Allowed

C.Devaki v. S.v.Bhaskar Reddy

Telangana HC18 Jun 2013CRP/602/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision challenging an injunction order in a property dispute involving revenue record mutations. The Supreme Court observed that lower courts erred in ignoring the vendors' long possession, mortgage to a bank, discharge via registered re-conveyance deed, and subsequent stay orders, thereby setting aside the appellate courts' decisions.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Junior Civil Judge and Senior Civil Judge set aside; no creation of third-party interests directed; suit to be disposed within 6 months.

C.Devaki Vs S.v.Bhaskar Reddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.602 OF 2013

¶3

Date:18-06-2013

¶4

Between: C. Devaki and another. - - - Revision Petitioners. And S.V. Bhaskar Reddy. - - - Respondent.

¶5

This Court made the following :

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.602 OF 2013

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.07.2012 in C.M.A. No.6 of 2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶10

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : One Smt. Rukminamma is the original owner of the petition schedule land. The respondent herein claims that the said Rukminamma is his maternal aunt. The petitioners claim that their vendor, C. Somanna and M. Sudhakar Reddy, purchased the petition schedule land from Rukminamma under un-registered sale deed on 15.11.1979 and since then they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and exercised all rights as true owners of the land till they sold it to the petitioners. Alleging that recently the respondent came to know that revenue records have been manipulated in the name of the first petitioner, Smt. C. Devaki, wife of Chilukuru Bhasker, with the help of one C. Somanna and M. Sudhakar Reddy, he filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Records in Land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 against the proceedings bearing No.ROR.12/95 of Mandal Revenue Officer, Manopad Mandal. It is his further case that the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the orders vide No.C/2535/2007, dated 16.04.2011 and set aside the orders of Mandal Revenue officer, Manopad Mandal. Basing on the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the revenue records have been mutated in the name of the Respondent and corresponding pattedar passbooks and title deeds were issued in his favour. He also filed latest pahanies for the years 2011-2012. Alleging that the petitioners herein interfering with his possession, he filed a suit in O.S. No.91 of 2011 seeking for permanent injunction and pending disposal of the suit, he filed I.A. No.363 of 2011 seeking

¶11

interim injunction.

¶12

3. Petitioners herein filed counter before the lower Court. Their specific case is that one C. Somanna and M. Sudhakar Reddy purchased the suit schedule land from Rukminamma, wife of Ramakrishna Reddy, under un-registered agreement of sale dated 15.11.1979 for due consideration of Rs.63,000/-. After the said purchase, they got their names mutated in the revenue records; they were given pattedar pass books and title deeds and subsequently the first petitioner herein, Smt. C. Devaki and her sister Nagamani purchased the lands under separate registered sale deeds. It is also their case that challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, they filed Appeal and obtained stay orders on 16.07.2011 in Revision Case No.D1/31/2011. It is also their case that when the said Somanna and Sudhakar Reddy were in enjoyment of the suit schedule lands they mortgaged the suit schedule lands with the State Bank of India, Manopad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District on 19.08.1996. It is also their case that the M.R.O. vide his proceedings in ROR No.12/95, dated 21.07.1995 changed the revenue records in recognition of land by the said Somanna and Sudhakar Reddy from Rukminamma. It is also their case that the petitioners herein have obtained subsidy seed from the Primary Agricultural Society, Manopad. It is also their case that after mortgages were discharged by the said Somanna and Sudhakar Reddy, the Bank executed registered re-conveyance deed on 27.08.1999 and the Government Surveyor surveyed the land on 30.07.1999, conducted panchanama in the village, measured the suit land and fixed stones.

¶13

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners herein submits that the main documents relied by the respondent are Exs.P-4 to P-6. Basing on the orders of the R.D.O. and since the orders of the R.D.O. were suspended by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, now the first petitioner has lost her base upon which she claim her possession.

¶14

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners’ case is that Rukminamma sold the land under unregistered agreement of sale on 15.11.1979 and the respondent had taken a plea that Rukminamma died in the year 1976; and it is further submitted that the important aspect to be considered here is as to who was in possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit. Exs.P-4 to P-6 supports the version of the respondent that he was in possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit. It is further argued that, the vendors of the petitioners do not get any title under the alleged un-registered sale deed and consequently petitioners do not get any title to the petition schedule land.

¶15

6. The Courts have to examine all the facts and circumstances. It has to be seen that the respondent is claiming that Rukminamma is none other than his maternal aunt. It is not his case that Rukminamma executed any document in his favour. It is not clear whether Rukminamma had any children or not or whether there is any other legal heir to her. There are certain circumstances which require serious consideration. The petitioners’ case is that Rukminamma executed un-registered agreement of sale on 15.11.1979. It is not in dispute that one Somanna and Sudhakar Reddy mortgaged the petition schedule land in favour of the State bank of India, Manopad, Mahabubnagar District on 19.08.1996. It is also their case that they paid the entire due amount to the Bank and subsequently the Bank executed registered re-conveyance deed on 27.08.1999. This is the strong circumstance in favour of the petitioners. It has to be seen that the M.R.O. vide his proceedings dated 21.07.1995 recognized the purchase of lands by Somanna and Sudhakar Reddy from Rukminamma. The fact remains that the said order was challenged by the respondent herein only in the year 2007 i.e. after about 12 years. It has to be seen that Somanna and Sudhakar Reddy were issued

¶16

pattedar pass books and title deeds and they were in peaceful possession of the land for more than 25 years. It is to be seen that the first petitioner and her sister have purchased the suit schedule land from the said Somanna and Sudhakar Reddy under two separate registered sale deeds (Exs.R-5 and R-6) dated 11.10.1999. Since it appears that the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar granted stay in favour of the petitioners herein against the proceedings of R.D.O. dated 16.04.2011 in No.C/2535/2007, Exs.P-4 pattedar pass book, Ex.P-5 C.C. of pahani for the year 2011-12 and Ex.P-6 C.C. of pahani for the year 2011-12 loses its importance.

¶17

7. Though it is contended that Rukminamma died in the year 1976, admittedly, no death certificate has been filed. It appears that the said fact has to be proved during the course of trial. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that both the Courts have committed an error in not taking into consideration the long possession of Somanna and Sudhakar Reddy and their action of mortgaging the land to State Bank of India and also the stay orders granted by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below have to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Alampur in I.A. No.363 of 2011 in O.S. No.91 of 2011, which has been confirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in C.M.A. No.6 of 2011 stands set aside.

¶18

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances, both the parties are directed not to create any third party interests and shall not execute any documents with regard to the suit schedule land. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the Suit in O.S. No.91 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶19

As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

¶20

Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶21

_____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:18-06-2013. Dsh.

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶23

¶24

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.602 OF 2013

¶25

June 18, 2013

¶26

DSH

C.Devaki v. S.v.Bhaskar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Devaki v. S.v.Bhaskar 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

R.Jaya Sree, Vs The District Collector and Chairman

Chairman and Managing Director Vs Forward Seamens Union of India

Mohd. Zahid Ali Vs The Food Corporation of India

Y.Yellaiah, Vs State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary Food

Ece Indutries Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S.Upadranath, Vs Transmissopm Corporation of a.P.Limited