Allowed

Chinthala Siddartha v. Buddareddigari Srinivasa Reddy

Telangana HC4 Oct 2013CRP/2981/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges an order vacating a temporary injunction. The High Court held the lower appellate court erred in relying on a Tahasildar letter to disprove plaintiffs' revenue documents without thorough scrutiny of 1B registers and additional evidence, ordering the appeal remitted.

What did the court decide?

The order of the lower appellate court is set aside; the appeal is remitted for a fresh hearing and reasoned judgment within three months; the prior interim injunction remains operative.

Chinthala Siddartha Vs Buddareddigari Srinivasa Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

CRP NO. 2981 of 2013

¶3

Date of Judgment: 4.10.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chinthala Siddartha and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

Buddareddigari Srinivasa Reddy and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

CRP NO. 2981 of 2013

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This revision petition is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 138 of 2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The parties are referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendants’ for convenience sake.

¶14

The facts of the case are as follows,

¶15

First plaintiff is the son, second plaintiff is the wife, third plaintiff is the daughter and fourth plaintiff is the sonin-law of one late Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah, a leading advocate at Nandyal. While the first plaintiff is said

¶16

to be working in Mumbai, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are said to be looking after the suit schedule property. The subject matter of the suit is the land to an extent of Ac.6-00 in Sy.No. 866 pyki situated at Ayyaluru village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool district. The plaint avers that an extent of Ac.14-00 of land in Sy.No. 866 pyki was purchased by late Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah in his life time along with one Sunkari Keshava Reddy under two registered sale deeds, one registered sale deed dated 15.4.1987 covering an extent of Ac.10-00 and another registered sale deed dated 19.8.1987 covering an extent of Ac.4-00 from the erstwhile owners of the said land. It is also averred that Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah, the father of first plaintiff and the said Sunkari Keshava Reddy orally partitioned the said property and Ac.10-00 of land fell to the share of Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah, the father of first plaintiff and Ac.4-00 of land fell to the share of the said Sunkari Keshava Reddy. It is stated that about Ac.200 of land out of Ac.10-00 of land belonging to first plaintiff’s father was made into plots and sold to various persons and the remaining Ac.8-00 of land was in possession of the first plaintiff’s father. The revenue records are said to reflect the said transactions. Subsequently the father of first plaintiff died and it is alleged that the name of first plaintiff was recorded in revenue records in his place. The present suit came to be

¶17

filed on the ground that on 14.3.2010 the defendants physically interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and in spite of the complaint given to Police Nandyal, II-Town Police Station in Cr.No. 21 of 2005, the plaintiffs could not resist the attempts made by the defendants and hence the present suit for permanent injunction was filed along with I.A.No. 487 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction pending the suit.

¶18

The defendants, who contested the suit, denied the plaint allegations and, on the contrary, stated that one M. Rajeevamma, who claimed to be the wife of late Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah, filed a suit in O.S.No. 504 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal against the first plaintiff herein and others claiming that she is the wife of late Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah, who is said to be the father of first plaintiff, 3^rd plaintiff and husband of 2^nd plaintiff. In the said suit the said M. Rajeevamma described the second plaintiff herein as concubine of late Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah and first plaintiff herein as their illegitimate son. The said suit was decreed on 28.1.2003 granting 1/5^th share to the said Rajeevamma. However, an appeal vide AS No. 34 of 2003 was filed by the first plaintiff against the said decree in the Court of IIAddl. District Court, Nandyal. The decree granted by the trial Court was modified giving 1/2 share to the first

¶19

plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, a second appeal is said to have been filed and pending before this Court. The defendants claimed that the father and brother of late Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah were also share holders in the said land and from them, the first defendant claims to have purchased Ac.6-00 of land i.e., the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 26.3.2010. He purchased the said land as a bonafide purchaser without notice of the earlier litigations. The first defendant, therefore, claims exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. The first defendant also stated that the other co-owner i.e., Sunkari Kesava Reddy also filed a suit in O.S.No. 13 of 2008 before the Court of III-Addl. District Court, Nandyal against M. Rajeevamma (Plaintiff in O.S.No. 504 of 1996) and first plaintiff herein and others for partition and separate possession and claimed half share in Ac.14-00 of land in Sy.No. 866 of Ayyaluru village, which is said to have jointly been purchased by him along with late Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah. The first defendant herein was also impleaded as 8^th defendant in the said suit. The defendants, therefore, contended that the first plaintiff, being aware of the litigations of Rajeevamma and Kesava Reddy, has suppressed all the said information while filing the present suit and seeking temporary injunction and as such on the ground of suppression of material facts, the defendants

¶20

requested the Court not to grant any discretionary order in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶21

Before the trial Court, when the said application for injunction was being considered, neither of the parties has led any oral evidence, but by consent, the plaintiffs marked Exs.A1 to A5 and the defendants marked Exs. B1 to B8. The trial Court framed a point for consideration as to whether the plaintiffs have established prima facie case i.e., whether they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and from that perspective, it examined the documents filed by the plaintiffs. On scrutiny of Exs.A1 to A5, it found that under Exs.A1 to A3 - registered sale deeds, an extent of Ac.14-00 of land was purchased, but found that Exs.A4 and A5 - No.3 Adangal and pattadar passbook are relevant documents for considering the aspect as to possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court also considered the documentary evidence under Exs.B1 to B8 produced by the defendants and recorded prima facie conclusion that there are several discrepancies and inconsistency in the boundaries shown in the documents filed by the defendants. The trial Court also found that the aspect as to exact share of the parties being the subject matter of the second appeal pending before this Court, the said aspect relating to the shares of family members of late Chinthala Venkata Siva Ramaiah would depend upon the

¶22

result of second appeal, but gave a categorical finding in paragraphs 25 and 26 of its order that Exs.A4 and A5 support the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. In view of the said finding, therefore, the trial Court granted interim injunction on further finding that balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court.

¶23

Before the lower appellate court, strong reliance was placed upon Ex.B9, which is a letter issued by Tahasildar, Nandyal Mandal, dated 23.1.2013 apparently under Right to Information Act informing that no pattadar pass book was issued to the plaintiffs with regard to Sy.No. 866 pyki. It was also brought out before the lower appellate court that Exs.B10 and B11 - 1B registers relating to Sy.No. 866 show that Katha No. 1005, written on Ex.A5, the original pattadar passbook of the plaintiffs, actually belongs to somebody else. While the lower appellate court recorded the pleadings and contentions of both sides, its conclusions are primarily recorded in paragraph 18 of its judgment which show that in view of the documents produced by the defendants, the claim of the plaintiffs that they were in possession of the suit schedule property and were entitled to injunction was found not acceptable to it and accordingly it has vacated the order of the trial Court.

¶24

In this revision petition, Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants have made elaborate submissions with regard to several documents and have pointed out minute aspects in support of their respective cases.

¶25

While Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has laid more stress on Exs.A4 and A5, he also pointed out the circumstance that while the first defendant claims to have purchased the property under Ex.B1, dated 26.3.2010, he had made extensive alienations of all the said property by executing a number of sale deeds which were produced and marked Exs.A6 to A26. He says that all the said purchasers are in the category of persons who are below the poverty line and incapable of purchasing all the plots in the manner in which it is shown. He, therefore, submits that the first defendant knowing that he has no right, was trying to preempt the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit by making alienations within a very short period of time. He also explains that there is no question of any material suppression on the part of the plaintiffs, inasmuch as none of the defendants was concerned with the other litigations which were within the family inter se and hence were not relevant to be mentioned in the present suit.

¶26

Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the

¶27

defendants, on the other hand, submits that the suppression of earlier litigation should be held against the plaintiffs. He has also made elaborate submissions to point out that Exs.A4 and A5 - Adangal and pattadar pass book produced by the plaintiffs are fabricated documents and for that, he placed strong reliance upon the letter of Tahasildar, Nandyal Mandal (Ex.B9) and also 1B registers (Exs.B10 and B11) produced by the defendants and submits that the lower appellate court was justified in vacating the injunction order.

¶28

While considering the application for temporary injunction, the trial Court has rightly appreciated that the aspect as to possession on the date of suit by the plaintiffs as well as balance of convenience is required to be kept in mind and should be first found in favour of the plaintiffs and as per the findings of the trial Court, Exs.A4 and A5 are relevant documents which supported the said claim of the plaintiffs. Whether those documents stand rebutted by the evidence produced by the defendants and particularly Exs. B10 and B11 - 1B registers and Ex.B9 - letter of Tahasildar, Nandyal Mandal who disowned the issuance of any pattadar passbook, are the matters which the lower appellate court has considered for the first time. It is also evident that while in the trial Court only Exs.A1 to A5 on behalf of the plaintiffs and Exs.B1 to B8 on behalf of the defendants were marked, but before the lower

¶29

appellate court several documents were produced and marked for the first time as additional evidence viz., Exs.A6 to A29 on behalf of the plaintiffs and Exs.B9 to B25 on behalf of the defendants. These documents were not before the trial Court and have been considered by the lower appellate court for the first time.

¶30

After examining the record of this case in detail, as was pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the lower appellate court has oversimplified the matter and allowed the appeal only on the basis of its reasoning recorded in paragraph 18 of its judgment. The lower appellate court ought to have considered as to whether any original pattadar passbook and the presumption attached to it, could be rebutted only by a letter said to have been issued by Tahasildar (Ex.B9) issued under Right to Information Act. Secondly, the lower appellate court also ought to have considered that Katha No. 1005 which has been mentioned in pattadar passbook of the plaintiffs was wrongly understood as patta number by it and it was compared and tallied with Exs.B10 and B11 - 1B registers. It has, however, not been examined by the lower appellate court as to the authenticity and conclusive effect of the said 1B registers. It also appears that relevant entry in the said 1B registers relates to Sy.No. 866, whereas the suit survey number is Sy.No. 866 pyki. The revenue records and the entries

¶31

therein produced by the parties, therefore, ought to have been thoroughly examined by the lower appellate court and conclusions ought to have been drawn on the basis of deeper scrutiny and corroboration, but the lower appellate court vacated the interim injunction order primarily on the ground that Katha No. 1005, which is claimed by the plaintiffs, belongs to somebody else. It is also necessary to point out that number of sale deeds - Exs.A6 to A26 filed by the plaintiffs showing extensive alienations by the first defendant were not even referred to by the lower appellate court. Further it has also not referred to Ex.A27, the judgment in O.S.No. 13 of 2008 of Kesava Reddy which was since decided granting one half share to Kesava Reddy and 1/4^th share to the first defendant-Rajeevamma and a joint 1/4^th share to second defendant who is the first plaintiff herein. The vendors of the first defendant were arrayed as defendants 3 to 7 in the said suit, whose alienations in favour of first defendant were also adjudicated and held to be binding on the plaintiff-Kesava Reddy and defendants 1 and 2. The said judgment is dated 20.3.2012 and whether any appeal was preferred against the said judgment or the effect of the said judgment is not at all considered by the lower appellate court. In the same manner, various documentary evidences produced by the defendants under Exs.B12 to B20 which are No.3 Adangals for

¶32

various fasili years also remained unconsidered. This Court is, therefore, constrained to observe that the manner in which the lower appellate court decided the appeal is thoroughly unsatisfactory and in ignorance of substantial part of evidence on record. Hence the said judgment of the lower appellate court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

¶33

CMA No. 1 of 2012 is, therefore, remitted to lower appellate court for fresh consideration and disposal. The lower appellate court shall hear all the parties afresh and consider the evidence adduced by the parties which is on record and then pass an appropriate reasoned judgment in the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending consideration of the appeal afresh as directed above, the interim injunction order granted by the trial Court in I.A.No. 487 of 2010 in O.S.No. 138 of 2010, dated 13.12.2011 shall remain operative, subject to further orders to be passed by the lower appellate court in the appeal.

¶34

The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶36

Dt.4.10.2013 KR

Chinthala Siddartha v. Buddareddigari Srinivasa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinthala Siddartha v. Buddareddigari Srinivasa Reddy

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

Smt. v. Suvarna Mala Vs Smt. Sahebzadi Khatija Begum

S.Naseem Begum Vs T.Ramalakshmamma

Bala Jee Infratech and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Madhucon Projects Limited

M/s Gowri Ventures Private Limited Vs -

K. Rajagopalan Vs M/s Uttam Nirman

Chatla Veeraswamy, Vs Penugonda Harinathababu