Dismissed

B.Prema Raju v. M.v.Satyanarayana Reddy

Telangana HC28 Aug 2012SA/544/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal challenging a decree for a permanent injunction over property acquired via a registered sale deed, this court upheld the lower appellate court's decision. The court found that the title deed and revenue records (patta) in favor of the plaintiff proved ownership and that alleged lease or trespass claims by the defendants were unsupported. The assignment was not hit by the prohibi

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; no costs. Decree in favor of respondents in the underlying suit stands.

B.Prema Raju Vs M.v.Satyanarayana Reddy — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.544 OF 2008

¶2

JUDGMENT:-

¶3

The unsuccessful first defendant in O.S.No.74 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvidu, Krishna District is the appellant herein.

¶4

According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit schedule property was purchased by him from one Vutukuru Hanumantha Rao under a registered sale deed on 16-07-1993 preceded by an agreement of sale. The plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and he also obtained a loan from the Cooperative Mortgage Bank and enjoying the property. Earlier, an attempt was made by the defendants to trespass into the suit schedule property and a criminal case was filed. As there is a threat for dispossession, the present suit is filed.

¶5

The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the second defendant. According to the defendants, in or about the year 1975 the defendants occupied the suit land, which is a Government land, and enjoying the same by raising crops. The sale in favour of the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977. The plaintiff has no right or interest in the property and the sale deed was obtained by fraud. The alleged mortgage is not valid. The land is inalienable and a false report was given against the defendants. Therefore, the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable.

¶6

After considering the rival contentions, the trial court has dismissed the suit. As against that A.S.No.160 of 2005 was preferred to the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. As against that the present Second Appeal is filed and the Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶7

1. Whether the suit for bear injunction is maintainable when the plaint averments are clear that the appellant herein is trespassed into the land, even prior to the filing

¶8

of the suit?

¶9

2. Whether the lower appellate court is right in coming to the conclusion that the vendor of the respondent paid the market value of the schedule land in the absence of any document to show that the market value of the land is paid to the Government? and

¶10

3. Whether the alienation made by the vendor of the respondent is hit by the provisions of Act IX of 1077 ( A.P. Assignment Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977)

¶11

As can be seen from the rival contentions, though the plaintiff has not come forward with the plea that the land was assigned land, the fact remains that the land was assigned to one V.Hanumantha Rao. There is nothing on record to show that the Government has resumed the land for non-cultivation or for non-payment of the amount either by the plaintiff or his vendor and in fact Ex.A-1 is the title deed issued by the M.R.O which was countersigned by the R.D.O which is dated 06-08-1995 in favour of the plaintiff. As against that Ex.B-1, which is the certificate of possession as on the date of the suit, obtained by the defendants has no relevancy. There is nothing on record to show that the defendants or their ancestors have occupied the property since 1975 and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further more, as can be seen from the record, the plaintiff has obtained a loan by mortgaging the property from the Cooperative Society and Exs.X-1 to X-11 clearly shows about the right exercised by the plaintiff since long time. The Adangals also reflects the possession and enjoyment of the property. Though an attempt was sought to be made with regard to patta numbers of the land, there is no dispute about the fact of identity of the suit schedule property. Further more, as can be seen from the record, when Ex.A-1 title deed was issued by the Government and when no documents recognizing the possession of the defendants is filed, it is futile to argue that the lower court has erred in reversing the judgment of the court below. Even the finding of the court

¶12

below shows that the name of V.Hanumantha Rao was recorded in the revenue records and patta was granted. Even for a Government land, pattas will be granted and merely because the patta was recorded, it does not mean that Hanumantha Rao claimed the property as a private land. Consequently, the effort made by the trial court that there is a difference about the claim of right of the vendor of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. When the revenue records and the registered sale deeds and the right of exercise of ownership was proved by the plaintiff, the law presumes possession and enjoyment, particularly so, when the defendants could not file any other documents except Ex.B-1, which is evidently, subsequent to the filing of the suit. Further more, merely because a case of trespass was booked against the defendants, it does not mean that the possession has been lost. The criminal complaint given by the plaintiff is consistent with the right of exercise of ownership and possession and it will not in any way defeat the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court cannot be faulted and there are no grounds to interfere with the said judgment and accordingly, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶14

___________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J

¶15

28-08-2012 TSNR

B.Prema Raju v. M.v.Satyanarayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Prema Raju v. M.v.Satyanarayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs Pujari Naga Subbamma

Malluvalasa Mavullayya (Died) Vs Atava Tirupatirao

Mekala Sai Prasad Vs Shaik Mahaboob sab [died]

The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Vs a.Karunanidhi

Mareedu Gopalaswamy (died) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shivraj (Died Per L.Rs) Vs K.Mohanlal