Entries in revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be established by documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2021 in O.S.No.74 of 2018 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned III Additional District and Judge (FTC-II) at Khammam (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), the plaintiff preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

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

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

a) The sole plaintiff filed O.S.No.74 of 2018 against the sole defendant for declaration and delivery of possession in respect of suit schedule property. The brief averments of the plaint are as under:

i) The plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule lands. The defendant is the wife of plaintiff’s elder brother. As the plaintiff is residing at Hyderabad along with her husband and two daughters for their children’s education, the defendant entered her name in revenue pahanies in respect of suit schedule lands illegally with the help of forged documents. The plaintiff never executed any kind of document in favour of the defendant for the suit schedule lands.

ii) The plaintiff came to know about the alleged fraud committed by the defendant, when she visited Tahsild office at Mudigonda, Khammam District along with her husband. The defendant is also trying to sell away suit land to others to deprive the rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule lands forever. Hence, this suit.

b) In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant filed written statement, the brief averments of which are as under:

i) Due to the evil desire in view of hike of value of the property, without there being any right whatsoever over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has filed the suit to grab away the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has no valid title whatsoever to file the suit and the petition affidavit filed in support of the suit pleadings are nothing but to cause hardship and inconvenience to the defendant due to internal family disputes. The plaintiff filed the suit in order to harass and humiliate the defendant by way of hook or crook, as such, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit.

ii) The defendant purchased the suit schedule properties from the plaintiff for valid consideration through agreement of sale in the year 1999 and since then the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property.

iii) The defendant paid requisite stamp duty to the Tahsildar, Mudigonda over the suit schedule lands and the Tahsildar issued 13-B Form under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (hereinafter will be referred as ‘the Act’) vide C.No.104/ROR/2012 dated 01.02.2012 and thereafter the defendant obtained ROR title deed and pattadar passbook under the Act. Ever since the date of purchase, the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same and found the name of the defendant in the revenue records.

iv) The defendant also obtained passbook vide passbook No.T26110090034 vide Katha Nol.104 in respect of suit schedule properties and also the Government of Telangana issued Rythu Bandhu Scheme grant of Rs.49,900/- through cheques. The plaintiff sold away the agricultural land as she is not having any interest in the agricultural lands. The plaintiff suppressed the material facts and filed the suit with unclean hands.

c) The defendant filed additional written statement,