Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
Koyyada Andalu - Appellants
Vs.
Lingala Sathyanarayana - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 240 of 2014
Decided On: 28.04.2014
LAND DISPUTE - OWNERSHIP - ADVERSE POSSESSION - REVENUE RECORDS - BURDEN OF PROOF - ADMISSION OF TITLE - UNREGISTERED SALE DEED - A.P. RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASSBOOKS ACT, 1971 - SECTION 8(2) - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - CHAPTER VI - ADVERSE INFERENCE - FORGED DOCUMENT - MUTATION - TITLE TRANSFER - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - REVENUE OFFICIALS' DECISIONS - PRECEDENCE - PERVERSE FINDINGS - REVERSAL OF LOWER COURT JUDGMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the daughter of the original owner, filed a suit seeking declaration of her title and possession of two properties, 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, against the defendant, who claimed ownership through an unregistered sale deed and adverse possession. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the defendant had a half share in the properties and that the plaintiff failed to prove her title.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the trial court and the first appellate court erred in their findings. It held that the defendant failed to provide evidence to support his claim of a half share in the properties, and that the admission in his written statement that the plaintiff's father was the owner of the properties was sufficient to establish the plaintiff's title. The court also found that the unregistered sale deed relied on by the defendant was likely forged, as it was not produced and the plaintiff's name was incorrectly recorded. Additionally, the court held that the orders passed by the Revenue Officials under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, were not binding on the Civil Court and that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of her title and possession of both properties.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant had a half share in the properties, as claimed by him. 2. Whether the plaintiff proved her title to the properties. 3. Whether the unregistered sale deed relied on by the defendant was valid. 4. Whether the orders passed by the Revenue Officials under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, were binding on the Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and the defendant failed to provide evidence to support his claim of a half share in the properties. 2. The admission in the defendant's written statement that the plaintiff's father was the owner of the properties was sufficient to establish the plaintiff's title. 3. An unregistered sale deed is not valid to transfer title, and the defendant failed to produce the sale deed or provide a reasonable explanation for its absence, leading to an adverse inference that it was forged. 4. Under Section 8(2) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, a person aggrieved by an entry in the record of rights may file a suit for declaration of their right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the decision of the Civil Court shall prevail over the decision of the Revenue Officials.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the plaintiff's Second Appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, and declared the plaintiff as the owner of both 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The court also granted the plaintiff a perpetual injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property and possession of 'B' schedule property.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. Heard Sri D. Rama Krishna, counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Ananda Rao, counsel for the respondent at the stage of admission. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dt. 03.12.2012 in A.S. No. 37 of 2012 of the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda confirming the judgment and decree dt. 05-09-2011 in O.S. No. 163 of 2006 of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the above suit. She filed the said suit to declare that she is the absolute owner of the plaint-A schedule property and for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property; to declare that she is the owner of the plaint-B schedule property and for delivery of possession of the same after evicting the respondent/defendant therefrom; and for costs.
3. The plaint-A schedule property consists of an extent of Ac.6.28 gts. (dry) in Sy. No. 154 and Ac.1.02 gts. (wet) in Sy. No. 355 of Thangedapally village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District. The plaint-B schedule property is an extent of Ac.8.25 gts. (dry) in the same village.
4. The father of the plaintiff Lingala Yellaiah and the father of the defendant Lingala Kistaiah are brothers.
THE PLAINT
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that her father late Lingala Yellaiah was the owner of Ac.17.18 gts. in Sy. No. 154, Ac.8.25 gts. in Sy. No. 246 and Ac.2.05 gts. in Sy. No. 355 of the above village apart from other lands; that an extent of Ac.8.29 gts. in Sy. No. 154 and an extent of Ac.1.02 gts. in Sy. No. 355 were sold by the State in an auction for recovery of arrears due by him relating to an Excise contract; that these lands were purchased by one Syed Moinuddin in the said auction as per Excise Sale Certificate No. 4245 of 1952; that Syed Moinuddin sold the land purchased by him to the defendant's father late Lingala Kistaiah under a registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 558 of 1969; mutation was made in the Revenue Records in the name of the defendant's father and later in the name of defendant. The plaintiff further contended that in the remaining extent of Ac.8.29 gts. in Sy. No. 154, an extent of Ac.2.00 gts. was acquired by the Government and later utilised for a school building apart from house sites for the poor. She contended that the balance of Ac.6.29 gts. in Sy. No. 154 and Ac.1.03 gts. in Sy. No. 355 remained with the plaintiff's father and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. She contended that subsequent to his death, she came into possession of the said land and got mutated her name in the Revenue Records as per Faisal Patti for the year 1988-89.
6. She also contended that plaint-B schedule property was taken on lease from the plaintiff by the defendant in 1997 on crop share basis and was cultivating it but when she approached him for her share in the crop in April, 2006, he refused to give any share to her and claimed exclusive ownership over it. When she enquired in the Mandal Revenue Office, Chowtuppal, she came to know that the defendant had obtained a certificate in Form No. 13B under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') on the basis of an unregistered sale deed dt. 13-04-1956 allegedly executed by the plaintiff and her father late Yellaiah. She denied that there was any sale by her or by her father and that the said unregistered sale deed is nothing but a forged document. She also contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not hold any enquiry as prescribed under the provisions of the said Act before issuing the said certificate to the defendant and making entries in the passbook and pahanis for this property; that these proceedings were held without notice to her and therefore they would not confer any rights on the defendant in respect of the plaint-B schedule property.
7. She alleged that on 20-08-2006, when sh
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
