Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : I.P.RAO
Chakala Anjappa - Appellant
Versus
Betappagari Anjaneya alias Anjappa - Respondent
Decided On : 04-26-90
CIVIL PROCEDURE - JURISDICTION - INAM ABOLITION ACT - CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE TITLE TO LAND - ROUGH PATTA ISSUED BY SETTLEMENT OFFICER DOES NOT DECIDE TITLE - EXECUTION OF SALE DEED BY KARTA OF JOINT FAMILY - MINOR CO-PARCENER BOUND BY SALE DEED - ADVERSE POSSESSION - BURDEN OF PROOF - STRAY ENTRIES IN VILLAGE RECORDS DO NOT CONFER TITLE - PAYMENT OF TAX NOT AN INDICATION OF POSSESSION AND TITLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule properties. Subsequently, the plaint was amended seeking the relief of declaration of title. The suit property consists of two items of wet land measuring Ac. 1. 23 cents and Ac. 1. 74 cents, and a house constructed on seven Ankanams of site together with a well and a pump set.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title to the suit property, notwithstanding the issuance of a rough patta by the Settlement Officer under Section 11 of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. 2. Ex. A-1 sale deed executed by the second defendant as the karta of the joint family is binding on the first defendant, who was a minor co-parcener at the time of its execution. 3. The first defendant failed to establish that Ex. A-1 was a nominal document not intended to be acted upon. 4. The first defendant did not take any steps to avoid Ex. A-1 sale deed within three years of attaining majority. 5. The first defendant failed to prove that he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title to the suit property, notwithstanding the issuance of a rough patta by the Settlement Officer under Section 11 of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act? 2. Whether Ex. A-1 sale deed executed by the second defendant as the karta of the joint family is binding on the first defendant, who was a minor co-parcener at the time of its execution? 3. Whether the first defendant established that Ex. A-1 was a nominal document not intended to be acted upon? 4. Whether the first defendant took any steps to avoid Ex. A-1 sale deed within three years of attaining majority? 5. Whether the first defendant proved that he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court has held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on the real nature of the land is not ousted under Section 64-C of the Tamilnadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 by reason of the Settlement officer's decision to grant or refuse to grant a patta under Section 11 read with the proviso to Section 3 (d) of the Act. 2. A sale deed executed by the karta of a joint family is binding on the minor co-parceners, unless it is shown that the sale was not for the benefit of the family. 3. The burden of proving that a sale deed is a nominal document not intended to be acted upon lies on the person who asserts it. 4. A minor who attains majority is required to take steps to avoid a voidable transaction within three years of attaining majority. 5. The burden of proving adverse possession lies on the person setting up that plea. Stray entries in the village records for one or two years do not confer title, and payment of tax is not an indication of possession and title.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal and cross-objections are dismissed, but without costs.
( 1 ) THE first defendant is the appellant herein. The suit was originally filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff s possession over the plaint schedule properties. Subsequently, the plaint was amended seeking the relief of declaration of title. The plaintiff is the father-in-law as well as the sister s husband of the first defendant. The second defendant is the elder brother of the first defendant and the third defendant is the mother of defendants 1 and 2. The fourth defendant is another sister of the first defendant. The suit property consists of two items of wet land measuring Ac. 1. 23 cents and Ac. 1. 74 cents, and a house constructed on seven Ankanams of site together with a well and a pump set.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case is that he purchased the unit property and some other properties from the second defendant who executed Ex. A-1 sale deed on his behalf and on behalf of the first defendant as karta of the joint family to meet the expenditure for digging a well and for family necessity, that the first defendant did not take any steps to get the sale set aside after attaining majority; that the plaintiff took possession of the properties purchased by him and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then, that on 1-3-1977, the second defendant trespassed into item No. 1 of the plaint schedule and objected for the ploughing; that he also trespassed into the house and tried to break open the locks and that the defendants have been obstructing the plaintiff from raising sugar cane crop in the suit land. The plaintiff further pleaded that in the sale deed dt. 11-6-1953, which is marked as Ex. A-52, under which the first defendant purchased some property from one Gaddi Agasthya Reddy, the northern boundary is described as that of the plaintiff and as such, the defendants are estopped from questioning the title of the plaintiff.
( 3 ) THE common defence set up by all the defendants is that the sale deed ex. A-1 dated 22-3-1948 is nominal and not intended to be acted upon; that in fact the said said deed was not acted upon; that the plaintiff never took possession under the sale sale deed and was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; that as the second defendant was innocent, the third defendant got the sale deed executed by the second defendant in order to prevent the second defendant from wasting away the properties; that defendants 1 to 3 continued to be in possession and that there was no necessity for the family to alienate the suit properties. Subsequently, the first defendant filed an additional written statement pleading that after the estate of Punganur Zamindar was taken over by the Government, the Survey and Settlement authorities granted a patta in favour of the first defendant and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
( 4 ) THE first defendant explained that when he purchased some properties adjoining the suit land, he did not go to the Sub-Registrar s Office and that he is not aware that the northern boundary in the said sale deed was shown as that of the plaintiffs land. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff came from Mysore State one year prior to the suit and the first defendant permitted him to reside in a portion of the southern side of the farm house because the plaintiff is his father-in-law.
( 5 ) THE plaintiff filed a re-joinder pleading that the first defendant who is a legal practitioner at Punganur might have played fraud against the village officers and Government officials in securing a rough patta which was brought to light only at the time of filing the additional written statement; that the survey authorities have no right to issue any rough patta and that even if the patta is issued, it is not valid and operative and does not bind the plaintiff. During the course of trial, the third defendant filed a separate written statement stating that defendants 1 and
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
