THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA A.S.No.37 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

Heard arguments of both sides.

2. This appeal is filed against the Order dated 08.10.2021 in O.S.No.57 of 2020 passed by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

3. Appellant herein had filed a suit vide O.S.No.57 of 2020, against respondent for eviction and the same was dismissed on 08.10.2021. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant/plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

4. Appellant herein is the elder sister of respondent and she is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1-10 gts in Sy.No.51/2, situated at Lingapuram Village, Charla Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The appellant acquired the property from her father late Mutyala Sriramulu through pasupukunkuma on 19.07.1998. Since then, appellant herein is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, she given the suit land on lease to the respondent in the year 2000. The respondent used to give lease amount every year to the appellant. Later, he stopped the payment in the year 2015. On enquiry, appellant came to know that respondent occupied the suit scheduled land and got entered his name in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property and obtained pattadar passbook from the Telangana Government. The appellant filed a ROR case vide No.4/CHRL/2015 on the file of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam for cancellation of pattadar passbook obtained by the respondent for the suit schedule property. The respondent is no way concerned with the suit scheduled property and forcibly/illegally occupied the suit schedule property. The respondent remained ex-parte though notice was served upon him. But, the trial Court observed that no document is filed showing that appellant is the owner of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit was dismissed as not maintainable.

5. Perusal of the plaint shows that along with the plaint, appellant filed attested copy of the pattadar passbook of her father and also Xerox copy of agreement (pasupu kunkuma) executed by her father in her favour on 19.07.1998, original is with appellant’s father. The trial Court received the aforesaid two (02) documents, without considering the said documents regarding ownership, trial Court simply stated that no documents are filed showing that appellant is the owner of the suit schedule property and thus, the order of the trial Court is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a specific direction to consider the oral and documentary evidence of both sides and dispose of the matter within three (03) months from the date of this order by duly giving opportunity to both sides. Both the counsel are directed to cooperate with the trial for disposal of the suit within a stipulated time. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 13.11.2024 Ssy