V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. All these civil revision petitions are filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, challenging an order passed by the Joint Collector, under Section 90(1) of the Act

2. We have heard Mr. Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel, Sri C. Raghu, Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon-Mr. D. Hanumantha Rao and Mr. D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents, Mr. E. Ajay Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for some of the respondents and Mr. Vijay B. Paropakari, learned Counsel appearing for the impleaded parties.

3. The case on hand has a chequered history with litigation multiplying at every opportunity and the parties on all sides competing with each other to reach the peak of unscrupulousness.

4. As if to add more complexity to the facts as well as the legal issues into this already complicated litigation, all the parties to this litigation, without exception, have come out only with half facts. Therefore, to the extent possible, we have put together the bits and pieces that are scattered around and have attempted to draw a full picture of the background facts. It is as follows:

Background Facts:

5. According to the contesting respondents, the land of a huge extent in Survey Nos. 31, 51, 54 and 55 etc., in Madinaguda Village belonged to the family of one Raja Jagannath Pershad. Unfortunately, none of the parties to this litigation have taken care either to find out or to disclose the genealogy tree with the dates of death of each member of the family and the number of legal heirs left behind by every deceased member of the family. Though the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents produced a genealogy tree, the correctness of the same is questioned by the others. In any case, the death certificates as well as the legal heirship/succession certificates of the deceased are not furnished, leaving us in wilderness. Therefore, the background facts that we would narrate here may not really be fully accurate, but the advantage that we have here, is that none of the parties to this litigation can challenge its accuracy, as none of them is in possession of the whole information.

6. Therefore, from the information made available to us, it appears that the aforesaid landed property stood in the name of one Nehalo Bibi, wife of one Rai Harilal, who was also the daughter and common ancestor to Raja Jagannath Pershad. It must be recorded at this stage that no document of title is produced before us to show that Nehalo Bibi was owner, but her name was shown as the landholder in the Protected Tenancy Register.

7. It appears that the name of one Kurma Komriah was also shown as a tenant in the Protected Tenancy Register.

8. According to the contesting respondents, Nehalo Bibi's husband died in the year 1954 and she herself died on 3.3.1963, without leaving any Class-I heirs. But the respondents claim that Rai Harilal had another wife by name Champa Devi and that therefore upon the death of Nehalo Bibi, mutation was effected in favour of Champa Devi and one Ms. Ear Kuvar Pershad. This Har Kuvar Pershad is stated to be one of the four children of one Raja Narayan Pershad, the brother of Nehalo Bibi.

9. To have a better understanding of the so-called devolution of title (in support of which no death certificates and no legal heirship certificates are produced), the genealogy tree furnished by one of the contesting respondents is reproduced as follows:

Raja Jagannath Pershad

Nanki Bibi, W/o Anandi Pershad (Had children) Nihalo Bibi, W/o, Rai Harilal (Issueless)

Raja Narayan Pershad Died 1939

Raja Hari Kishen Pershad DoD 1979 Raja Sri Kishen Pershad (divorcee) DoD 1974 Guru Kuvar Abbi (DoD 1989) Issueless Ms. Har Kuvar Pershad (DoD 16-5-2002) (Not married)

Raj Kishen Pershad Swarrop Dhupar, W/o. S.P. Dhupar Tej Tandon, W/o. Dilip Tandon Prem Kishen Pershad

Raj Harilal,