Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
P. Madhava Naidu – Petitioner
Versus
B. Kanthamma and Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No.655 and 650 Of 2015
Decided On : 16-06-2023
For the Petitioner: M. P. Chandramouli.
For the Respondents: O. M. R. Law Firm.
The validity of a ryotwari patta cannot be adjudicated by a civil court unless obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, or collusion, as per Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Inams Act.
Headnote:
Ryotwari Patta - Property Dispute - Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Inams Act - Section 100 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a plot of land, with the plaintiff seeking a declaration of title and consequential injunction. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The second appeals were presented under Section 100 CPC, arising from the same judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's title over the disputed property was proved through registered sale deeds and a ryotwari patta obtained in accordance with the law. The defendants failed to establish their rights over the property, and the courts below accurately confirmed the findings of the trial court.
Issues: The main issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff for declaration of title and consequential injunction, as well as the validity of the ryotwari patta granted under the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Inams Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the validity of the ryotwari patta could not be adjudicated by a civil court, as per Section 14 of the Act, unless obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, or collusion. As there was no evidence of such wrongdoing, the patta was held to be in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The second appeals were dismissed, confirming the judgment of the first appellate court in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
1. Both the Second Appeals arose out of one judgement of the Courts below and therefore both sides argued them together and they are to be disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Smt.B.Kanthamma filed O.S.No.291 of 2000 as against 7 defendants. An immovable property which is a plot of land was in controversy and that was shown in the schedule appended to the plaint. The relief claimed by the plaintiff was for declaration of title over the property and she also sought for consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot of land. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati tried the suit and by a judgment dated 10.12.2002, it decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
3. In the above referred suit, first defendant was Sri P.Madhava Naidu. He alone preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.97 of 2002 before learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The plaintiff in the suit Smt.B.Kanthamma was shown as respondent No.1 in the first appeal. Defendant No.2 to 7 in the suit did not prefer an appeal and therefore they were shown as respondent Nos.2 to 7 in the first appeal. After due hearing on both sides, the learned first appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same and as a consequence it confirmed the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial Court.
4. The first defendant in the suit Sri. Madhava Naidu who lost his first appeal filed the S.A.No.655 of 2015 in which the plaintiff in the suit Smt.B.Kanthamma is shown as respondent No.1 and the remaining defendants are shown as remaining respondents. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the sole appellant in S.A.No.655 of 2015 died and her legal representatives came on record as appellant Nos.2 to 6.
5. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 in the suit though did not prefer any first appeal came up with Second Appeal No.650 of 2015 in which the plaintiff Smt.B.Kanthamma is shown as respondent No.1 and defendant No.1 in the suit Sri.P.Madhava Naidu is shown as respondent No.2. During the pendency of that Second Appeal appellant No.6 died and therefore his legal representatives came on record as appellant Nos.9 and 10.
6. Both these Second Appeals were presented under Section 100 CPC and they arose out of same judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
7. A learned judge of this Court after hearing the learned counsel and after considering the material on record admitted S.A.No.655 of 2015 on 09.10.2015 on a substantial question of law in the following terms:
“Whether a patta for house site under Ex.A3 can be granted in favour of first respondent/plaintiff under A.P. Abolition of Inams Act?”
8. Also a learned judge of this Court after hearing the learned counsel and after considering the material on record, admitted S.A.No.650 of 2015 on 13.11.2017 on a substantial question of law in the following terms:
“Whether a patta for house site under Ex.A3 can be granted in favour of first respondent/plaintiff under A.P. Abolition of Inams Act?”
9. Learned counsel on both sides submitted their arguments on the questions that were formulated and referred earlier.
10. A brief narration of the legal journey that preceded these two appeals is required to be noticed in order to appreciate the rival contentions. Tiruchanur village in chittor district is a minor inam village. The property in dispute is in Survey No.242. The plaint schedule narrates the measurements of the property in dispute, definite boundaries on all four sides for that piece of land. The said property is described as a house site. It is stated that this plaint schedule property mentioned is house site plot No.435. It is about this property, the dispute arose among parties. Before proceeding further, it is to be noticed that there is a woman by name Smt. Rajamma who is the mother of defendant No.1 Sri P.Madhava Naidu. He claimed to have purchased several plots of land in the name of his mothe
