SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
CHATTI KONATI RAO – Appellant
Versus
PALLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO – Respondent
C.A. No.-006039-006039 / 2003 07-12-2010



Advocates:
V. G. PRAGASAMNEERU VAID

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6039 OF 2003

Chatti Konati Rao & Ors.

…. Appellants

Versus

Palle Venkata Subba Rao

…. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

1.

Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of plaintiff No. 2, whereas

original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were brother and sister of the

second plaintiff. Both the defendants died during the

pendency of the suit. The heirs and legal representatives of the

first defendant were substituted in his place and they had

contested the suit.

2.

Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession in respect

of several properties mentioned in schedule of the plaint and

in the present appeal we are concerned with Schedule – I

property i.e. four acres of land pertaining to R.S. No. 44/3

situate at village Vijjeswaram, hereinafter referred to as the

land in dispute.

3.

According to the plaintiffs their predecessor-in-interest

viz., one Venkata Ramana Rao, who happened to be the father

of plaintiff No. 1 and husband of plaintiff No. 2, was the owner

of land in dispute. Venkata Ramana Rao was a Government

employee and in his absence defendant No. 1 i.e. elder brother

of second plaintiff used to look after his property. Said

Venkata Ramana Rao died in the year 1948 and thereafter the

plaintiffs came back to the village and started looking after the

agricultural land including the land in dispute. Plaintiff’s case

further is that again in the year 1954 they shifted their

residence to Kakinada for education of the first plaintiff and

defendant No. 1 was asked to look after the land in dispute.

In the year 1974 when the defendant declined to deliver

2

possession of the land in dispute, lawyer’s notice dated 6th

April, 1974 was issued calling upon the defendants to hand

over the property. Defendant No. 1 responded to the notice by

his letter dated 27th May, 1974 denying the title of the

plaintiffs and claiming himself to be the owner of the property.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit bearing O.S. No. 20 of 1974

in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, West Godavari District,

Kovvur for recovery of possession in respect of land in dispute

and for mesne profit.

4.

In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 his plea

was that he purchased the land in dispute under a stamped

agreement from Venkata Ramana Rao for a value of

Rs.1600/-. According to him he paid Rs.1,000/- to Venkata

Ramana Rao and a sum of Rs.225/- to one Bombothu

Chitteyya who was the tenant and in possession of the land in

dispute during 1943 and said tenant vide letter dated 16th

June, 1943 relinquished his possession and delivered the land

to defendant No. 1. It is further case of defendant No. 1 that

balance amount of Rs.400/- was sent by Money Order. After

3

the death of Venkata Ramana Rao, the second plaintiff

claimed more money towards the sale of the land in dispute

and plaintiff No. 2 being the sister of defendant No. 1, a

further sum of Rs.500/- was paid to her vide receipt dated 14th

January, 1952 (Exh.B-4).

5.

Plea of defendant No. 1 further is that on 6th November,

1960 he filed an application before the Assistant Settlement

Officer for correction of rough patta issued in favour of second

plaintiff in 1959 and to substitute his name along with his

brother’s name in place of second plaintiff. In the application

defendant No. 1 categorically stated that on 18th February,

1954 the Settlement Officer directed issuance of patta of the

land in dispute along with other lands in their favour and he

was all through waiting for the issuance of patta. However,

according to defendant No. 1, in August, 1959 he came to

know that a rough patta was issued to second plaintiff

contrary to the decision of the Settlement Officer and

thereafter he filed a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top