The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs failed to prove their father's valid title over the suit property. The appeal lacked merit.
Appeal suit dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s8 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAYOF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICESAMBASIVARAONAIDU
APPEAL SUIT NO: 460 OF2004
Appeal under section 96of C.P.C against the Judgmentand Decree dated 24-7 -2002 made in o.S.No.970f 19960n the file of the courtof the lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
Between:
.APPE LLANTS/PLAI NTIFFS
AND
Kharkhanagadda localityof Karimnagar. -
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
Counsel for the Appellants:SRI H'VENUGOPAL Counsel for the R€spondents:SRI C.RAMESH SAGAR
The Court madethe following: JUDGMENT
HONOUFIA 3I.E SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARA() N'.IDU
A.S.NO.46O of 2OO4
JUDG MENT:
The rla nt iff in O.S.No.97 of 1996 on thefi t: of lII Addl' District Jucge, I a-imnagar filed thisfirst appe,:l unrj:'r-Section 96 of C.P.C, crallerg ng theludgment and Decret:daill:24-07-2002 in the said suit ty which thetrial Court dismisstldih(lir suit.
2 SSRN,J A S.No.460 of 2004
future mesneprofits on the date of delivery of thepossession. The plaintiffs have sought for a declaration to declare the saledeed Document No.2B49l90 dated 07-11-1990 in Book No.1of Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar as void and notbindingon the plaintiffs.
B-;--,
SSRN,J A.S.No.450 of 2004
M u nsif, Ka ri Tr ragar, which was obtained by defen(l,r.rt ltlo.1 during the su bsisten( e of interim injunction already orde[r:r] by the same Cou rt in a notl e- interlocutory application i.e , LA lrc.675 of 1990 in O.S.No.1.>9 5 of 1990 on 06-11-1990. They ht vrl also claimed that the subse quent suit filed by defendant No.1. iailr; dismissed on 24-09-1992 a 1c 76-04-1994. The plaintiffs have r: airned that in view of the d, rath of K.Lakshmi Narsayya, the pl;r rrtifl's were not aware of the suit proceedings. Therefore, they :,tul,l not have impleade,J i'r :he suit, thereby, the suit filed by rj:fendant No.1 was dism iss,:d a ; a bated.
SSRN,I A S No.460 ot 2004
Document No.126161 and title of thefather ofthe plaintiff was upheld. They have also claimed that theirfather used to pay vacant land tax for the suitplots, subsequently,he has executeda will deed in their favour on 30-01-1993.
h*
5 SSBN,J A S. No..l60 of 2004
,€...:" .r-:;.l
criminal r3vi;i( n petition before the High Court but t wers disposed giving lib,:rt'7 o the parties to approach CiVil Co- r.t and District Judge, Karinrn )gar was directed to transFer O,S.Nc.l57 of 1991 to the file ol Dist-ir:t Munsif, Karimnagar for tritrl anc :lis6rosal along with O.S.No,l i96 of 1990 within two montns frrllr the date of receipt ol the said order. The suit filed by thr: fatrer of the plaintiffs \vas; c is'nissed for default. The father of tl t: pla intiffs died on 07-03-199. . The suit filed by defendant No.1 rirle O.S.No.157 of 1991 was di;nrissed on 16-04-1994 as abated wlr.rn he failed to take step:i tc b-irrg the legal representatives on reco-rl.
7 . C)u of the 10 defendants, defende nl llo.5 died, defendant No.. r'emained ex parte and the remair irg (lefendants contested the suit. Defendant No.1 filed it writtr:n statement stating that 1>lr intiffs are not owners and they havt: no lossession over the,iui': lroperty. The 1't defendant disputc: the claim of plaintiffs about t1e succession of property, execut o'r o. will deed
5 SSRN,] A.S.No 460 of 2OO4
and also contended that theplaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Botla Laxminarsaiah, who in fact survived by his wife, daughters who are not made as parties to the suit.
B. They have also contended that the father of the plaintiffs was not the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property. Plot Nos.1 and 2 are not compact plots as claimed by the plaintiffs. There is a 10 feet lane leading to the house of Neerla Srinivas and others from the main road, therefore, the sketch filed by the plaintiff has been created for thepurpose of the suit. They have also claimed that the father of theplaintiff was not inpossession of the suit land. They have denied all the averments of the plaint. They have also contended that the plaintiffs herein have attended the Court in the other suit flled against their father, thereby, they got knowledge about the claim of defendants in the saidpreviously instituted suit but witha malafide intention to bring the suit within the limitation, the plaintiffs have claimed that they were not aware of the other suits. They have further contended that the father of theplaintiffwas not in exclusive and continuouspossession of the suitproperty.
H.-
55RN,] S.l o 460of2004 ^
!tf.1:
.i,'-.
/
the nameof Botli Laxminarsaiahor plaintiffsNo' 1 an(i ' as; owners of thepropertya rd it clearly disprovethat the allegatorrs rnade by theplaintiffs al)o lt the right of their father' The def :r'darrtshave denied theoth3r avermentsof the plaint and sought ::rr tlismissal of the suit.
8
55RN,] A.S.No.460 of 2004
dismissat of the suit. Defendants No.2, 6, 7 and 10 filed a memo and adopted the written statement of defendant No.1.
L2. Defendant No.3 has contended that the suit schedule property was part and parcel of t/3d share of Neerla Chandraiah (D5). There was a Decree for partition of ghare oF Neerla prakash, Neerla Chandraiah and Neerla Ellamaiah in O.S.No.246 of 7977 on
9
SSRN,] A.S.No.a60 of 2004
the file of Dist tct MunsiF, Karimnagar. Out of 11 g lntas allotted to Neerla Ellanai ll-, his wife Neerla Vasantha sold Ac.0_7 gts of land to Neerla Pra <ash after the death of her husb,tnd. The said Prakash cbt.rir 3(l a Decree for Ac.0-07 gts of land )y way of a suit on the fire of [)istrict Muncif in O.S.No.1472/BB r.,n the file of District M u n:;if l(arimnagar . Neerla Prakash sold Ac.0-07 gts of land to del'er d,rnt No,3 and he has obtainec a Decree in O.S.No.16,49 o '1.989. His name was recorded as [,():jsessor in the Revenue lle(:ot d:;. Subsequently, he has sold an (::(..ent of 77.33 sq.yrds to def :rdant No.1 under a Document Nc, 2849/90 and defendant N,t.. lwas in possession and enjoymert of remaining property. The ;ale of 77.33 sq.yrds in favour of D1 vr,as within the knowledge, ol' E otla Laxminarsayya. Therefore, he h:rs rlenied the claim of pla intif 's and sought for dismissal of the sui:. 13. Def lndants No.B and t has filed a s(rl)itrate written statement wi :h a plea that the plaintiffs are not er c;l tsi,re owners and possessc rs cf the suit property. They have n:yer inherited any prope-ty fr :rn their father. There was no sur;ir pu rchase of la nd as a llegr:d by the plaintiffs. The father of thr, rrlaintiffs was never in los;st s:;ion of the property. Therefore, the alleged dispossession i pursuance of an ex pdrte injunn does not arise. They h :ve also claimed that they were rr:t parties to
S5RN,J A.5.No460of 2004
10
O.S.No.174of 1964 filed by Gandi Narsaiah'DefendantNo'2 is in occupationof property through defendantNo'1' It is also the case of defendantsthat as per the allegations made in the plaint' their fatherpurchasedAc.0-B gts of land from Gandi Parashuramand Ac.O-01gt from Muthyala Swamidas but in the sale deedsreferred by theplaintiffs, no survey numbersare mentioned' The fatherof theplaintiffs was a pairavikar and worked as a clerk with Patwari for number ofyears, therefore, he has created documents but he was never inpossession of the land at any time' thereby'they the suit.The trial Court framedthe prayed for dismissalof
following eightissues:
L"F,.,
11
SSRN,J .S No 460 of 2004
7 //h tl er there is any cause oF action to fi ethe;-rt? 8 To ' /hrt relieF?
The Co.lr irelow failed to appreciate the eviden::e in a proper way. The Cou t below committed an error by disrrit;sir g the suit with an ob,serv, tion that the plaintiffs and their fath<:.ard vendors of their fal:h€r rave no title of Sy.No.B/A. The Corr-l br:low failed to consider the viell settled principle of law tiat b:r. ndaries shall prevail over t re extent. Exs.A14 and A15 clea'11, proves the plaintiffs are o!,ners of suit schedule property but trt Court below dismissed th: strit by observing that the sale d:r:ds does not contain the s ut vey numbers. Therefore, the findirr; s of the trial Court are cort ary to the settled proposition of larr. l-hey have claimed that tl e trial Court committed.an (rrror in holding the owners of thr, , nC in Sy.No.B/A and the said findinrl is ccntrary to
t2
SSRN,] A.S.No 460 of 2OO-a
oral and documentary evidence placed on record. They have claimed that the trial Court ought to have considered that their father was absolute owner of the suit property which he purchased under two registered sale deeds dated 2O-01-1996 and 09-03- 1964.
L
13
SSRN,J A.S.No.{60 of 2004
.;?
any evident ar,/ value as such cannot be looked into Tre plaintiffs have clairred hat the trial Court committed an enr)r' bi, relying on the ownersirit certiFicate obtained from Mun cipal ty and Revenue Authority pro< ecdings. The entries in the Reven.]r records does not confe,r iln / title. They have find fault rvith t ir .: o tservations made by the tral Court by which the Court bel,>vv b:lieved the evidence of I)V/.3 and DW.4 to show that thc fat.rer of the plaintiffs was rever in possession of the property. Jn f act, DWs.3 and 4 are a[t( stors of sale deed obtained by DB ir-l [)9 from D4 and D5 as suc 1, they are interested witnesses, an I their evidence cannot b€ cc,n: icered as valid piece of evidence.
17.'-h I plaintiffs have further contended t tat the Court below failed tr r:onsider the evidence of PW.2, wlr,: is one of the attestors of E>.A,2. He has categorically depcsed ttrat land under Ex.A2 was nre, srrred and handed over to the father r;f the plaintiffs soon aFter re( istration. The Court below failed t:, consider the evidence of P ,A/ 1, who deposed that his father I. urr:hased the property rrncle two registered sale deeds in 196i er.rd t964. The first defendant under the guise of interim injunctio- di:;possessed the fathe- of h: plaintiff from the suit lancl dur nrl 1991. The above facts wr re, brought on record throughi:he evirjence but the trial Court Faile J to consider the same without propo- ree son.
14 SSRN,] A.S N0.460 of 2004
appeal :
h-
15
5SRN,] A.S No.460 of 2004
declaration o their tiue over the suit sched Jle p r) )erty, recovery ofproperty a rc also for Mesne profits from the ,Jr:fendants. They have shtwr ,!,o items consisting of Ac.0B-01 rl::; irr Sy.No.B/A sought =or t re above referred relief. Howeve - the suit was dismrsseJ try ttre trial Court and the present ap rr:al is preferred against the s, icl ludgment. For convenience sake, I.he parties will be referred tc as they are shown in the plaint filerl befrre the trial Court.
27, A! could be seen from the pleadings a tr: er,,idence, the pla intiffs have clarmed that their father by name Ei La>lminarsaiah has p u rcha:;e I two different extents under two r 39istered sale deeds. He ha: 6rurchased an extent of Ac.O-08 gts frqnl one Gandi Parsh u ra rn u r dr:r sale deed document No.126l(;1 and another extent oF AC .0 01 gt from one Muthyala Swamidas under sale deed documenl No. )16/64. These two documents have be:n marked before thr: tri;r C ourt as Exs.A1 and 43. The plainti 1:; ha ve claimed that their fa1.h, rr was in possession and enjoyment ,:. tl- e property tiil 29-01.199 r>n which date, the father of the gr r,intiffs said to have been d sg o:;sessed from the schedule prcpertT n view of the ex parte ternt or.ary injunction in I.A.No.2O/91 ir r)S.No.157 of 1991. The pla rtiffs have also claimed that prior to r_-re rJefendants
SSRN,] A.5.N0.460 of 2004
16
filing OS.No.157 of 1991,their father filed a suit in OS.No.1596of 1990 and having filed aninterlocutory application vide I.A.No.675 of 1990, he could obtaintemporary injunction in respect of the suit scheduleproperty but thedefendant having suppressed the earlier suit and injunction orderobtainedex parte temporaryinjunction and said to have dispossessedtheir father from the schedule property.
b
l/
5SRN,] A ;.No-460 of 2004
N.Prakash, N.C randraiah and N.Ellamaiah have fil,:l ;r suit for partition of tl-e said Patta land vide OS,.No.,.1 3 of L977. Defendant Nc.1 has claimed that he had purchase,l an extent of Ac.77-33 sq.vrc s in Sy.No.B/A and defendant \o.2 l-r,:rs prurchased another extert )f Ac.77-33 Sq.yrds from one ll.avi o- 07-11-1990 and 26-72- 199( respectively. But defendant llo.2 sold l-is land in favour of def€n( a rt No.6. Therefore, from the abover corrtention it was the case ol t re plaintiffs that they got the: suit r-operty from their father b1, i irl ue of will deed alleged to ha!e becr-r ex3cuted by Laxminarserialr , nC they have also claimed that th=v br:ing legal representativ<:s rf Laxminarsaiah succeeded the pro )erty shown in the plaint sche Crrle. Where as detendants No.1 lncl 6 have claimed that h : 'ather of the plaintiff could rot h.,/,1 obtained a valid title on ,h r:;uit property as the vendors of sairl larrd has no right and titl€. Tfe defendants have claimed :hat lhr: s:le deeds relied on by tlre p aintiffs does not contain any surv(r'l number and the boundaries are incorrect. The defendants have :laimed that the suit scheCe le property is part and parcel of li3'd share of N.Chandraiah i, r., defendant No.5 and he has got €(.ecr-ee in the partition suit vic: OS.No.246 of 1977 .
18
SSRN,J A.5.No.460 of 2OO4
E
19
SSRN,J /.S.No.460 of 2004
E---*.'
20
SSRN,] A.S.N0.460 of 2004
plaintiffs is not shown as possessor of the property. It is ericited from PW.1 that the documents fired by him does not show the door number. The entries in Ex.A1B Ryth pass_book are falsified by Ex.B11. Ex.B11 is the certificate extract of RoR maintained by the Revenue Authorities. As seen from Ex.811, the name of father oF plaintiffs is not shown as owner of Sy.No.B/A in the said ROR proceedings. PW.1 failed to give any explanation as to why the date in Ex.AB is shown as Z7-Og-IgBg though his father said to have obtained permission on 26-03-1964. The plaintiffs have claimed that their father said to have obtained permission on 23_ 06-1964 and to prove the said possession, they placed reliance on Exs.A4 and A5. However, as per EX.AB, the father of the plaintiff said to have paid permission tax on 27-09-1989. As could be seen from the entry in Ex.A4, the property for which the permission was accorded is at weavers Hostel locality. The defendants have claimed that there was no such weavers Hostel in Gandhi Road but there is no explanation from the plaintiffs.
&n:
2t 5SRN,I I -S.No.450 of 2004
\
No.1. In orde 'to prove these two aspects the plaintiFfs have placed rella n:e cn their own oral evldence and e.(hibits referred above. But tl e evidence produced by the d lf,tncants and docu ment:; plar erl before the Court clearly shows that there was no valid tra n:;fe r rf title in respect of the above refrrr'.ed two items to the Father c ' -he plaintiff. Whereas the evidence: of PW.1 and other witnes:;e: ,:learly shows that defendants No.1 and 2 have purchased tl- e vlcant sites and constructed shop (Mulgi) after obtaining pern ;sion from the concerned Municipality,
docu menta ry er idence of both parties an( by ,analyzi,rg '-he crossexamination o ' the witnesses apart from e)'i:,mining the
&3::::
22
SSRN,] A-S No.460 of 2004
documentary evidence, came to a correct Conclusion that the plaintiffs are not able to prove the title over the property. Therefore, they cannot be declared as owners of the suit schedule property and they are not entiUed to recover the property from the defendants. In view of their failure to prove their tiile, they cannot even seek the mesne profits from the defendants. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the suit and there are no merits in the appeal, as such, it is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.
No costs.
//TRUE COPYII
SD/- I. NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER
To
PSK
$
I
t
HIGH COUFII
DATED:23lO3l?-023
JUDGMENT
AS.No.460 of 2004
' -aa=
i' i, q
.,
i
,s i;
t,!
l, '
li:< .$
t.. !!,
:, qr
.o\ l{
DISMISSING"HE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS. @cgieS &- q\6F',
&il
[32581
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OFMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAONAIDU
APPEAL SUIT NO: 460 OF 2004
Between:
...APPELLANTS/PI.AINTIFFS
AND
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
Appeal under section 96 of C.P.Cagainst the Judgment and Decree dated 24-7-2002 made in o.S.No.970f 19960n the file of the court of the lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
ORDER: This appeal c<:ming on for hearing and upon perusrng "r: g,.ornd, o, appeal, the JudEm,:n a'ld Decree of the Lower court and the nr.rerie r papers in the case and upon iearir J .he arguments of sRl H.VENUGOPAL. lrlvocate for the Appellant and of strr l. RAMESH SAGAR, Advocate for the Rer;p.nd:nts. This court d:lr Orderand Decreethatthe Decree of the [.r.we-court be and hereby is confi-nerr r ncr this civir lrrriscelaneous Appear is Disnris sed. This court Doth fur.hr r ()rder and Decree that there be no order :; to costs in this Appeal Suit.
//TRUECOPY//
SO/. , NAGALAKSHMI DEPIJTY REGISTRAR (--]J' $ECI]ON OFFICER
To
'1 . The lll A td . Dist. Judge at Karimnagar. 2. fwc CD )c pies
PSK.
q
I
,
I
HIGH COUR
DATED:2310312023
DECREE
AS.No.460 o'f 2004
:-:r
-$
T4 r
c
$
<br>,d
.)
'---:.
DISMISSING'IHE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT CC STS.
Arc"?d
5ro q\c a,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court correctly dismissed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove their father's title over the suit property.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
B. Ramesh
B. Jayaprakash
A. Mallesham
M. Narayana Reddy
G. Radha Kishan
N. Ravi
Sambasivarao Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
