Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1212
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Bantu Poshetty, died per LRs, Bantu Rajaiah and four others - Appellant
Versus
Syed Ahmed, S/o Late Syed Ibrahim - Respondent
AS.No.315 of 2007
Decided on : 25-09-2024
For the Appellants: Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel for Sri V.Rohith
For the Respondent: Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Learned senior counsel for Sri P.Radhive Reddy
In title disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish title, and failure to prove validity of the sale deed or existence of all legal heirs results in dismissal of the claim.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act - Section 53-A - Arbitration Act, 1940 - Title dispute over agricultural land - The trial court decreed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession based on the sale deed executed by the legal heirs of the original owner - The appellate court found discrepancies in the sale deed, including missing legal heirs and lack of valid Hiba, leading to a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his title - The arbitral award was deemed inadmissible for not being registered as per the Arbitration Act. (Paras 2, 3, 44, 47)
(B) Burden of proof in title disputes - The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his title, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case - The plaintiff failed to establish a better title than the defendant, who had been in continuous possession since 1964. (Paras 44.1, 44.4)
Facts of the case:
The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking title and possession of agricultural lands, alleging that the defendant fraudulently obtained mutation and claimed ownership through an invalid sale deed. The defendant contended his title based on an earlier sale deed and continuous possession. (Paras 3-4)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court held that the plaintiff could not prove the validity of the sale deed or the alleged oral Hiba, leading to the conclusion that he could not claim title over the property. The arbitral award was also ruled inadmissible. (Paras 44, 47)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the sale deed, the existence of legal heirs, the validity of the arbitral award, and the burden of proof in establishing title. (Paras 1, 2, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's failure to prove the validity of the sale deed and the existence of all legal heirs led to the conclusion that he could not establish a better title than the defendant. The arbitral award was invalid for not being registered. (Paras 44.8, 47.16)
Result: Appeal allowed, trial court's judgment set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court's observations on the evidence and issues. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. examination of the legal validity of documents and evidence presented. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's analysis on the issues of title and possession. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion of the trial court's findings on the case. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. arguments presented by both parties during the appeal. (Para 23 , 25) |
| 7. final judgment and reasoning for the decision. (Para 46 , 48) |
| 8. conclusion of the appeal and order. (Para 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
The present Appeal Suit is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2007, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, in O.S.No.44 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the said suit was decreed with costs.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The aforesaid suit was filed seeking the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits from the date of suit till recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties, i.e., agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.387 (Ac.1.15 gts), Sy.No.390 (Acs.2-16 gts), Sy.No.391 (Acs.3-14 gts) and Sy.No.392 (Acs.2- 28 gts), totally admeasuring Acs.9-33 gts, situated at Khanapoor Village, Nizamabad District.
4. Briefly stated, the averments in the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff averred that late Syed Gesudaraz was the pattedar, owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties and he cultivated the said lands personally; that he was religious and pious; that in the year 1959-60, the said Gesudaraz leased out the suit schedule properties to the defendant; and that due to financial difficulties, he obtained certain small sums of money now and then from the defendant to be adjusted in the lease amount or to be repaid and thus, he was indebted to a tune of Rs.41,212.25 paise to the defendant. When the defendant demanded the said amount in the year 1983, the matter was referred to Arbitration consisting of five members. After filing of the written submissions and after hearing both the parties, an Award was passed on 02.03.1983 (Ex.Al) and the same was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Nizamabad on 31.03.1983. Thereafter, as the defendant failed to appear in response to the notice issued by the Sub Registrar, the Award could not be registered and consequently it was released by the Office of Sub- Registrar.
4.1. It was further averred that the defendant, taking advantage of the fact that late Gesudaraz was religious and pious, dishonestly approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, making false allegations and stating that Gesudaraz sold and registered the suit schedule properties in his favour and by producing a false sale deed bearing document No.2168/1968, dated 02.03.1968, (Ex.B7), and managed to get the suit schedule properties mutated in his name in the revenue records through proceedings No.D.Dis.C/710/88, dated 23.07.1988, without the knowledge of the pattedar. As soon as the pattedar came to know about the said fact, he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, for furnishing copies of the mutation proceedings, but, through memo No.A5/3083/94, dated 26.07.1993, it was informed that the relevant file is not readily available and the same will be supplied as soon as it is traced.
4.2. It was averred that the registered sale deed No.2168/1968, dated 02.03.1968, in fact, pertains to sale of land in Survey No.392 admeasuring Ac.0.31gts situated at Kanteshwar Village belonging to one Golla Laxmaiah and one M.Venkat Reddy and therefore, it is a different document. The defendant, by misrepresenting the facts and without there being any registered sale deed or document in his favour, managed to obtain mutation proceedings in his
