Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple vs Sai Krupa Homes

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(AP) 348

2010(6)ALT699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.
The Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple
Vs.
Sai Krupa Homes rep. by Managing Partner, Sri Garavandulla Sambaiah S/o Lakshmaiah and Ors.
Appeal Suit No. 357 of 2001 and W.P. No. 12590 of 2001
Decided On: 28.04.2010

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: L. Prabhakar Reddy, Adv. in A.S. No. 357/2001 and C.M.P. No. 116 of 2006, A.B. Lalitha Gayathri, Assistant G.P. in A.S. No. 1468 of 2001 and O. Manohar Reddy, Adv. in W.P. No. 12590 of 2001
For Respondents/Defendant:N. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in A.S. No. 357 of 2001 and C.M.P. No. 116 of 2006,G.P. for Revenue for Respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 12590 of 2001 and L. Prabhakar Reddy, Adv. for Respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 12590 of 2001

Headnote:
Limitation Act - Article 65 and 151 - Relief of declaration - Title and ownership - Granted Record of Rights - Executive Officer against decree in O.S - On file of Senior Civil Judge - A.S. No - Is filed by Defendants i.e - Joint Collector District and Mandal Revenue Officer Patancheru against very same decree - Since parties are common both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment- Suit O.S - Of was instituted by Respondents in both appeals for relief of declaration of title and ownership of Sy - Admeasuring Ac - Cents and Sy - Also admeasuring Ac - At Hamlet of and for consequential perpetual injunction - The said suit was instituted by aforesaid Respondents on basis of registered sale deeds executed in their favour by their vendors under Document Nos - Of both - The aforesaid Respondents Plaintiffs also claimed that they have been granted Record of Rights fo year under Ex - And questioning said record of rights the Ex-Sarpanch of village had filed a revision before the Joint Collector Medak District in case No – And said revision petition was allowed by modifying said record of right by deleting name of Respondents and recording name of by order of Joint Collector – Held, Last of contentions of learned Counsel for Plaintiffs is based upon Exs - The minutes of renovation committee - Firstly said renovation committee neither has statutory basis nor its reports or minutes amount to any statutory adjudication - Similarly its recording of minutes that temple has no other land other land on which temple exists cannot extinguish title of Deity over suit land which preexists - Therefore merely because renovation committee has recorded in minutes that there are no other lands attached to temple does not mean that suit lands do not belong to temple when there is evidence to contrary as discussed and found - In view of answer to points for consideration in favour of Appellants as above appeals succeed and are therefore allowed and suit O.S - On file of learned Senior Civil Judge shall stand dismissed writ petition is primarily interlinked with and based on findings in appeals as above impugned order of Joint Collector directing correction of entries by showing name of as of suit lands has to be sustained in view of decision in appeals referred - Petition is dismissed

JUDGMENT

Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

1. A.S. No. 357 of 2001 is filed by the third Defendant - Executive Officer, Sri Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Beeramguda, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, against the decree in O.S. No. 55 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. A.S. No. 1468 of 2001 is filed by Defendants 1 and 2 i.e. Joint Collector, Medak District and Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru, against the very same decree.

2. Since the parties are common, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Suit O.S. No. 55 of 1997 was instituted by Respondents 1 to 5 in both the appeals for relief of declaration of title and ownership of Sy. Nos. 627/A and 674 admeasuring Ac. 11.00 cents and Sy. Nos. 627 and 674 also admeasuring Ac. 11.00 cents at Beeramguda Village, Hamlet of Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and for consequential perpetual injunction. The said suit was instituted by the aforesaid Respondents on the basis of registered sale deeds executed in their favour by their vendors under Document Nos. 6701 and 6702 of 1996 both dated 12.12.1996.

4. The aforesaid Respondents/Plaintiffs also claimed that they have been granted Record of Rights (ROR) for the year 1989-1990 under Ex.B31 and questioning the said record of rights, the Ex-Sarpanch of the village had filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Medak District, in case No. F3/5/Inam/96/F3/5060/95 and the said revision petition was allowed by modifying the said record of right by deleting the name of the Respondents and recording the name of Sri Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, by order of the Joint Collector dated 07.05.2001. Questioning the said order of the learned Joint Collector, the Respondents have filed WP. No. 12590 of 2001, which is also clubbed for hearing along with the aforesaid two appeals and is being disposed of by this judgment.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The relevant facts are as follows.

6. The suit schedule land of Ac. 22.00 cents is claimed by the first Plaintiff, which is a registered partnership firm and Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are its partners. Under the registered sale deeds dated 12.12.1996, marked as Exs. A1 and A2, the Plaintiffs claim that they have purchased the suit land from one T. Visweshwararao and Charka Raj @ Chakra Rao, sons of one T.V. Bhargava. It is claimed that the plaint schedule land fell to the share of their vendors as per compromise decree in O.S. No. 95 of 1984 dated 01.02.1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy. The Plaintiffs claimed that they have verified the title deeds and revenue records prior to purchase, had the schedule lands surveyed under a Panchanama by Survey Department dated 31.01.1994, marked as Ex. A6 and it is claimed that their vendors were enjoying the suit schedule land as absolute owners and pattadars right from 1345 Fasli (1934 AD) and from 1950-51 up to 1995-96 without any interruption and as such, even by prescription acquired title. The Plaintiffs filed and marked their partnership deed as Ex. A3 and certified copies of title deeds were marked as Exs. A4 and A5 apart from Pahanis for the year 1965-66 - Ex. A8; 1971-72 EX. A9; 1974-75 to 1980-81 - Exs. A10 to A14; 1985-86 - Ex. A15; 1991-92 - Ex. A16 and 1995-96 - Ex. A17. The Plaintiffs also filed land revenue receipts - Exs. A18 to A33; Encumbrance certificates - Exs. A34 and A35; acknowledgement of registration of firm - EX. A36; certified copy of Wasool Baqui of 1344 Fasli (1935 AD) - Ex.A37 and Ex.A38 - Setwar of 1330 Fasli (1919). In addition to that they relied upon Ex.A39 memo issued by the MRO, Patancheru Mandal dated 21.04.1994 and Ex. A40 memo issued by the Joint Collector, Medak District dated 26.08.1977, to claim that the said authorities had certified that the aforesaid suit lands are not Inam lands but patta lands. It is further alleged that when they dug bore-well and were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(AP) 348

Cases Referred (26)