Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. AMARNATH GOUD, JJ.
Thota Venkat Reddy and others - Petitioners
Versus
Polamoni Jangaiah Golla Jangaiah and others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.229 of 2020
Decided On : 22-07-2020
Point of Law :
in respect of declaratory suits pertaining to immovable property period of limitation is governed by Articles 64 and 65, but not under Article 58 of the Act.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Recovery of possession - Bar of Limitation - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order passed on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar - Appellants herein are legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff therein - Case of the appellants - Said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that sale Deeds bearing Doc and Doc are null and void and not binding on them, and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property apart from giving a direction to the Revenue Officer to incorporate their names in the Revenue Records -
Finding of the Court:
Since it is admitted by plaintiffs that 18th respondent is in possession of the plaint schedule property, that it had also obtained permission from Gram Panchayat for construction of marriage hall in an area of 4908 sq. mts out of 13081.63 sq. mts in the suit schedule property, and since the relief claimed in 19 is to restrain the 18th respondent from altering or changing the nature of the suit schedule property, and since 18th respondent claims to have completed construction of the Marriage Hall prior thereto, we direct that pending disposal of the suit, 18th respondent shall not alter or change the nature of the suit schedule property other than 4908 sq. mts in which he had constructed the Marriage Hall -
Result: Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order dt.11.11.2019 passed in I.A.719 of 2019 in O.S.No.444 of 2019 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.
2. The appellants herein are legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff in O.S.No.444 of 2019 and the 2nd plaintiff therein.
The case of the appellants/plaintiffs
3. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that sale Deeds bearing Doc.Nos.371/1961 dt.15.06.1961 (Ex.P5), Doc. No. 161/1965 dt.15.02.1965 (Ex.P6) and Doc.No.295/1969 dt.16.04.1969 (Ex.P7) are null and void and not binding on them, and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property apart from giving a direction to the Revenue Officer to incorporate their names in the Revenue Records.
4. The suit schedule property is an extent of Acs.1.26 gts. and Acs.1.27 gts totaling to Acs.3.13 gts. in Survey Nos.1/A and 1/AA situate at Sathamrai Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as the’ suit schedule property’).
5. In the plaint, it is the contention of plaintiffs that they are brothers; that the entire Sathamrai Village was ex Jagir village and the individual cultivators of the respective lands in Jagir Village were deemed to be pattadars of the land under their occupation and possession; that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were in long standing possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as can be seen from the relevant Revenue Records; when the then Government of Andhra Pradesh denied the title of the family of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, the father of the plaintiffs along with his four brothers filed O.S.No.93 of 1964 before the Munsif Magistrate (West and South), Ranga Reddy District against the Government of Andhra Pradesh for declaration of title and consequent injunction; the said suit was decreed on 31.08.1996 (Ex.P4 is judgment and decree therein) by the said Court; and no appeal was filed against the said judgment and it attained finality.
6. According to the plaintiffs, the ownership of Babi Reddy, who is the grandfather of plaintiffs and absolute owner and possessor, has to be accepted since his name is reflected as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property in the Kasara Pahanies and other documents.
7. The plaintiffs contended that during the lifetime of their father there was a partition affected between himself and his brothers, and the suit schedule property fell to the share of their father; that their father died in 1986 or 1987 and they succeeded to the same equally and they continued to be in uninterrupted peaceful possession thereof.
8. They further contended that during the lifetime of the father of plaintiffs Late Papi Reddy, one Golla Jangamma, who was a poor widow rendered services to him by working as a house servant and in recognition of such services, he allowed her to stay in the house situated adjacent to the suit schedule property and later executed in her favor a nominal sale deed Ex.P5 dt.15.06.1961 in respect of House bearing Old No. 1-20 and new No.1-36 situate at Sathamrai Village adjacent to the suit schedule property in her favour without receiving any sale consideration; that the suit schedule property was never alienated to the said Golla Jangamma by the father of the plaintiffs; that the said Golla Jangamma is the mother of the 1st defendant and she had no title or possession to the suit schedule property; yet she appears to have sold it under a registered sale deed Ex.P6 dt.15.02.1965 in favour of Jayanthi Bhai Patel by receiving consideration; and that she had no authority to execute the said registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property.
9. It is contended that the said Jayanthi Bai Patel and his wife executed a sale deed in favour of Santha Ben Purushotham Patel on Ex.P7 dt.16.04.1969 and this document also did not create any right in the sa
