THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT Nos.106 OF 2014 & 568 OF 2013

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Since the lis and parties involved in these appeal suits are same, these matters were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for appellants in AS.No.568 of 2013 and for respondents in AS.No.106 of 2014, and Sri P.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing the Office of learned Advocate General, for appellant in AS.No.106 of 2014.

3. These appeal suits are filed challenging the order dated 07.06.2013 passed in O.S.No.33 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar. The plaintiff in the said suit is appellant in A.S.No.568 of 2013 and the defendant Nos.3 to 6/State, in the said suit are appellants in A.S.No.106 of 2014.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.33 of 2007.

A.S.No.568 OF 2013

5. The plaintiff/appellant instituted O.S.No.33 of 2007 seeking declaration of title, perpetual injunction, partition, and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties situated in Sy.No.506 admeasuring Acs.17.31 guntas and in Sy.No.507 admeasuring Acs.13.05 guntas, totaling to Acs.30.36 guntas, at Kadhambapur Village, Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, stating that he is the grandson of late Kota Sadasiva Reddy, the original owner and possessor of the suit schedule land, and after the demise of Kota Sadasiva Reddy, the property was inherited jointly by his sons, i.e., including the father of plaintiff, and consequently by the plaintiff, along with defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are his siblings. The plaintiff contended that the suit lands had always remained in the possession of his family, as such, he sought for declaration of title, partition into three equal shares, and consequential reliefs.

6. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant Nos.3 to 6, who are official respondents (appellants in A.S.No.106 of 2014), fabricated the revenue records, including the Pahani Patrika from 1971-72 onwards, and unlawfully recorded the suit land as Government land. The plaintiff asserted that his grandfather had never relinquished his rights over the land and alleged that, acting at the behest of defendant Nos.7 and 8, the revenue records were tampered with, and that defendant No.7 was granted a mining lease for 5 acres of the suit land ; defendant No.8 had also applied for a similar lease, prompting their impleadment in the suit. That before the suit was filed, the plaintiff approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20510 of 2006 when lease proceedings in favor of defendant No.7 were underway, and this Court, vide order dated 24.07.2007, directed that the issue of title must be decided in a civil suit. Accordingly, the present suit was instituted.

7. It was the case of defendant Nos.3 to 6 that the grandfather of plaintiff relinquished his rights over the land in the year 1971 through a Rajinama (relinquishment deed), which led to the change in revenue records as per the Revenue Divisional Officer’s (RDO) proceedings dated 14.10.1971. However, they failed to produce the actual relinquishment deed or any official proceedings supporting the claim. That defendant No.6, the Assistant Director of Mines, filed a written statement adopted by defendant Nos.3 to 5, followed by defendant No. 7, the leaseholder, also adopting the same.

8. The trial Court, after examining the pleadings and evidence, held that the grandfather of plaintiff was the owner and possessor of the suit land, and based on admissions in the written statements of defendant Nos.3 to 6 and depositions of DW1 (Tahsildar) and DW2 (lessee), it was observed that there was no valid relinquishment deed on record, and that the mandatory provisions under Rule 16 of the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 had not been complied with. The trial Court noted discrepancies such as the absence of any proceeding number