Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, G.BIKSHAPATHY
B.Narasimha Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Bhaskara Rao Joshi - Respondent
Decided On : 06-10-03
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Registration Act – Evidence Act - Section 41 - Executed a sale deed - Agreement of sale - Possession over suit property - Petition seeking leave to sue as an indigent person seeking declaration of his title to land in village bounded on East by border of North by road from House to West by border of House and South by after referred to as suit property and for an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his possession over suit property contending that he purchased suit property an agreement of sale from its pattadar for a total consideration of to him towards advance and took possession thereof – Held, In view of Judgments of Courts exercising probate matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction only are judgments in rem - A judgment in a suit of this nature cannot be said to be a judgment in rem as it binds only the parties to suit but not persons who are not parties to suit - Evidence clearly establishes possession of plaintiffs over suit property from date of agreement of sale between and first plaintiff - So as stated in above only a person having a right superior to that of plaintiffs can dispossess them by taking recourse to due process of law - As held on point defendants have no right or interest in suit property – Appeal dismissed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The suit property in question is land in S. Nos. 182/1 and 182/2 of Gudimalkapur village, with the plaintiffs claiming possession and ownership through an agreement of sale and subsequent sale deed executed by the original owner, Munuruddin (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs have established their possession over the suit property from the date of the agreement of sale, supported by documentary evidence such as revenue records, tax receipts, and other official documents indicating continuous possession and payment of land revenue by the plaintiffs (!) (!) .
The defendants’ claim that the property belonged to Mirza Dawar Ali Baig and was subsequently declared evacuee property was not substantiated by sufficient evidence. The records show that Munuruddin was the recorded pattedar of the suit land, and there is no conclusive proof that the property vested in the custodian of evacuee property or that it belonged to the evacuee owner (!) (!) .
The auction notices and sale certificates produced by defendants do not correspond to the suit property, and the evidence regarding the auction and transfer of evacuee property does not establish that the defendants acquired valid title to the suit land (!) (!) .
The evidence indicates that the suit property was never in possession of Mirza Dawar Ali Baig or the evacuee custodian, and the property was managed and possessed by Munuruddin and his successors, the plaintiffs. The entries in revenue records support this, and the alleged transfer or auction of evacuee property does not relate to the suit land (!) (!) .
The court found that the judgments of courts exercising probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency jurisdiction are judgments in rem, but this case involves a suit for declaration of title and possession, which are judgments in personam, binding only the parties involved (!) .
The plaintiffs successfully proved their title and possession, and the defendants failed to establish their claim of ownership or right over the suit property. The evidence showed that the plaintiffs have a better right to the land, and
( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 597 of 1969 on the file of the Court of II Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who are the unsuccessful appellants in C. C. C. A. No. 46 of 1985, are the appellants. First respondent is the second plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter would be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.
( 2 ) ONE Ramdas Maharaj @ Ramdasbrahmachari (first plaintiff) filed a petition seeking leave to sue as an indigent person seeking declaration of his title to Ac. 6. 14 gts. of land in S. Nos. 182/1 and 182/2 of gudimalkapur village, bounded on the East by the border of Moosi Karwan Sahu and kulsumpura, North by the road from lunger House to Hyderabad, West by the border of Moosi Lunger House, and South by the river Moosi, hereinafter referred to as the suit property, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit property, contending, inter alia, that he purchased the suit property under an agreement of sale dated 30-07-1956 from its pattader munuruddin for a total consideration of rs. 2,500/- and paid Rs. 100/- to him towards advance, and took possession thereof. After the death of Munuruddin on 15-07-1957, when he made a request to the heirs of Munuruddin to receive the balance sale consideration and execute a registered sale deed in his favour, they bargained and agreed to sell the suit property to him for rs. 10,000/- and had on 19-11-1966 executed a sale deed in respect of that property in his favour and got it registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. He also obtained permission from the Tahsildar under the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (1950 Act) for purchase of the suit property. The defendants, by creating a cloud over his title to the suit property, are trying to interfere with his possession over the suit property. Hence the suit.
( 3 ) SOON after filing of the petition seekingpermission to sue as an indigent person, first plaintiff passed away. Thereafter, second plaintiff, claiming to be a legatee under a will executed by the first plaintiff, came on record and continued the proceedings.
( 4 ) FIRST defendant remained ex parte in thetrial Court and the appeal and this appeal also.
( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 filed a writtenstatement disputing the validity of the Will said to have been executed by the first plaintiff and the status of the second plaintiff as legal representative of first plaintiff and his competency to continue the proceedings initiated by the first plaintiff, and also disputing the validity of the agreement of sale with Munuruddin and the sale deed said to have been executed by the legal representatives of Munuruddin in respect of the suit property in favour of the first plaintiff, and contending that they have purchased vacant land with a building bearing E. P. H. No. 142 (old), i. e. , 829 (new), corresponding to present E-6-829, 830, of an extent of Ac. 5. 39 Gts. at Moghal-ka-Nala, karwan Sahu village, bounded on the North by Moosi River, South by road to Golconda, east by Moghal-ka-Nala and West by graves, from the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 29-02-1968 for a valid consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and that that property was notified as an Evacuee property in 1950 by the Administrator of evacuee Properties, and that their vendor, i. e. , first defendant, had purchased the said property in a public auction that was held on 10-11-1960 and was put in possession thereof, and after purchase by them from the first defendant they were put in possession of that property, and that the second plaintiff, under the guise of the sale deed said to have been executed by the heirs of munuruddin, is trying to interfere with their possession over the property purchased by them from the first defendant, and since the property purchas
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
