Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARASIMHA REDDY
K.RAMABRAHMAM S/O VENKAIAH - Appellant
Versus
G.NARSINGH RAO - Respondent
Decided On : 07/14/2006
SECOND APPEAL 143 Of 1994
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – Section 50-B – Mortgage of property – Loan – Non payment of - Appellant – pleaded that the mother of the respondent herein, by name borrowed certain amount from him, in connection with the marriage of her daughter in by mortgaging the suit land to him - He stated that could not repay the amount, by the executed an unregistered sale deed in his favour, for the said land, for a consideration possession is said to have been delivered on the same day however, pleaded that the unregistered sale deed was misplaced, and lost by him. According to the appellant, he cultivated the land ever since the date of the sale, and that his name was entered in various revenue records - It is also his case that he mortgaged the land to the Large Size Co-operative Society, Aroor, and obtained loan - According to him, the respondent was elected as president of the said Society and he too had sanctioned loan on the mortgage of the suit land differences are said to have arisen between the respondent and his mother. It is alleged that the respondent dispossessed the appellant from the suit land in the 1967 pleaded that he filed an application, under Section 50-B of the A. P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, before the Tahsildar, ramannapet, for grant of validation certificate for the suit land, and that the same was pending as on the date of filing the suit –Held, ON facts also, this Court finds that there were no bona fides on the part of the appellant in filing the suit reason is that, appellant was admittedly a Gumasta/employee of the family of the respondent, for more than a decade, and was in-charge of maintenance of records was conversant with the procedures, in the matter of execution of documents etc. He himself executed a mortgage deed marked as Ex. A-29, as regards the suit land and other properties in favour of the Co-operative Society. Ex. A-31 is a registered sale deed dated executed by, in favour of in respect of three acres of land in Aroor village. On the same day, she executed another sale deed in favour of one Certified copy thereof, is filed by the appellant himself, and it is marked as is a certified copy of the sale deed executed by the same lady documents clearly disclose that whenever wanted to sell any land, she did it through registered sale deeds, and the appellant was very much participating in the transactions, as her Clerk is unimaginable that a large extent of 15 acres is sold to the appellant on the strength of a receipt – Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
( 1 ) THE appellant filed O. S. No. 3 of 1982 in the Court of District munsif, Rammanapet, against the respondent, for the relief of declaration, that he is the owner of 15 acres of land in Sy. No. 282 of aroor village, and for recovery of possession of the same from the respondent. He also claimed past mesne profits, at the rate of rs. 500/- per annum, for three years, prior to the date of filing of the suit.
( 2 ) THE appellant pleaded that the mother of the respondent herein, by name, Radha Bai, borrowed certain amount from him, in connection with the marriage of her daughter in or about 1950, by mortgaging the suit land to him. He stated that since Radha Bai could not repay the amount, by the year 1954, she executed an unregistered sale deed dated 23-04-1954, in his favour, for the said land, for a consideration of Rs. 750/ -. The possession is said to have been delivered on the same day. He, however, pleaded that the unregistered sale deed was misplaced, and lost by him. According to the appellant, he cultivated the land ever since the date of the sale, and that his name was entered in various revenue records. It is also his case that he mortgaged the land to the Large Size Co-operative Society, Aroor, in the year 1961 and obtained loan. According to him, the respondent was elected as president of the said Society in the year 1963 and he too had sanctioned loan on the mortgage of the suit land. In the year 1967, differences are said to have arisen between the respondent and his mother. It is alleged that the respondent dispossessed the appellant from the suit land in the 1967. He pleaded that he filed an application, under Section 50-B of the A. P (Telangana Area)Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, before the Tahsildar, ramannapet, for grant of validation certificate for the suit land, and that the same was pending as on the date of filing the suit. The appellant made extensive reference to various steps, that ensued between himself and the respondent for amicable settlement of the dispute.
( 3 ) THE respondent filed written-statement, denying the allegation of the appellant. It was pleaded that after the death of his father, i. e. Sri Balvanth Rao, his mother Radha Bai was administering the properties, and since he was only a boy of very young age, his mother employed the appellant herein, as Gumasta, to look after the properties and to maintain the office of Patwari. He alleged that taking advantage of the access to the revenue records, the appellant made certain wrong entries, and being a President of the Society, for a term, he sanctioned loan to himself, on the alleged mortgage of the suit property. The respondent asserted that neither his mother nor himself borrowed president of the said Society in the year 1963 and he too had sanctioned loan on the mortgage of the suit land. In the year 1967, differences are said to have arisen between the respondent and his mother. It is alleged that the respondent dispossessed the appellant from the suit land in the 1967. He pleaded that he filed an application, under Section 50-B of the A. P (Telangana Area)Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, before the Tahsildar, ramannapet, for grant of validation certificate for the suit land, and that the same was pending as on the date of filing the suit. The appellant made extensive reference to various steps, that ensued between himself and the respondent for amicable settlement of the dispute.
( 4 ) THE respondent filed written-statement, denying the allegation of the appellant. It was pleaded that after the death of his father, i. e. Sri Balvanth Rao, his mother Radha Bai was administering the properties, and since he was only a boy of very young age, his mother employed the appellant herein, as Gumasta, to look after the properties and to maintain the office of Patwari. He alleged that taking advantage of the access to the revenue records, the appellant made certain wrong entries, and being a Pres
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.