Dismissed

Veeramachaneni Santana Gopala Rao, v. L.V. Pradas

Telangana HC18 Jun 2013CCCA/43/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeals court dismissed an appeal for title and possession as infructuous. The court held that subsequent proceedings under the A.P. Land Grabbing Act declared the appellants as land grabbers, and their withdrawal of writ petitions acknowledged this, rendering the civil suit no longer maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous petitions stood disposed of.

Veeramachaneni Santana Gopala Rao, Vs L.V. Pradas — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY &

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶3

C.C.C.A.No.43_OF 1993

¶4

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J )

¶5

The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.412 of 1983, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are the appellants.

¶6

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. Some of the plaintiffs and defendants died and their legal representatives were brought on record.

¶7

The plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of an area of 9050 sq. yards, forming part of plot No.1, with Municipal No.8-2-120/66, measuring

¶8

Ac.5-02½ gts at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Behind Kasimyarjung Mosque. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 pleaded that they along with some others such as Gopalakrishna, Madhava Rao, Vasantha Devi, Venkata

¶9

Subba Rao and Hari Prasada Rao purchased the suit schedule property under a sale deed dated 04.07.1971 from the 3^rd defendant. According to them, the 3^rd defendant sold other bits of lands to various

¶10

other persons. It was alleged defendants 1 and 2 occupied the land by putting fence over about ten acres, including the plaint schedule property.

¶11

On behalf of defendants 1 and 2, a written statement

¶12

was filed. They pleaded that the 3^rd defendant does not have any title at all, much less saleable interest in it. They pleaded that the land is part of surfekhas owned by H.E.H the Nizam and they have purchased after certain transactions. They have also disputed the very identity of the land by stating that the plaintiffs did not mention the survey number.

¶13

The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 18.12.1992. Hence, this appeal.

¶14

Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. The appeal was dismissed for default against respondents 5 and 6.

¶15

The trial Court framed the following issues:

¶16

i. Are the plaintiffs owners of the plaint schedule land as referred in the plaint?

¶17

ii. In what right and concern Anantha Reddy Deshmukh the D.3, C.B.Patil and Vinod Kumar Reddy connected with plaint schedule land?

¶18

iii. Whether the vendors of the plaintiffs have saleable interest and whether the sale transactions referred to in the plaint are sham and fictitious?

¶19

iv. What is the identity of the suit property, in view of points raised in paras 16, 17 of the W.S?

¶20

v. What is the effect of non-joinder of government of A.P. and Smt.M.Amruthamma and other pattedars?

¶21

vi. Are D.1 and D.2 bona fide purchasers, for valid consideration and what is the identity of the land they are in possession?

¶22

vii. What is the effect of G.O.Ms.No.1921 dt.14.11.1978 over the suit dispute?

¶23

viii. Did the defendants encroach and whether D.1 and D.2 caused illegal fencing?

¶24

ix. Are the plaints entitled to the declaration asked for? x. Are the plaints entitled for the injunction prayed for? xi. Relief?

¶25

On behalf of appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

¶26

and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were filed. On behalf of respondents, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-88 were filed.

¶27

It is brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the entire land covered by alleged plot No.1, the Government of A.P filed L.G.C.No.124 of 1998 before the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act against the plaintiffs and certain others and that through its judgment dated 31.03.2011,

¶28

the Special Court declared the plaintiffs and others as land grabbers. The plaintiffs filed W.P.No.14650 of 2011 against the order passed by the Special Court. Similarly, certain other persons have also filed two other writ petitions. All three writ petitions were withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to avail the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.156.

¶29

Now the only point that arises for consideration before us is as to whether the cause in the suit, or for that matter the appeal, survives in view of the subsequent developments.

¶30

Whatever may have been the circumstances under which the plaintiffs filed the suit way back in the year 1983, the fact remains that the Government filed L.G.C.No.124 of 1998 against them and some others. In a way, the filing of LGC discloses that the plaintiffs herein assumed possession of the land and such possession was sought to be declared as an act of land grabbing. With this, the very basis for filing the suit for recovery of possession ceases to exist. So far as the relief of declaration is concerned, the Special Court has

¶31

already taken the view that the appellants are not the owners of the land and thereby they do not have any legal entitlement to remain in possession. When so much development in the proceedings initiated under the special enactment had taken place and the petitioners have in a way acknowledged the correctness of the orders passed by the Special Court by withdrawing the writ petitions, hardly anything remains in this appeal.

¶32

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.

¶33

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

_________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶35

____________ S.V.BHATT, J

¶36

18^th June 2013 Lrkm/Pab

Veeramachaneni Santana Gopala Rao, v. L.V. Pradas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeramachaneni Santana Gopala Rao, v. L.V. Pradas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juthiga Srinivas Vs Tatavarthi Srinivas

A.S.S.K. Sarma alias Phani Vs M/s Appele Credit Corporation Ltd.

Syed Akber Alam Vs Pradeep Kumar Agarwal

M/s. Central Roadlines Corporation Vs M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Smt. Sita Bai Vs The South Indian Bank Ltd.

M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Vs Central Road Lines Corporation