Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Samudrala Govindrajulu, J.
Mallu Venkatraman Reddy
and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Gundluri Govinda Reddy
and Anr. —Respondents
SA No. 979 of 2013
Decided on 31.1.2013
For the Appellants:C V. Mohan Reddy for S. Srinivas Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S. V. Bhatt, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Defendant cannot be permitted to lead oral evidence contradicting contents of sale deed.
Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 92, Proviso 4—Evidence—Admissibility—Even if concurrent findings on facts recorded by Courts below arc acceptable on evidence, law does not permit such evidence in view of Proviso (4) to Section 92 of Evidence Act—Findings on facts recorded by Courts below on such inadmissible and irrelevant evidence become illegal—In absence of regular conveyance by properly stamped and registered document, defendant did not get any title to any part of plaint schedule property which was retained by plaintiffs after sale of plot to various purchasers including defendant. (Para 10)
(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 26 Rule 9—Report of Commissioner—Evidentiary value—Commissioner’s report is not regarded as substantial evidence and it can only be used for limited purpose of appreciating evidence which parties have lead with reference to what he personally saw on site when he inspected land and that it can never prove title or possession—Commissioner’s report in a suit cannot have any bearing in deciding title or possession, but it is relevant only to limited extent of noting physical features of land at the time of Commissioner’s visit and inspection. (Para 12)
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.—Unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. Originally the plaintiffs filed the suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit site. Subsequently plaint in the suit was got amended and prayer in the suit was altered from permanent injunction simplicitor to one of declaration of the plaintiffs’ title to the suit site and for consequential permanent injunction. The plaint schedule consists of Ac.0-07½ cents of house site out of Ac.l-02 cents in S.No.540/1 shown as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint plan. In the plaint plan, the plaint schedule site of Ac..07/1/2 cents is shown in red colour with boundaries and their measurements. It is located at 4 roads junction in Piler Village and Mandal, Chittoor District 4 road junction is at the intersecting point of Chittoor Kadapa Road and Madanapalle Tirupathi Road. It is the plaintiffs case that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased ‘ABCD’ site of the plaint plan totalling Ac.l-02 cents under Ex. A1 registered sale deed dated 21.8 .1967 from its owners and obtained possession thereof and that they have sold the same by way of plots to different persons and that Plot No.9 in blue colour in the plaint plan was sold to the 1st defendant under Ex.A10 registered sale deed dated 22.1.1974 and that red coloured portion of the plaint plan was retained by the plaintiffs for themselves and that the 1st defendant purchased his plot by way of two portions and that he has no right in red coloured portion of the plaint plan and that the defendants are calculating to lay foundations overnight on war footing in red coloured portion. The 1st defendant contended that the 1st defendant purchased 72 Ankanams of site from the plaintiffs on 22.1.1974. Out of which 36 Ankanams is in first item and another 36 Ankanams is in the second item of his sale deed and that the plaintiffs misrepresented and made the first defendant to believe that they have sold Plot No.8 to M.S.. Hameed. Saheb upto the wall of his house only and rest of the vacant site North of it belongs to them, and that the said plot was measured accordingly and that subsequently Hameed disclosed truth and occupied his site and that therefore in the year 1982 a qualified surveyor was brought by the plaintiffs and the plot was re-measured in the presence of elders and fraud played by the plaintiffs was discovered and the first defendant was asked to enjoy 48 feet East-West and 27 feet North-South equivalent to 36 Ankanams and that subsequently the first defendant sold 26 feet × 27 feet to K. Venkatramireddy under registered sale deed dated 5.5.1987 to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and K. Venkataramireddy in turn sold site of 12 feet × 27 feet to V. Prabhakar Reddy under another registered sale deed and that the 1st defendant was in possession of 36 Ankanams shown as second item and that the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming right in the extent sold to the 1st defendant and that the first defendant perfected right and title by way of adverse possession as he is in possession and enjoyment of green coloured portion of the sketch filed alongwith the written statement. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court confirmed decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal without costs. Therefore, the plaintiffs approached this Court with this second appeal.
2. While admitting the second appeal on 26.9.2012 the then learned Judge of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the Courts below have not properly considered the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the disputed suit schedule property based on title of the plaintiffs?
(2) Whether the Courts below have failed to properly consider the extent of the property that was purchased by the plaintiffs under registered sale deed da
