Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ramesh Ranganathan and S. Ravi Kumar, JJ.
Yarlagadda Yugandhar and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of A.P. and Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 169 of 2002
Decided On: 22.07.2015
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 80 – Appeal – Suit for declaration of title – According to plaintiffs, plaint schedule property is Dry land originally belonged to one According to plaintiffs and his ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land for more than 70 to 80 years and after the death of his wife and his only daughter enjoyed the said property till it was sold – According to plaintiffs, legal representatives sold away the plaint schedule property to one under a registered sale deed - Plaintiffs contended that was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and paid taxes to the Government and subsequently sold away said property to plaintiffs through a registered document – According to plaintiffs, at the time of execution of sale deed, second plaintiff was unmarried and her name was referred in the sale deed as daughter of and subsequent to her marriage, her surname is changed – According to plaintiffs, ever since the date of purchase, they have been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property – defendant filed written statement and it was adopted by second defendant and according to these defendants, plaint schedule property is land and vested with the Government on abolition of Estate – According to defendants or his ancestors were never in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and so also and plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property – According to defendants, sale deed dated is not true valid and not binding on the Government – Held, It is evident from a perusal of there is a correction in the survey number which in fact is admitted by P.W.2 in his evidence is corrected are original documents and there is no certification of these corrections on both these documents. One of the arguments of learned Senior Counsel on behalf of appellant is, as there is no change of boundaries, this correction of is insignificant – To appreciate his submission, it may be necessary to verify the sale deeds – On perusal of these two documents, we noticed in Ex.A.1, no boundaries are given and the same is recorded specifically in the document. But in specific boundaries are given and it is not known how these boundaries are arrived. So, from a comparison of documents Exs.A.1 and A.3, the argument of the counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted for simple reason that no boundaries are given in Ex.A.1, therefore, the principle of boundaries will prevail where there is a variation of survey number is no way applicable to case on hand – Learned counsel relied on a decision of Madras proposition that sometime transactions dealing with the property constitute the only evidence available – Learned counsel may be right in saying that sometimes courts have to consider the only evidence available and this principle with reference to can be applied provided transaction under these two documents are convincing. We are of the view that the same cannot be applied in plaintiffs for following reasons – Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
S. Ravi Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the decree and judgment in Appeal No. 2253 of 1986 dated First February, 2002 of this Court.
2. Appellants herein filed O.S. No. 343 of 1982 seeking relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for a consequential permanent injunction against the respondents herein.
3. According to plaintiffs, plaint schedule property is a dry land measuring 0-725 hectors (Ac.1.80 cents) in S. No. 46/4 of Kurmannapalem village and it originally belonged to one Shaik Meera. According to plaintiffs, Shaik Meera and his ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land for more than 70 to 80 years and after the death of Shaik Meera, his wife Sattar Bibi and his only daughter Rahamat Bibi enjoyed the said property till it was sold on 21-2-1966. According to plaintiffs, legal representatives of Shaik Meera sold away the plaint schedule property to one Sri P.V. Bapiraju under a registered sale deed dated 21-2-1966. Plaintiffs contended that Bapiraju was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and paid taxes to the Government and subsequently, sold away the said property to plaintiffs on 28-3-1981 through a registered document. According to plaintiffs, at the time of execution of sale deed, second plaintiff was unmarried and therefore, her name was referred in the sale deed as Kumari Koneru Girija Kumari, daughter of Prabhakar Rao and subsequent to her marriage, her surname is changed as Vallabhaneni. According to plaintiffs, ever since the date of purchase, they have been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. According to plaintiffs, second plaintiff is residing at Vijayawada with her husband and first plaintiff is looking after his business at Visakhapatnam. While so, in the 3rd week of December, 1982, first plaintiff on being informed by his friend that the plaint schedule land was sold away by Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam in public auction on 15-12-1982, he made enquiries and could trace a notice in Eenadu Daily dated 12-12-1982. According to plaintiffs, first plaintiff came to know that 3rd defendant purchased the suit schedule property in the auction at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per acre and that the second defendant has no right whatsoever over the plaint schedule land and thereby, cannot sell it in auction. According to plaintiffs, they and their predecessor having in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 60 years, have perfected their title by adverse possession and any rights of erstwhile Estate Holder and Government have become time barred. According to plaintiffs, Tahsildar or the District Collector has no power to declare a particular land as Government or Poramboke and even Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction to declare the same. According to plaintiffs, no right is vested with the Government, to auction the lands and the said auction is a malafide one with an intention to defeat the rights of plaintiffs. It is further contended that the motive of defendants is malafide and intended to cause loss to plaintiffs to help others and therefore, they are seeking reliefs of declaration and injunction.
4. First defendant filed written statement and it was adopted by second defendant and according to these defendants, plaint schedule property is a banjar land and vested with the Government on abolition of Estate. According to defendants, Shaik Meera or his ancestors were never in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and so also, Venkata Bapiraju and the plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. According to defendants, sale deed dated 28-3-1981 is not true valid and not binding on the Government. According to defendants, Government has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land till it was sold in the auction. Defendants further contended that in the auction conducted by Tahsildar on 15-12
SupremeToday
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
