SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
S Murali Mohan and Others – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 150 of 2013
Decided on : 02-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. ANOOSHA, AGP FOR GP FOR APPEALS
For the Respondents: P VEERA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, BURLU CHANDRA SEKHAR, KARRI MURALI KRISHNA

The court affirmed that registered sale deeds establish ownership and possession, overriding claims of government assignment when not substantiated by evidence.

Headnote:(A) A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 - Sections 1, 2, and 3 - Permanent injunction - Plaintiffs sought injunction against defendants claiming ownership of assigned lands - Courts below found plaintiffs in possession and enjoyment of properties under registered sale deeds - Defendants failed to prove properties were assigned lands or that proper eviction procedures were followed. (Paras 10, 21)

(B) Second Appeal - Scope of review - In a second appeal, the court does not re-evaluate evidence unless there is a failure to consider material evidence or reliance on inadmissible evidence. (Paras 16, 21)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against defendants claiming ownership of lands, asserting they purchased properties under registered sale deeds prior to the suit. Defendants contended lands were assigned to others and sought to resume possession.

Findings of Court:
Both lower courts found plaintiffs established possession and enjoyment of properties, dismissing defendants' claims of ownership and eviction.

Issues: Whether plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunction without title declaration; whether properties were resumed by the government; whether plaintiffs were in possession at the time of suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that plaintiffs sufficiently proved possession through registered sale deeds, and defendants failed to demonstrate properties were assigned lands or that eviction procedures were followed.

Result: Second appeal dismissed, confirming lower court judgments.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 04-6-2012 in A.S.No.87 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 22-7-2011 in O.S.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. The appellants herein are defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are plaintiffs 1 to 5 in O.S.No.88 of 2007 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.88 of 2007 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from entering into or in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, decreed the suit with costs in favour of the plaintiffs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from entering into or in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule properties. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.88 of 2007, is as follows:

    (a) It is pleaded that the 1st plaintiff is the owner of plaint A-schedule properties purchased under a registered sale deed dated 18-9-2003 for valuable consideration of item No.1 from one V. Naga Bhusanam. The said Naga Bhusanam earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 01-7-1996 from Degappa and two others, who are the sons of one Golla Seshanna. The said Golla Seshanna, in turn, purchased earlier from the earlier owner Gowli Rudrappa under a registered sale deed dated 11-9-1950.

    The said Gowli Rudrappa purchased earlier under a registered sale deed dated 26-9-1947. Ever since, the 1st plaintiff and his predecessors had been in possession and enjoyment of it absolutely and independently in their own right.

    (b) It is further pleaded that the 2nd plaintiff purchased plaint B-schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 16-8-2001 from Annamma, wife of Buchanna. The said Annamma earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 27-01-1986 from one Chennamma, wife of Naganna. The said Chennamma earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 17-8-1973 from Chinna Kesanna and Naganna.

    (c) It is further pleaded that the 3rd plaintiff is the owner of plaint-C schedule properties, purchased item No.1 of plaint C-schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 16-10-1996 from one Danamaiah. The said Danamaiah and his brother earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 27-01-1986 from one Chennamma. The said Chennamma, in turn, purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 27-8-1973 from Chinna Kesanna and Naganna. The said documents show that earlier the said Chinna Kesanna and Naganna mortgaged the said property to Chennamma under a registered mortgage deed dated 23-9-1969 and to discharge the said mortgage, executed the registered sale deed dated 27-8-1973. It is further pleaded that the 3rd plaintiff also purchased item No.2 of plaint C-schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 09-3-1998 from Mohammed Khasim’s sons, Sheik Mohammed Alla Baksh and Sheik Mohammed Hussain. The said Mohammed Khasim earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 09-7-1984 from Thimmakka, wife of Telugu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top