IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that claimants must provide clear evidence of ownership and cannot rely solely on revenue records to establish title.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.10.2023 in E.A.No.36 of 2010 in E.P.No.12 of 2010 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order) passed by the learned I Additional District Judge at Khammam (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Executing Court’), the claim petitioners have preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Executing Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the appellants to file the present appeal, are as follows :

(a) The claim petitioners filed claim application vide E.A.No.36 of 2010 in E.P.No.12 of 2010 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to release the petition schedule property from the suit as well as E.P. proceedings by dismissing the claim of respondent No.1/plaintiff and to declare the claim petitioner No.1 as owner and possessor of the petition schedule property. The brief averments of the claim petition are as under:

(i) The claim petitioners are none other than wife and children of respondent No.2/defendant, against whom the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract vide O.S.No.7 of 2007 and subsequently E.P. No.12 of 2010 was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff.

(ii) The defendant, who is the husband of claim petitioner No.1, has not taken care of the claim petitioners as he was addicted to alcohol and all bad vices and obtain loans. The claim petitioners are living separately since 1993 from the defendant as per the settlement of the elders. The mother in law of the claim petitioner No.1 kept the agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 13.00 guntas (i.e., an extent of Ac.8.00 guntas in Sy.No.307/A/1 and an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.376 both are in compact bit) situated at Patharlapadu Village, Tirumalyapalem Mandal. Since then the claim petitioners are enjoying the same without any interruption.

(iii) Originally the father of defendant namely Seetharami Reddy was the pattedar of the property and after his death, the property was mutated in the name of mother of defendant by name Anasuyamma. During her life time, in the year 1993 due to acts of defendant, she mutated the petition schedule properties in the name of claim petitioner No.1 for the welfare of the claim petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Since then the claim petitioner No.1 was maintaining the property by paying land revenue. The name of claim petitioner No.1 was entered into relevant records and got issued title deed and pattadar pass book on her name and also obtained loan from Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Patharlapadu Village by keeping pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

(iv) The claim Petitioner No.1 is having title over the property. The defendants are not having any right over the property. The claim Petitioner No.1 became absolute owner as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot proceed against the EP schedule property. Hence, the claim petitioners filed the present claim petition for the reliefs as stated supra.

(b) In reply to the claim petition, the plaintiff filed counter, the brief averments of which are as under:

(i) The claim petitioners, who are the wife and children of defendant colluded among themselves and filed the present petition with a view to grab the property to execute a decree which was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The claim petitioners got foisted a false case by creating a mutation of revenue records on her name.

(ii) The claim petitioners and defendant executed an agreement of sale twice in favour of Pendavulu Komaraiah, a retired teacher, R/o. Jogulapadu (V), Tirumalayapaelm (M), Khammam District and one Jatla Srinivasa Rao, R/o. Lakshmipuram village of Konijerla Mandal. They habituated to create false documents in order to extract money from the persons. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition with exemplary costs.

(c) The claim