THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.1048 of 2017

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 07.06.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar in O.S.No.97 of 2012, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title and for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendant stating that they are the absolute owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.156 to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas situated at Rekurthi Village, having purchased the same through a registered document No.11687 of 2011, dated 23.12.2011 from the legal heirs of Mr.Shaik Junaid and since then, they are enjoying the suit schedule property peacefully. While the things stood thus, respondent/defendant without having any right or interest over the suit scheduled property, came in the month of March, 2012, along with her henchmen claiming right over the suit scheduled property alleging that she has purchased Ac.1-10 guntas of land which is part of suit scheduled property from one Mr.Pilli Anjaiah and others. Thereafter, several panchayats were held in between them but turned futile. On enquiry, the appellants/plaintiffs came to know that the vendor of the respondent/defendant i.e. Mr. Pilli Anjaiah has purchased Ac.1-10 guntas through unregistered sale deed from third parties and got mutated in the records of right vide proceedings No.ROR/7007/1997, dated 10.03.2011 and on the strength of it, he has sold the same to the respondent/defendant. In fact, the respondent/defendant’s vendor has no title over the suit scheduled property and that he was never in possession of the same. The respondent/defendant under fictitious document has got entered her name in the records of right by deleting the name of original vendor and thereafter, an appeal was filed before Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, for deleting the name of the respondent/defendant which is pending for disposal. As such, the appellants/plaintiffs prayed the trial Court to declare them as owners of the suit schedule property and also to grant injunction.

3. The respondent/defendant has filed written statements stating that the appellants/plaintiffs did not acquire title over the suit schedule property and that one Mr. Shaik Junaid was pattadar of the land bearing Sy.No.156 to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas, who sold away the same to Mr.Pilli Anjaiah through unregistered sale deed, dated 15.03.1984 for valid consideration of Rs.15,000/- and also delivered the vacant possession. Thereafter, the said Mr. Pilli Anjaiah got validated the simple sale deed vide proceedings No.ROR/7007/1997, dated 10.03.2001 under Section 5(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the ROR Act”). Thereupon, the Tahsildar issued 13-B and 13-C certificates to the said Mr.Pilli Anjaiah and thereafter, he sold the suit schedule property to the respondnet/defendant through registered sale deed vide document No.6189 of 2001, dated 23.10.2011 by delivery of the vacant possession. Further, the Tahsildar also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her favour. Thereafter, some disputes propped up between Mr.Pilli Anjaiah and legal heirs of late Shaik Junaid and the same has been amicably settled wherein the legal heirs executed rectification deed vide document No.6332 of 2011, dated 27.06.2011. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit with false and frivolous allegations of purchasing the suit schedule property from the legal heirs of late Shaik Junaid, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has settled the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of ownership in respect of suit schedule property ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relie