Entries in revenue records do not confer title; possession follows title, and a suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when ownership is not disputed.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Permanent injunction - The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendant regarding possession of land, claiming ownership through partition and mutation in revenue records. The trial court granted the injunction, but the lower appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the second appeal. The court emphasized that mere entries in revenue records do not confer title and that possession follows title, reaffirming that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 12, 38)

(B) Substantial Questions of Law - The court addressed whether the lower appellate court was justified in finding title for the defendant based on evidence lacking validity and whether the plaintiffs had established their title and possession. The court ruled that the lower appellate court erred in its findings, as the plaintiffs were the real owners of the property. (Paras 11, 38)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of land through partition and sought an injunction against the defendant, who contested their ownership and claimed possession. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the lower appellate court reversed this decision, prompting the second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower appellate court's reliance on revenue records was misplaced and that the plaintiffs were indeed the rightful owners of the land.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the lower appellate court's findings regarding title and possession, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction without seeking a declaration of title.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lower appellate court's findings were not supported by evidence and that the plaintiffs' title was not in dispute, thus they were entitled to the injunction.

Result: The Second Appeal is allowed, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment.

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants-respondents- plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2007 passed in A.S.No.30 of 2006 by the IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 in O.S No.323 of 2001 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court as plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The plaintiff No.1 filed the suit in O.S No.323 of 2001 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, workmen and all the persons acting on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, open land admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas situated in part of Sy.No.89 situated at Rangashaipet Village, Warangal Mandal and District.

4. The contention of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas forming part of Sy.No.89 situated at Rangashaipet Village, Warangal Mandal and District. The land in Sy.No.89 was consisting of Ac.1-27 guntas. The plaintiff got the same in partition with his brothers decades ago. Ever since then, the name of the plaintiff was mutated as pattedar and he was paying land revenue to the concerned authorities. The State Government had issued Raithu passbook, recognized the title, interest and right of the plaintiff in Sy.No.89. Out of Ac.1-27 guntas, the plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.0-33 guntas to Sri Gade Veeraiah (now late) and delivered the possession of the same, which was towards the North and West sides of the suit land. The name of Gade Veeraiah was recorded in the revenue records as having been purchased from the plaintiff. The right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the entire Sy.No.89 was undisputed. Towards Eastern side of the said land, a 100 feet wide road was laid connecting the hunter road with Khammam road by constructing a flyover Railway Track, near Warangal Railway Station in 1999. Because of the developmental activities adjacent to the said property, the price of the said land escalated catching the eyes of the land grabbers including the defendant. The defendant was a toddy tapper by caste and profession and he was also a land grabber. Because of the increase of market value and illegal attempts of land grabbers in the near vicinity, the plaintiff wanted to erect fencing around the suit land and collected stone pillars for erection of barbed fencing. On 06.03.2001 and 11.03.2001, the defendant with an intention to obstruct the laying of fencing, came over the suit land with un-social elements. The plaintiff was aged 75 years. With the help of his sons, the plaintiff could protect his possession on the spot. The defendant was residing in the village, but the plaintiff was a resident of a nearby town. To protect his right and possession over the suit land, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction.

5. The defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor the possessor of any inch of land in Sy.No.89 situated at Rangashaipet, much less, the suit land at any point of time till date. He denied that the plaintiff got the alleged suit land in partition with his brother. He contended that the defendant and his brother got the land through their ancestors and they were peacefully enjoying the same. The same was evidenced with revenue records. The Government acquired the land to an extent of Ac.0-4 ½ guntas vide RC.No.M/933/94, LAO (RDO), Warangal out of Sy.No.89 for laying 100 feet road and paid compensation to the defendant family and to Gade Veeraiah family for their respective extents after thorough enquiry. Taking advantage of the name of the plaintiff wrongly recorded in the revenue records, the suit was filed with a malafide intention for illegal gain. The plaintiff was intending to grab the land of the defendant. The defendant had already fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 10509

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANAG.RADHA RANI, JVaddiraju Ranga Raodied as per L.Rs – AppellantVersusVitasagaram Sudershan – RespondentSA/221/2007

Entries in revenue records do not confer title; possession follows title, and a suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when ownership is not disputed.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.RADHA RANI, J
Vaddiraju Ranga Raodied as per L.Rs – Appellant
Versus
Vitasagaram Sudershan – Respondent
SA/221/2007