daughters of
Sethu Madhav Swamy, and they together executed a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs herein, conveying their 3/6th undivided share in the property. It also reveals that Sethu Madhav Swamy died intestate on
November 8, 2002, and that upon his death, his sons(plaintiffs) and his wife and daughters (Subba Lakshmi, K. Padma Sri, and Ch.Vasantha Sri) inherited
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 11I ASCJ, KKD his property, including the plaint schedule. It is relevant to note that the defendant did not dispute the relationship of the plaintiffs and executants of the gift deed with Sethu Madhav Swamy.
20.Exs.A1 and A2, coupled with Ex.A17, are found to disclose that
Sethu Madhav Swamy purchased plaint schedule property under Ex.A1, and he died on 08.11.2002, upon his death, his sons (plaintiffs), his wife (subba
Lakshmi), and daughters (K. Padma Sri and Ch. Vasantha Sri) succeeded to the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the wife and daughters of Sethu
Madhav Swamy executed a gift deed conveying 3/6ths of their share in favour of the plaintiffs, and thereby, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule.
Attack of the defendant on Ex.A1:
21.In order to disprove the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant attacked the sale deed of Sethu Madhav Swamy/Ex.A1 on the ground that it was not validly executed as the executant has no power to execute the same and B. Mallayya never acted as Secretary of the Employees Co-operative
Society. In view of the defence of the defendant, a heavy burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their father’s sale deed was validly executed by a competent person. But, except for the oral evidence of PW1, plaintiffs did not examine any person connected to the sale deed/Ex.A1 or concerned cooperative society authorities. However, they strongly relied on Ex.A10 to
A16. They are the certified copies of sale deeds regarding plots Nos. 6, 16, 17, 19, 18, 7, and 4, respectively in the same lay out. Exs.A10 to A16 are found to disclose that B. Mallayya executed all those sale deeds, representing Cooperative Building Society Limited. Further, they are found to disclose that B. Mallayya was authorised by the Cooperative Building Society in its board of directors meeting held on 18.10.1981, similar to the sale deed of Sethu Madhav Swamy/Ex.A1.
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 12I ASCJ, KKD
22.It is significant to note that, according to the defendant also, he purchased Plot No. 5 originally in the layout laid by the building cooperative society, and his vendor purchased the same from Kovvuri Venu Gopala
Reddy, who purchased the same from S. Boorayya. The said Boorayya purchased the same from B. Mallayya, represented by GPA, Nagaboyina
Veerabhadra Rao. Thus, the defendant also claims the source of title from the
GPA cum agreement of sale/Ex.B5 executed by B. Mallayya, who was authorised by the Cooperative Employees Cooperative Building Society. The said B. Mallayya executed the sale deed of the plaintiffs’ father and Exs.A10 to A16 as stated above.
23. All the above go to show that the source of title to the plaintiffs’ father (Ex.A1) and predecessors of the defendant under Exs.B4 and B5 (rectification deed and GPA cum agreement of sale) is the Cooperative
Employees Cooperative Building Society, represented by B. Mallayya, who was authorised by the cooperative building society, Kakinada, as per the board of directors meeting held on 18.10.1981. Thus, the defendant's documents also reveal B. Mallayya was authorised by the Cooperative
Employees Cooperative Building Society, and he executed registered documents since 1981 as per the Board of Directors meeting held on 18.10.1981.
24.But, astonishingly, the defendant contended that the sale deed/Ex.A1 is not validly executed as the executant has no power to execute.
But the fact remains that a person who executed a possessory agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of defendant’s predecessor, executed a sale deed (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiffs' father way back in the year 1987, referring to the same board of meetings.
25.Thus, Exs.B4 and B5 cut the defence of the defendant regarding the competency and authorization of B. Mallayya to execute the sale
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 13I ASCJ, KKD deed/Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. All these documents support the case of the plaintiffs and the sale deed/Ex.A1.
26.It is an important and significant aspect that needs to be mentioned here that in the written statement, the defendant has taken the specific plea that the executant of the sale deed /Ex.A1 has no power to execute the same, and he never acted as Secretary of the Employees
Cooperative Society. This is the main defence against the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. Astonishingly, nowhere in the cross- examination of PW1, defendant made any suggestion regarding such a defence.
27.It is relevant to note that the principle that Section 138 of the
Evidence Act confers a valuable right to cross-examine a witness tendered in evidence by the opposite party. The scope of that provision is enlarged by
Section 146 of the Evidence Act by permitting a witness to be questioned, inter alia, to test his veracity. For instance, failure to deny the opponent's case or put his material case to the opponent's party during cross- examination, can be cured by denying the opponent’s case in his evidence, is taken into consideration, there is no need to cross-examine the witness. If this is accepted, there is no importance to the cross-examination. If a witness is not examined on that issue, he could not get an opportunity to explain the same. So, in the cross-examination, a witness will be cross-examined on the material case of the party. Further, where part of the chief examination is not touched upon in the course of cross-examination, it is to be taken as admitted3. Moreover, in a catena of decisions, it is held that the material case of the party shall be put in cross-examination of opposite party witnesses, to enable that party to meet that defence. It is a rule of essential 3Yallapi rajamma @ Sarojanamma Vs. Paditham Narayana Rao and others : 2018 (1) ALT 251 and Surender Rode Vs Madan Mohan Rode & Co : 2014 (3) CCC 322 (Delhi)
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 14I ASCJ, KKD justice and not merely a technical rule of evidence, so, failure to do so, amounts to acceptance4.
28.In the present case, the defendant did not cross-examine P.W.1 regarding his main defence, i.e., executatant of the sale deed/Ex.A1 had no right to execute the sale deed. In view of the above jurimetrical jurisprudence, the competency of the executant of sale deed/Ex.A1 cannot be doubted.
New defence taken in the cross-examination of PW1:
29.But surprisingly, in the cross-examination of PW1, the defendant has taken a new defence that B. Mallayya did not execute the sale deed of the plaintiff's father/Ex.A1 by putting the suggestion that "It is not true to suggest that sale deed of my father/Ex.A1 is not executed by Balloju
Mallayya".
30.In fact, above defence taken in the cross-examination of PW1 is not pleaded in the written statement. Pleading is a foundation for the claim of plaintiff or defence of defendant. It is well settled that5 any amount of evidence that may be adduced without a foundation in the pleading would be of no avail. In other words, no amount of evidence can be looked into without pleading. So, alleged defence need not be discussed.
31.For argument’s sake, it is construed that, the above defence is allowed to be taken, now the question before the court is whether plaintiffs proved the sale deed. Admittedly, sale deed of plaintiffs’ father/Ex.A1 is a registered document. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. In Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors.6, the Hon’ble Apex court held that, 4A.E.G.Carapiet Vs A.Y.Derderia : AIR 1961 Cal 359 5Bollineni Srihari Rao Vs. Manukondu Ramadevi and others : 2018 (6) ALT 352 (DB) 6(2006) 5 SCC 353
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 15I ASCJ, KKD
There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.
32.Subsequently, the Apex Court has been referred to in Prem Singh and Ors. in Jamila Begum (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Shami Mohd. And another7 and
Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale Vs. Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale and Others8.
33.Of late, the Hon’ble Apex Court held, in the case of Rattan Singh & Ors. Vs. Nirmal Gill & Ors. Etc9, the Apex Court held that, “registered document is presumed to be genuine onus to prove otherwise is on Person who challenges it.”
34.In view of the above jurisprudence, it is presumed that the sale deed/Ex.A1 was validly executed. So, there is no need for the plaintiffs to prove execution of the sale deed/Ex.A2 by examining the attestor, scribe, etc. In view of the above authorities, the execution of the regd. sale deed/Ex.A1 cannot be doubted. So, the onus is on the defendant. But he failed to establish his alleged plea of impersonation. Hence, new contentions of the defendant taken in the cross-examination of PW1 are not helpful to the defendant in disproving the claim of the plaintiff.
35.It is relevant to note that both plaintiffs and defendant admitted that plot No. 5 is one of the plots in thelayout laid by the Cooperative
Employees Cooperative Building Society. Plaintiffsproved purchase of plaint schedule property by their father under a registered sale deed/Ex.A1 as stated above.
Claim of the defendant:
36.On the other hand, defendant claims title to plaint schedule property, relying upon Exs.B1 to B5.
72019 (2) SCC 727 8(2009) 12 SCC 101 9In CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3681-3682 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21326-21327 OF 2019), Two Judges bench of Supreme Court held on 16th November 2020.
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 16I ASCJ, KKD
Arguments of the plaintiff on Ex.B1 to B5 in the light of Ex.A7 and provisions of the AP Cooperative Societies Act 1964:
37.In order to disrupt the claim of defendant under Exs.B1 to B5, learned counsel for plaintiffs invited the attention of this court on
Ex.A7/memo dated 15.05.2017 given under the Right to Information Act, along with letter dated 10.05.2017 and copy of order dated 08.06.2009 and
Sections 64, 66, and 68 of the AP Cooperative Societies Act 1964, and submitted that once a society is wound up and a liquidator is appointed, the body of the society becomes defunct and cannot execute any sale deed or enter into any transactions.
38.In view of the arguments of learned counsel, Ex.A7 and the provisions of the AP Co-operative Societies Act 1964, shall be carefully examined. Ex.A7 is information along with an order dated 08.06.2009 given under the Right to Information Act on the application of the third plaintiff. It evinces that the registration of Cooperative Employees Cooperative Building
Society limited No.C 481, Kakinada, was cancelled and finally closed under proceedings vide RC.No.3541/01-F dated 08.06.2009, of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kakinada.
39.Further, the order enclosed to the memo given under the Right to
Information Act/Ex.A7 evinces that that a liquidator was appointed for the society, and onconsidering his report, the Deputy Registrar of the cooperative societies, Kakinada, orderedthat the affairs of Cooperative
Employees Cooperative Building Society was finally closed, the registration of the society was cancelled, and the liquidation proceedings of the society were terminated under Section 69-A of the APCS Act, and the society shall cease to exist as a corporate body from the date of issue of this order.
40.A conspectus of order of Deputy Cooperative society and information given under right to Information Act/Ex.A7 is, registration of
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 17I ASCJ, KKD cooperative employees cooperative building society is finally cancelled and liquidation proceedings of the society are terminated and therefore, society is ceased to exist as corporate body. In view of Ex.A7, cooperative employees cooperative building society is no more in existence from 08.06.2009.
41. As seen from Exs.B1 to B5, B.Mallayya executed possessory sale agreement cum GPA on 01.06.2009 and subsequently, he executed rectification deed on 09.06.2009 and based on Nagaboyina Veerabhadrarao sold the same to S.Boorayya under Ex.B3. In fact, prior to Ex.B3 to B5, more particularly execution of possessory agreement of sale cum GPA, liquidator was appointed and process of winding up of society was exhausted.
42.Section 67 of APCS Act enumerates that, “where a society has been ordered to be wound up under section 64, no member shall alienate his property movable of immovable, from the date of the order of winding up and until after the expiration of fifteen days from the date on which the order of winding up takes effect. Any alienation of the property made by a member in contravention of this section is voidable at the option of the liquidator.
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any member who furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the liquidator.”
43.Section 66 of APCS Act envisages that powers of the liquidator.
Wherein clause (4) states that “the liquidators shall continue to exercise his powers until the affairs of the society are completely wound up, when he shall make a report to the Registrar and deposit the records of the society in such place as the Registrar may direct.”
44.As seen from Ex.A7, liquidator proceedings were commenced in the year 2007. In view of above provisions, neither office bearers nor members of cooperative employees cooperative building society have the right to alienate the society's property. Furthermore, the sale deed/Ex.B3 was executed after the Deputy Registrar of the cooperative society Kakinada
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 18I ASCJ, KKD issued orders closing the society, cancelling its registration, and terminating liquidation proceedings. In view of Section 67 stated above, the sale deed/Ex.B3 is not valid under law and no right will be passed through it.
Therefore, Exs.B1 to B5 need not be considered.
45.For argument’s sake, it is construed that the documents of defendant/Exs.B1 to B5 are not invalid, now the question before the Court is, whether defendant acquired title through those documents.
46.Defendant claims title to plaint schedule property, relying upon
Exs.B1 to B5. They are found to disclose that B. Mallayya, authorised by
Cooperative Employees Cooperative Building Society in the board of directions meeting, executed a possessory agreement of sale cum GPA/Ex.B5 regarding plot No. 5 in favour of Nagaboyina Veerabhadrarao. Subsequently, he executed a rectification deed/Ex.B4 correcting boundaries therein.
Further, they are found to disclose that the said Nagaboyina Veerabhadrarao, represented by B. Mallayya, sold the same to S. Boorayya under a registered sale deed dated 09.06.2009/Ex.B3 and Boorayya, in turn, sold the same to defendant’s vendor, K.Venu Gopala Reddy and from him, defendant purchased the same under a registered sale deed/Ex.B1.
47.As seen from Exs.B1 to B5, the flow of title to the defendant is from cooperative employees cooperative building society limited and B.
Mallayya executed a possessory agreement of sale Cum GPA in the year 2009. In fact, way back in the year 1987 itself, he sold Plot No. 5 to the plaintiffs’ father. Once title is passed to the plaintiffs’ father, society cannot sell the same again to the others. Therefore, title will not be passed to the defendant and his predecessors.
48.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the aforesaid discussion, it is held that no title will be passed to the defendant or his predecessors through Ex.B1 to B5 as those documents were executed
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 19I ASCJ, KKD after commencing liquidation proceedings of the society and the sale deed/Ex.B3 was executed after cancelling the registration of the society and terminating the liquidation proceedings.
49.Above all, Exs.B1 to B5 were executed after the sale deed of the plaintiff's father (Ex.A1). Therefore, the defendant or his predecessors would not acquire any right or title over the plaint schedule property as those documents are invalid.
Defendant's dispute over the identity of the plaint-schedule property:
50.To elude the situation, the defendant would contend that there is an identity dispute regarding plaint schedule property. As seen from the plaint schedule property and property covered under Exs.A1 and A2, they are similar. It is plot No.5 with an area of 300 square yards and is bounded by the following: East: 30 feet width road - 34 feet, South: plot No.18 - 50 feet,
West: plot No.4-54 feet, and North: survey No.366/2 - 50 feet.
51.Similarly, the defendant stated the boundaries of his purchased property in a written statement as follows: Plot No. 5 in an extent of 300 sq yards, i.e., East: 54; Road: 20; South: 50 Plot No. 18, West: 54, Plot No. 4, and
North: 50 property belong to Kiran Eye Hospital.
52. Above both schedules are similar, except for a small variation of the width of the road on the eastern side. Further, in the plaint schedule property and Exs.A1 and A2, the northern boundary is shown as land in
S.No.366/2. Similarly, in the link documents of the defendant’s sale deed (Exs.B2 to B5), the northern boundary is shown as the property of others.
Whereas, in the sale deed of defendant/Ex.B1, the northern boundary is shown as the compound wall of Kiran Eye Hospital. It shows that the said hospital might be established subsequently. After thoroughly scrutinizing
Exs.A1, A2 and B1 to B5, and the schedule mentioned in the written
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 20I ASCJ, KKD statement with plaint schedule properties, this court has not found any identity dispute as contended by the defendant.
53.It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination of DW1, he categorically identified plaint schedule property in the photographs/Ex.A9 shown to him. It shows that identity of plaint schedule property is not in dispute.
54. It is relevant to note that, copy of lay out annexed to the sale deed/Ex.A1. Similarly, copy of lay out annexed to the possessory sale agreement cum GPA/Ex.B5 and sale deed/Ex.B3. On comparing the same, it is found that they are similar and plot no. 5 is within the same boundaries and location as well.
55.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court has not found any identity dispute as contended by the defendant.
Finding:
56.In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the aforesaid discussion, it is held that plaintiffs established their title over plaint schedule property. Hence, it is held that, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of title. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
Issue No.2:
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential relief of recovery of possession of schedule property after removing the constructions made by defendant?
57.It is the case of plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of plaint schedule property, and it was vacant land until defendants started construction thereon illegally, and therefore, they are entitled to recovery of possession based on title. Learned counsel for plaintiffs would submit that there is an age-old principle that in cases of vacant lands, possession follows title. Plaintiffs also established their title, and in view of settled principles and
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 21I ASCJ, KKD documents filed by the plaintiffs, plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of plaint schedule property that was illegally occupied by the defendants, further learned counsel would submit.
58.It is already held at issue no. 1 that plaintiffs established their title, while defendant failed to establish his title on plaint schedule property.
Further, it is held that plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of title. Learned counsel rightly submitted that in the case of vacant lands, there is a presumption that possession follows title.
59.In oppugnation, learned counsel for the defendant invited the attention of this court on the evidence of PW1 and submitted that there is a glaring discrepancy in the possession of the plaintiffs and their father, and this discrepancy rebuts the presumption that possession follows title.
Further, the learned counsel would submit that plaintiffs failed to show possession within 12 years of the suit, and thereby, the suit is barred by limitation. To buttress his contention, he relied upon Nazir Mohamed vs. J.
Kamala and others reported in 2020 (6) ALD 183 (SC).
60.In reply to the arguments of learned counsel for defendants, learned counsel for plaintiffs would submit that defendant has not taken the plea of adverse possession. However, the burden is on the defendant to prove acquisition of title by adverse possession, and plaintiffs need not prove their possession within the 12 years preceding the suit to recover the possession, learned counsel would submit further. To fortify his contentions, learned counsel relief upon citations Shariff Iqbal Hussain Ahmad vs. Kota
Venkata Subbamma, Bayyarapu Narayana Raidu and another vs. Pagadala
Varalaxmi reported in 2014 (4) ALT 808 and Vuppalapati Seshu Kumari vs. B.
Dayakarreddy reported in 2019 (3) ALT 154 (TS & AP).
61.In view of the rival submissions of both parties, the evidence of
PW1 shall be examined in the light of the pleadings and arguments of both
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 22I ASCJ, KKD parties. PW1 testified in his cross-examination that he does not know when possession was delivered to his father under the sale deed/Ex.A1. For a better appreciation of the case, the relevant portions of evidence of PW1 are reproduced hereunder:
I do not know how months after execution of sale deed/Ex.A1, society delivered possession of property.
I do not know exactly how many days after or at what date possession of property covered under Ex.A1 was delivered to my father, subsequent to execution of sale deed /Ex.A1.
62.Prior to the above portions of evidence of PW1, defendant elicited that PW1 has no personal knowledge about the sale transaction/Ex.A1. For a better appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of evidence of PW1 is reproduced hereunder:
I do not have personal knowledge about sale transaction of my father covered under Ex.A1, since it was happened in the year 1987.
63.Further, the defendant elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that he was born in the year 1972. It shows that he was a minor by the date of the sale transaction under Ex.A1. Therefore, there is no possibility to know the sale transaction/Ex.A1, personally. Further, it was elicited in cross- examination of PW1 that, during lifetime his father used to look after all his affairs. The relevant portion of PW1 is reproduced below for a better understanding of the case:
My father used to look after all his affairs, during his lifetime.
64.Since PW1 was a minor, and he does not know the sale transaction under Ex.A1 personally, he might have pleaded ignorance about delivery of possession under the sale deed/Ex.A1. As schedule property by then was vacant land, no physical delivery like handing over keys to a house, etc., do not arise. Sale deed/Ex.A1 reveals delivery of vacant land
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 23I ASCJ, KKD possession. In view of the circumstances based on the above evidence of
PW1, highlighted by the learned counsel, possession under Ex.A1/sale deed cannot be doubted.
65.Further, learned counsel for the defendant has drawn the attention of this court on the evidence of PW1 with regard to land conversion and has submitted that the said evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption that possession follows title. In view of the arguments, the evidence of PW1 has to be examined carefully. As seen from the evidence of
PW1, there is a discrepancy with regard to the conversion of plaint schedule property. For a better appreciation of the contentions of learned counsel, relevant portions of the evidence of PW1 are reproduced hereunder:
I do not know whether plaint schedule property and surrounding property were made layout by the year 1987.
I do not know when plaint schedule property and surrounding property were made layout.
For making layout, land shall be converted into non agricultural land.
During life time of my father, my father and his three friends intended to convert the said land into non agricultural land.
I did not make any enquiry whether property covered under
Ex.A1 is converted into non agricultural land or it is as agricultural land.
I did not pay any fee for conversion of land into non agricultural land.
I do not know whether defendant paid any fee for conversion of land into non agricultural land.
66.Learned counsel heavily relied on the above portions of evidence of PW1, contending that defendant succeeded in rebutting presumption by eliciting the above glaring discrepancy. Whatever the arguments of learned counsel, the plaintiffs categorically averred in the plaint that the cooperative employees cooperative building society laid a layout and plaint schedule plot
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 24I ASCJ, KKD
No. 5 is one of the plots therein. Exs.A1 and A2 also depict plaint schedule property, which was vacant land by then. On the other hand, the defendant also admitted that cooperative employees cooperative building society laid out a layout wherein plot No. 5 is one of the plots therein. Land conversion would arise only when property is agricultural land. However, according to both parties' pleadings and documents, the plaint schedule property is not agricultural land, and it does not need to be converted. Surprisingly, during
PW1's cross-examination, the defendant elicited the aforementioned new thing, which is completely irrelevant to the present case. However, in view of the claims of both parties, whether said lay out is approved lay out or not is irrelevant to the present case. So, much importance cannot be given to the above evidence of PW1.
67.It is not out of place to mention here that, until commencing construction work in the plaint schedule property, it was vacant land.
Admittedly, neither plaintiffs, defendant nor their respective predecessors made any activity therein, like constructing a compound wall, etc., prior to commencing construction work. Even though plaintiffs do not know the nature of their property, whether it is converted to non-agricultural or not, the fact remains that it was converted land, it is one of the plots in the approved layout, and title to the said property is with the plaintiffs. On the other hand, defendant’s documents (Exs.B1 to B5) are invalid documents as held above. In such circumstances, a discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 regarding the conversion of land does not ruin their case.
68.Further, learned counsel for the defendant would submit that plaintiffs did not file any document to show their possession, and thereby, they failed to prove their possession. Admittedly, except for title deeds, plaintiffs did not file any documents to show their possession. PW1 also admitted the same in the cross-examination. It is not in dispute that, the
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 25I ASCJ, KKD plaint schedule property was vacant land until construction was commenced by the defendant. In vacant lands, possession follows title. As held at Issue
No. 1, plaintiffs established title to vacant land, so it is presumed that they are in possession. In such circumstances, the non-filing of documents evidencing possession is not much significant.
69.Besides the above, learned counsel strenuously argued that plaintiffs failed to prove their possession within the 12 years preceding the suit, while defendant established his possession, and thereby, this suit is barred by limitation. To bolster his version, he heavily relied upon Nazir
Mohamed's case stated supra. His entire argument revolves around this authority. In view of the arguments of learned counsel, the said Judgment has to be read carefully and discussed. The contentions of the both parties, the result of the trial court, the first appellant court, the second appellant court, and the Apex Court, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, etc., are detailed hereunder in tabular form.
His father purchased the suit premises under a Case of the plaintiffregistered sale deed dated 17.09.1940 and let out the same to defendant’s father(Abdul Aziz) and upon his death, tenancy was attorned in the name of defendant. Monthly rent was Rs. 25/-.
He denied title of plaintiff to the suit premises and also tenancy. He claimed absolute ownership. His father purchased the premises under a registered sale deed
dated 17.02.1938. Subsequently, he got the suit
Case of the defendant premises from his father under a registered release
dated 14.03.1966. Since then, he owned and enjoyed
the possession premises with absolute rights.
Plaintiff filed suit in OS.169/94 for declaration of his Suit filed forownership of the suit premises with recovery of possession and arrears of rent.
The trial court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to Result of the trial courtprove tenancy by not placing rent receipts or any other oral and documentary receipts.
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 26I ASCJ, KKD
First appealPlaintiff preferred a first appeal against the Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.01.98.
The 1st appellate court allowed the appeal partly by Result of the Firstdecreeing declaration of title over half of the suit premises and also recovery of income from the said Appellate Court portion, believing the ownership of plaintiff, while dismissing another relief of recovery of possession, observing that plaintiff failed to prove tenancy.
Defendant filed Second Appeal No. 64/2000 before the Second appealHon’ble Madras High Court against the judgment of the first appeal court. Similarly, the plaintiff also preferred a second appeal before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, vide S.A.No.558/00.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court dismissed the second Result in second appealappeal SC.64/2000 filed by the defendant while allowing the 2nd appeal 558/00 filed by the plaintiff by granting recovery of possession of half the suit premises.
Civil appeal before theThe defendant preferred to appeals before the Hon’ble
Hon’ble Apex CourtApex Court against the common judgment and order of
the Hon’ble Madras High Court.
The Hon’ble Apex Court discussed substantial questions of law under Section 100 in the light of a plethora of Judgments and also tests formulated by the Supreme
Hon’ble Apex Court
Court in earlier judgments. Finally, the Apex Court discussed deduced principles relating to Section 100 CPC from the precedents discussed. Finding on substantialThe Hon’ble Apex Court held that no substantial question of law framedquestion of law is involved in Judgment of first appellate court. by the Hon’ble Madras High Court Articles 64 and 65 and section 3 of Limitation Act are discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and held that in the absence of any whisper in the plaint as to the date on which the appellate-defendant and/or his The provisions of predecessor-in-interest took possession of the suit Limitation Act are property and in the absence of any whisper to show that discussed by the the relief of decree for possession was within limitation,
Hon'ble Apex Court.
the High Court could not have reversed the finding of Its findings on the first appellate Court, and allowed the respondent- judgment of second plaintiff the relief of recovery of possession, more so appellate court.when the appellant-defendant had pleaded that he had been in complete possession of the suit premises, as owner, with absolute rights, ever since 1966, when his father had executed a deed of release in his favour and /or in other words for over 28 years as on the date of institution of the suit.
The maxim “possession follows title’ is limited in its application to property, which having regard to its nature, does not admit to actual and exclusive occupation, as in the case of open spaces accessible to Defendant highlighted
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 27I ASCJ, KKD paragraph no. 52 of theall. The presumption that possession must be deemed judgmentto follow title, arises only where there is no definite proof of possession by anyone else. In this case it is admitted that the appellant-defendant is in possession and not the respondent plaintiff.
70.Turning to the present case, the plaint schedule property was vacant land until the defendant started construction work thereon. It is already held at Issue No. 1 that plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of title upon believing their title deeds. To disprove the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant claimed rival title. It is already held at Issue No. 1 that, prior to
Ex.B3 to B5, more particularly the execution of the possessory agreement of sale cum GPA (Ex.B5), liquidator was appointed, and therefore, Ex. B5 is an invalid document. Further, it is held that the sale deed/Ex.B3 is not valid under law, and consequently, Exs.B1 and B2 are invalid as well, since they were executed after the closure of the society, cancelling its registration, and terminating liquidation proceedings. Further, it is held at Issue No. 1 that no title will be passed to the defendant or his predecessors under Exs.B1 to B5, as executants had no competency. Another reason to disbelieve his claim is that plaintiff’s father acquired plaint schedule property way back in the year 1987, and as title has already been passed to him, society had no right to convey the same to the predecessors of defendant. On this count also, neither the defendant nor his predecessors have any right, title, or interest in the property as held at Issue No. 1.
71.Plaintiffs succeeded in proving title. Plaintiffs would contend that in the year 2017 defendant illegally occupied plaint schedule property and started construction work thereunder. To prove the same, plaintiffs would rely on oral evidence of PW1 and photographs.
72.Admittedly, the plaint schedule property was vacant land until the defendant started construction work thereon. According to the
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 28I ASCJ, KKD defendant, he purchased the same under a registered sale deed/Ex.B1 and thereafter, he started construction. To prove possession, defendants relied on
Exs.B1 to B5. It is already stated above that they are invalid documents.
Except for sale deeds, the GPA cum sale agreement, and the rectification deed (Exs.B1 to B5), defendant did not file any document to show possession of himself or his predecessor over plaint schedule property.
73.As per the caveat petition of the defendant, after purchasing the property, he obtained a building approval plan and started construction on the plaint schedule. Except for that, he did not place any material to show when he obtained building approval and commenced the construction.
However, in the pleadings, defendant would aver that "the defendant started making constructions in the property that was purchased by him long after three years from the date of the purchase." As per the sale deed/Ex.B5, it was executed on 27.05.2013. If the pleadings and caveat petition of the defendant are considered, in or about the year 2016, he started construction work in the schedule property. But the plaintiffs would contend that the defendant occupied plaint schedule property in the year 2017.
74.Admittedly, prior to the sale deed of defendant or starting construction work in the plaint schedule property, neither plaintiff and his father, nor defendant and his predecessors, had performed any activity in the plaint-schedule property, like constructing a compound wall, etc. The
Plaint Schedule property was vacant land until construction work was commenced by the defendant.
75.It is well settled that in the case of a vacant site of which no effective physical possession is feasible, the presumption is that "possession follows title." It is already stated above that title is with the plaintiff and defendant or his predecessors did not have title and their documents are invalid under law. In view of settled law, possession is with the plaintiff up to
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 29I ASCJ, KKD the commencement of construction work. All these facts emerge that defendant started construction work in the plaint schedule property by occupying the same three years after his sale deed/Ex.B1. Till then, it was vacant land.
76.In view of the above circumstances, whatever be the date of commencement of construction in the plaint schedule, either in the year 2017 or 2016, the present suit is filed in the year 2017. For filing this suit for recovery of possession, the limitation is 12 years. Considering the year, either 2017 or 2016, the present suit is well within its limitations. Therefore, the above judgment relied upon by the defendant is not applicable to the present suit. Hence, the arguments of learned counsel for the defendant do not hold water.
77.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and my finding at issue No.1, it is held that plaintiffs are entitled for consequential recovery of possession. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
Issue No.3:
Whether plaintiffs can seek for direction to the Sub-Registrar,
Samalkota to declare the sale deed dated 27.05.2013 pertaining to the defendant and all its link documents as illegal and invalid?
78.It is already held at issue No. 1 that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of plaint schedule property by virtue of Exs.A1 and A2, while denying title to defendants and his predecessor. After conveying the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff’s father way back in the year 1987, the defendant’s documents were executed subsequently without having any authority as held above. Therefore, they are invalid documents. In this factual scenario, if the sub-registrar, Samalkot, did not make any entries regarding the affect of
Exs.B1 to B5 in his register, they would complicate the matter and create multiplicity of litigation.
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 30I ASCJ, KKD
79.In view of the above facts and circumstances and my finding at issue No. 1, this court feels that it is a fit case to direct Sub-Registrar,
Samalkota to make the necessary entries in their register designating Exs.B1 to B5 as invalid documents. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
Issue No.4:
To what relief?
80.In the result, suit is decreed with costs declaring that plaintiffs are absolute owners of plaint schedule property. The defendant is directed to deliver possession of plaint schedule property within three months from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the same through due process of law. Further, Sub-Registrar, Samalkot is directed to make the necessary entries in his register that Exs.B1 to B5 are invalid documents.
Dictated to the stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 1st day of April, 2023.
Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna
I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs:
P.W.1 :Mangalampalli Sriramachandra Murthy
For Defendant:
D.W.1:Chodisetti Rama Swamy alias Rambabu
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A.1 : Registered sale deed dated 15-07-1987.
Ex.A.2 : Registered gift deed dated 24-03-2014.
Ex.A.3 : Two photographs along with the corresponding CD.
Ex.A.4 : Nine photographs along with corresponding CD.
Ex.A.5 : Served copy of caveat petition along with opened RP cover.
Ex.A.6 : Office copy of reply notice dated 16-04-2017.
Fair Judgment in O.S.161/2017, Dt: 01.04.2023 31I ASCJ, KKD
Ex.A.7 : Memo dated 15.05.2017 bearing No. RC 3/2017 given under Right to Information Act, 2005 along with letter vide RC.415/2013-E
dated 10.05.2017 and copy of order dated 08.06.2009.
Ex.A8 : Original memo dated 18-05-2017.
Ex.A9 : Six photographs along with correspondence CD.
Ex.A10 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 13-03-1987 in respect of plot
No.6.
Ex.A11 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 13-03-1987 in respect of plot
No.16.
Ex.A12 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 13-03-1987 in respect of plot
No.17.
Ex.A13 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 15-07-1987 in respect of plot
No.19.
Ex.A14 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 30-08-1987 in respect of plot
No.18.
Ex.A15 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 15-03-1988 in respect of plot
No.7.
Ex.A16 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 06-03-1995 in respect of plot
No.4.
Ex.A17 : Death certificate of Mangalam Palli Sethu Madhavaswamy.
For Defendant:
Ex.B.1 : Registered sale deed dated 27-05-2013.
Ex.B.2 : Registered sale deed dated 24-08-2010.
Ex.B.3 : Registered sale deed dated 09-06-2009.
Ex.B.4 : Registered rectification deed dated 09-06-2009.
Ex.B.5 : Registered possessory sale agreement cum GPA dated 01-06-2009.
Id/- Y.G.K
I A.S.C.J.
Kakinada.