Allowed

Athuluri Papa Rao v. Pasumarthi Veera Raghavulu

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023SA/323/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against decree of perpetual injunction over suit land. The High Court found that the lower appellate court's refusal to invoke presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act for 30-year-old documents was perverse and that findings on possession were unsupported by evidence. Appeal allowed; decree set aside and suit dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Athuluri Papa Rao Vs Pasumarthi Veera Raghavulu — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

-| Ii !

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO: 323 OF 2001

¶7

Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the^Judgmentand decree dated 28-03-200'l in A.S.No. 1 of 1998 on the^file of^{the Court of the} Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalty preferred against the^{Judgmentand decree} dated 24-11-1997 in O.S. No. 12 of 1990 on the file of the^{Court of the District} Munsif , Sathupalli .

¶8

Between:

¶9

Athuluri Papa Rao, s/o late Kistaiah Business. and Agriculture^{r/o.Dammapeta} Khammam District. ... 3'd Defen-dant / R -2 / Appellant AND

¶10

Pasumarthi Veera Raghavulu, s/o. late China Veeraiah^{Agriculturer/o} Dammapeta Khammam Dist.^.. Plaintiff^{i Appellant/ R1}

¶11

2 Chakrata Anjaiah, s/o, Ivluthaiah Asriculture^r/o Dist R17[,33r"ji[Ximmam

¶12

( R -2 is not necessary in this SA )

¶13

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2001(CMP. NO: 7958 OF 2001)

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit fited in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the Judgement and decree dated^{28-3-2001 in A.S.No. 1 of .1998on the} file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Sathupalli^.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. V. MAHESH

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI^D. JAIPAL REDDY

¶17

The Court delivered the following Judgment :

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶19

sEcoND APPEAL No.323 OF 20o1

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.200t in A.S.No.1 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sathupa-lli, (for short, lower appeliate Court'), w,hereunder the judgment and decree dated 24.I1.1997 in o.s.No.12 of 1990 or1 rhe fire or the District Munsif at Sathupalli (for short, trial Court), u as ser aside and the suit filed by the plarntiff therr-.in lor perpetual injr-rnction was allowed.

¶22

The appcllant hercin rs rcspondent No.2, respondent No.1 herein is appellalt and respondent No.2 herein is respondent No.1 before the lorver appellate Court. The appellant herein is defendant No.3, respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.2 before the trial court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arraye(i in the suit.

¶23

The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that Late China Veeraiah, ',vh o is father of the plaintiff was owner and possessor of lancl to an extent of Ac.5-23 guntas in Sy.No.S29 situated at Dammapet village (hereinafter referred to as^,suit

¶24

)

¶25

schedule property').^{Late ChinaVeeraiahraised mango garden in} the suit schedule^{propert]' during his life time. The mango garden} was aged about 25 years.^{DefendantNos. 1 and} 2,^{u.'ho are} neighbouring land owners, started^{creating disturbanceas to} boundaries. Defendant^{No.3 used to purchase mangoesfrom the} mango garden raised in^{the suit schedule property. He joined} hands with other delendants and^{actively supportedthem.In thc} said circumstances, the^{present suit is filed by the plaintiff} seeking perpetual injunction restraining^defendants.

¶26

Defendant Nos.l and 2 did^{not contestthe case. Defendant} No.3 alone filed^'w.ritten statement^{denyingthe allegationsof the} plaintiff. It is his case that the father of^{plaintiff sold away the} suit schedule property to one G. China^{Ramanj aiah, for sale} consideration of Rs.3O0/- under agreement^{ofsale dated} 10.03.1950 (Ex.B-2). Since such^purchase, he^{was in possession} and he in turn sold the suit schedule^{property to the fatherof} defendarrt No.3 under agreement of sale dated^22.O8.1951 (Ex.B-1) for sale consideration of Rs.45O/-. Ever^{since, he was in} possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After his demise, defendant No.3 came into possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The father of defendant No.3 raised mango garden during his life time and the said garden u,as 35

¶27

¶28

cI F

¶29

years old. The suir schedule propcrt). fell to the share of defendar-rt No.3 ir-r thc partitiolr among clescenda,ts of lather of defendant No.3 and delendant No.3 is in possession of the same. The plaintilf in collusion with rc'cnue oflicials got incorporated his name in the pahanies and liled the present suit to knock away the suit schedule propcrtl. which q,as pr_rrchased by the father of defendant No,3 during his life time. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶30

The trial Court, basing on the above pleadings, framed the following issues for consideration:

¶31

"1. Whether the plaintitf is enlitlcd for pcrpetual injunction as prayed for?

¶32

To what reliel'?"

¶33

On behalf of the plaintiffs, p.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A- I to A-20 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant No.3, D.Ws.1 to B were examined and Exs.B-l to B-20 were got marked.

¶34

7 . The trial Court, on the basis of Exs.B- 1 and B-2 rvhich are of more than 30 years old invoked presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872. and found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property and consequently,

dismissed the suit.^{Aggrieved by the same,} the^{plaintiffpreferred} appeal before the^{lou'erappellate Court.}

¶39

B. The lower appellate Court after^{hearing both sides framed}

¶40

the lollowing points for consideration

¶41

"1. Whether the father^{of the plaintiff by name Late Chinna} Veeraiah was in possession^{and enjoymentof thc Mango} Garden raised in the surt^{land rvhich is aged abouttwenty} five years which is being in^{possession and enjoyment of the} Plaintiff eversince that date till^{the date of [rling of the suit for} grant of perpetual injunction hled on 14.O2.199O^{u'ith regard} to suit schedulc^property to^{an extentof Ac.5-23guntasin} survey No.529 rt'hich is^situated at^{Dammapcta Villageand} having the follos'ing boundaries:

¶42

East Mango garden of Dara Nagabhushanam^son of D. Pullaiah who is defendant^{No.1 in this} suit.

¶43

South: Mango garden of K. Srimanarayana. West: Mango garden of Panuganti Satyam. North: Mango gardcn of Chakkala Anjaiah son of Chakkala Muthaiah who is the defendant No.2 in this suit.

¶44

2.Whether the father of plaintiff by name^{Pasumarthi Chinna} Veeraiah sold away the above mentioned suit^schedule property to Gnandrusti Chinna Ramnujayya, son of^G. Rangaiah for consideration of Rs.3OO/-^{throughagreementof} sale dated 10.03. i950 which^{is Ex.B-2?}

¶45

3.Whether the above mentioned G. Chinna^{Ramanujaiahsold} away the said property to Late^{Krishnaiah,father of Attuluri} Paparao who is the defendant No.3^{in this casewhowas in} possession and enjoymcnt during his^{life time and afterhis} death, the Defendant No.3 is enjoying^{the suit schedule} property under Ex. B- I ?

¶46

4.Whether the suit schedule properry fell to the share^{of the} Defendant No.3 and they were partitioned in the^family properties in between the father of the Defendant No.3 and his son including the defendant No.3?

¶47

s.Whether the suit schedule boundaries are in existing since last more than fifteen years?

¶48

ffittr.tr ''^{a,f,:?:i.- :r}

¶49

)

¶50

! L I I IIt I I I I I I ! I I I I

¶51

6.Whether thc nanrc of thc Defendant No.3 is mentioncd in the llevenuc Rec:ords for the suit schedule property and Ryot Pass Book rvas also issucd rn lavour of thc Delendant No.3 by thc Go'r,ernment and hc is paying the Land Revenue for thc suit land? and

¶52

7.'lo what rclicl'-2"

¶53

The lor.r,er appellate Court disagreed with the findings ol tl-re trial Court and consequentlv, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the presen t second appeal is preferred at the instance of defendant No.3 before the trial Court.

¶54

Initially, this Court admitted the second appeal referring to the grounds of second appeal as substantial questions of iaw. Subsequently, this Court re framed the following substantial questions of iaw in accordance u,ith Section I03 of Code of Civil Procedure:

¶55

" l.Whether the findings of the Appellate Court in nor extending the benefit of presumption under Section 90 of the lndian Evidence Act, 7872 rvith regard to Exs.B- 1 and B-2 in the light of the evidence under Exs.B-4 to B 17 and B- 19 to B-2O and evidence of P.W.1, D.W. 1 and D.W.6 and discarding them suffers lrom an1, perversity?

¶56

2.Whether the hndings of the First Appellate Court with regard to Exs.B- 1 and B-2 holding that no rights are created under Exs.B- 1 and B-2 unlcss it is regis[ered ignoring Section 53-A oI the Transfer ol Propertv Act, 1882, suffers from any pcrversity?

¶57

3.Whether the lindings of the Court below in granting equitable relief of injunction suffers from any perversity in the light o[ evidence under Exs.B-rl and B-2 and B-4 to B- I7 and B- 18 to B-20 and evrdeng:e of P.W. 1 and D.W.6 and Exs.A- 1 to A-7?"

¶58

¶59

¶60

Substantial Ouestion of Law^{No. 1:-}

¶61

1 1 . The case of the plaintiff is that his father is^{absolute ou,ner} and possessor of suit land ar-r d he died in the^year 1967.^During life time of father of plaintiff, he raised mango^garden and^{after his} demise, the name of plaintill u.as incorporated in the^revenue records in the year 1969. Ever since, he is in^{possessionand} enjoyment of the suit schedule^property

¶62

It is the case of defendant No.3 that the father^of the^plaintiff sold the suit schedule property to one Ramanjaiah in the^year 1950 under Dx.B-2 and the said Ramanj aiah in turn sold^away the suit schedule property to the father of delendant No.3 under Ex.B-1. The father of defendant No.3 raised mango^garden and he was in possession of the suit schedule property during his life time. After his demise, there was partition arnong his lega-l heirs and the suit schedule property fell to the share of defendant^No.3. Ever since, defendant No.3 has been in^possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in collusion with revenue officials got incorporated his name in to revenue records, just prior to hling of the present suit to disturb the peaceful possession of defendant No.3

¶63

¶64

d * i! $ ** t E 6 I, tI Iti r Ii { t. i I ItiI t a

¶65

ItI it II

¶66

-aj.r i .;.rc1F..6r^-;, --t----.r"^{- - .j;'}

¶67

The plaintiff to prove his possession on the date^of institution of the suit has relied upon the oral evidence of^P.Ws.1 to 3 arrcl Exs.A 1 to A 20. A close scrutiny ol evidence ol^{P.W. 1} , he claimed that the age of mango garden is 25 -vears. He also stated that he u,as four ,vears old, r'r,hen his father died in the^year i967. He also admitted that hr: has not paid^personally any^land revenuc under Exs.A- 1 1 to A- 19

¶68

P.W.2 is son of G. China Ramanjaiah, from^whom the^father of dclendant No.3 clarmed to have^purchased the suit^schedule property. His evidence shou,s that he did not know u'hether his iather purchzrsed any lands ancl sold out such lands to anyone [{e also stated that his father never purchased suit schedule propertJ. from the father of plaintiff and never sold to anyone

¶69

P.W.3 is servarit of farm land and he also happened to be son-in'law of D.W.3^(Koduri Brahmaiah). According^{to P.W.3, the} iather of plaintiff raised margo^{ga-rden 20 years back.The} deposition of P.W.3 was^{recordedin the year 1996. This means,} as per his evidence, the^{plantswere 20 years old in the} 1'ear^1996. This means according to him,^{the plants have been planted in the} year 1976. Whereas, the father of the^{plaintiff died in the year} 1967 . Trle evrrlence of^{P.W. 1 i.e., plaintiffsho*'s that the age of} mango garden is 2 5 years^{n'hen he \ras exalninedin the year} J-^ /

¶70

¶71

If that is so, thc^{plants must have been planted in the} 'vear 1971, but as^{per his pleaclings his father clied in the year 1967 '}

¶72

Apart from that^{the plaintiff also reiied uponExs.A- I to A-7 ,} which are pahanies from^{the year 1983 to 1994' Ex'A-1pahani} for the year 1983-84^{shows the names of plaintiff and oneP'} Bhadraiah as^{patteda-rs and the possessor columnshor'vsnil'} F;x.A-2 pahani for^{the yearsl984-85and 1985 86' The pahani for} the year 1984-85^{shows the names oi plarntiff and said Bhadraiah} as pattedars and in the^{possessor columnname of plarntiffis} recorded. In the^{pahani for the year 1985-86,the names of both} the pattedars is^{recorded and in the possessorcolumnit is shown} as self. Ex.A-3^{pahani for the years 1986-87 and1987 -88 reflects} the names of both the^{pattedars in patedarcolumn and in the} possessor column it is^{recordedas nil.In Ex.A-4, pahanifor the} year 1988-89, the names^{of both pattedars is recordedin pattedar} column and the^{possessorcolumn reflects nil.Ex'A-Sis pahani} for the year 1990-9¹ ,^{which is crucial documenton whichthe} plaintiff relied upon. The^{said document shows that in pattedar} column names of plaintiff^{and said Bhardraiahare recorded,but} in the possessor column the name of the^{plaintiff is incorporated} on 19.L2.1991 based on proceedings^No.Al2O9 /90^dated 30.1 1. 199 i of the Maldal Revenue^{Officer. Ex.A-6and Ex.A-7 are}

¶73

()

¶74

,'..j':,',]

¶75

pah.rnics lor the vean's 1992-93 and 1993,94. u.hich reflect the nam es ol plaintilf ancl said Bhadratah as pattedars and in possessor column of both pahanies the name of plaintilf rer:orde d as possessor.

¶76

The suit s'as filed in the year 1990. Exs.A_S to A_7 are subscqucnt to the suit. Before filing of the suit i.e.. from the years i 986-87 to 1988-89, the name of the plaintiff rn,as not found in the Possessor^column. For the first time in the year 1990_91, the namc of the plaintiff t,as recorded in the paiani at possessor column and the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer basing .n ri,hich the name of the plaintiff was recorded as possessor *ere no'. produccd before the tria-l Court. Further, if the plaintiff r.r,as alreadf in possession, u'hy his name was exclusively recorded as possessor in the said year is not explained. All these aspects ard o,idence are not examined by both the Courts below.

¶77

To support his case defendant No.3 got examined himself as D.W.1 and examined D.W.2, who is neighbor on the west side of the suit schedule property and D.W.4, w,ho is r-reighbor on the south sidc of the suit schedule property. They both deposed that the father of defendant No.3 purchased the suit schedule property and he raised mango garden and after his demise, defendant No.3 is in possession ol the suit schedule property. Defendant No.3

¶78

¶79

¶80

also relied upon Ex.B 1 and B-2. Ex.B- 1 is the sale deed cxecuted by G. Ramanjaiah in favour of father of delendant No.3 and Ex.B'2 is the sale deed executed bv the father of the plaintiff in favour of G. Ramanjaiah.

¶81

Defendant No.3 to prove Ex.B-2 examined D.W.5, r,t,ho is scribe aged about 95 years axd in the chief examination, he deposed that he do not remember any transaction between the father of the plaintiff and G. Ramanjaiah. He also expressed that he cannot even see that document under Ex.B 2. Hon'ever, in the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not write any agreement, but he claimed that he scribed some documents and stated that he do not remember documents, which he scribed.

¶82

Defendant No.3 also exarnined D.W.8, who is son of one Krishna Murthy, who was one of the attestors of Ex.B-2 afld he identilied the signature of his father on Ex.B-2, but in the crossexamination he stated that in the last 25^years, he did not see signature of his father

¶83

Defendant No.3 also examined D.W.6, who is attestor/ witness to Ex.B- 1. His evidence shows that Ex.B- I is scribed by one Jaganadham while G. Ramanjaiah dictated the contents. He supported the sale transaction in between G

¶84

¶85

,/ /

¶86

Raman3:rr:rh and firther of clefendant No.3 under Ex.B l. He also idcn ti liccl [,lx. B- 1 and statcd that during execution, the contents ol sard document u ere read over and thereafter onl-v, G. Ramanjaiah signed thr said documer-rt. D.W.6 rvas aged about g5 ycars and he fuliv supportcd the cxecution of Ijx.B- 1. Apart from execution, his evidcncc also shorvs that I'r e is r-rot only witness for execution of ciocument. but he rvas also presont when the document was read over bcforc signing the sard document.

¶87

Delendar-rt No.3 also examined D.W.7, who is son of Jaganad.rnr, who scribed trx.B-1. The evidence of this witness is not satislacrton,. hr the chief examination, he could recognize signaturc ol his father and in the cross-examination, he failed to recognize the same. Such evidence is of no help to defendant No.3.

¶88

Apart lrom them, defendant No.3 a_lso examined D.W.3, who is farm senant and P.W.3 is son of sister of D.W.3. P.W.3 has admi tted that D. W.3 worked as farm servant under the father of defendalt No.3. In vieu, of such admissions, the evidence of D.W.3 has some credibilitv and his evidence shows that he planted mango trees during life time of father of defendant No.3 He supported that the mango trees were planted by father of

¶89

¶90

defendant No.3 ald defendart^{No.3 is in possessionof the suit} schedule property^{a-fterdeath of his father}

¶91

Apart from^{Exs.B- 1 and B-2, defendant No.3 also relied} upon Ex.B-3 cist^{pass book, which shows recordingol land} revenue from the year^{1968-69 to 1974'75. The extentcovered} under the sard document^{is the extent of suit schedule property'} Exs.B-4 to B- 17 are cist^{receipts commencing from the year 1964-} 65 to 1989-90. Exs.B-S^{and El-6 are cist receipts for the same} year with continuous serial^{numbers, both are dated 23'06 1966'} The Courts below have^{doubted the said cist receipts on account} of duplication of said^{receiptswith consecutiveserial numbers'} Exs.B- 18 arrd B-19^{are pahanies for the years l97O-7 I and 198 1-} 82, which are crucial documents.^{Ex.B- 18 is pahani for the year} lgTo-7l, which reflects^{the names of one Bhadrarah arrd the} name of plaintiff in the^{pattedar columhand in possessor column} the name of one Surya^{Prakash Rao and the name of defendant} No.3 is reflected. Ex.B-19^{is pahanifor the years1981-82, l9A2-} 83 and 1983-84. In^{the said document,the name of defendant} No.3 is recorded in possessor coiumn^{for the years 198 1-82 and} 1982-83 and for the year 1983-84, the^{possessor columnshows} nil. Ex.B-20 is pahani for the years 1984-85 to^{1988-89 arrd in} possessor column no names were recorded.

¶92

¶93

ffiry;.'qr*- -" ./'

¶94

25 A comparratir.c cxamination of pahanies relied upon by both the parties, ir app.ars th.rt upto the year r 982-83 the name of defendant No.3 n as recorcled in the possessor column. From the year 1983 g+ ro I 98g_g!), no names were recorded in the possessor colur-nn. For Lhe lirst time, the name of the plarntiff was recorded in the p:rhirni for the year I 99O 91 and that recording of possession \'as on rhe basis of proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer. It is not knou.,n ort u,hat basis the Mandal Revenue Officer made such cn Lrics in thc namt: of plaintiff in the possessor column as the salcr proceerlings are not placed before the court. Ex.A 9 relied upon b-r. the plaintifl.shows that as early as in the year 1969, the 1>roceedings qrere commenced for transfer of patta, but the result of s,ch proceedings is not known and no document pertaining to the sard proceedings is made part of record.

¶95

The trial Court has invoked presumption r-rnder Section 9O of the Indian Er.idence Act, i872, to clecide the suit and the same was assailed in thc appeal on the ground that mere date on the document rvhich shou.s that the same is 3O years old is not enough ald existence of such document before 30 years has to be established. whire dealing u'ith the presumption under Section 9o of the Indiatr Eviderrce AcL, lBZ2, by the lower appellate Court, there is no clarity in the findings fThe entire evidence of all the

¶96

¶97

vrritnesses was rcferred to, but it is not held that whethcr it is fit case to invokc presumption or it is the case for non-invoking of presumption and requires proof of documents, in the entire case. The evidence on record clearly shows that except D.W.S no one survives lor proof of Ex. B-2, which is foundational document. There is proof of execution oi Ex.B- I through its attestor, u'ho is D.W.6. A close scrutiny of evidence on record of D.W.6, nothing is brought on record to doubt his testimony. Therefore, defendant No.3 is able to prove the execution ol Ex.B- 1- The evidence of D.W.6 also shows that the scribe of the said document was one Jaganadham and it was drafted to the dictation of G. Ramanjaiah, who is vendor, and the contents of such document were read over and thereafter, the document ,as signed.

¶98

27 . lt is the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff that Ex.B I was only proved by execution and there is no proof of its contents. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddinr, wherein at Para No.85.3, it was held as follows:

¶99

"85.3. The alleged partition in the year 1819 among the ancestors of Respondent 1-plaintiff even if had taken place, cannot be a proof of title of Respondent l-plaintiff over the suit properry as the pedigree has not been proved. Presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect ol 3O years' old document coming from proper custody relates to the signature, execution and attestation of a document i.e.

¶100

' 12or.z1^{a scc rcs}

¶101

¶102

,i t I ,",. h E I I ! I I I I I I I II

¶103

I I I

¶104

to its genuincrrcss ltuL rt does not give rise to presumption of correctness of er,,crr statcmenL colttained in it. Th.lt the contcnts of llte docrrnrcnt are truc or it l-rad been acted upon, have to bc pro,.,t:cl likt. ar-ry other [act. More so, in case thc will is ignored, rhr:re is nothing on record lo show as to how Responclenr i -ltlarnrrll-coulcl <:laim the title.,,

¶105

There is no rloubL that proof of execution is different and proof of contents of doc:ument is different. The presumption under Section 90 ol t he Indian Er.idence Act, 1872, is relating to execution and lrot t-eiating to genuineness of contents of the document. Thc cvidenc.c ol D.W.6 shows that he not only supports the exccurtio|, but also supports the proof of reading over the conterlts. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the plainliff *'as thar .ccording to him, the transaction under Ex.B-2 was relaring to Ac.5 and odd guntas relating to Sy.No.S29, whereas Ex.B- l oDIy shor',,s extent of la11d as Ac.3-23 guntas and that to in Sy.No.539. Therefore, tl-ris document cannot be said to be true.

¶106

The case set up br the defer-rdant No.3 was that land covered under Ex.B-2 u,as totall,y purchased under Ex.B- 1. A close scrutiny of Exs.B- 1 and B-2, the boundaries under Ex.B2 are relating to Sy.No.529 covering an extent of Ac.5-23 guntas and the boundaries under Ex.B 1 are also same. The only anomaly is survey number and extcr-rt. When the survey number and extent are not clear, the borrndaries u,ilh prevail. Ex.B- I is proved.

¶107

l(r

¶108

¶109

Ex.B 1is relating to land^{coveredunderEx.B-2.Thereis no} evidence to^prove the^{execution of Bx.B-2. It is also not in dispute} that the witnesses to Ex.B-2^{were no more available.NorT' the} question is u,l-rether^{presumptionunderSection 9O o[ the Indial} Evidence Act, 1872,^{can be extended to Ex.B-2?Boththe Courts} below u,hile dealing^{u'ith theapplicabilityofpresumption} completely ignored the^{basic principles how the presumption has} to be made applicable^{u,hen the statute gives such presumption'} In this regard, it is^apt to^{refer the decision ol Apex Court in the}

¶110

case of M.S. Madhusoodhanan^{vs. KeralaKaumudi (Pl Ltd'2,}

¶111

wherein it was held as^{follows at paraNo' 1 19:}

¶112

"119. Thcrc is a distinction^be tween^{'presumption"and}

¶113

"proof'. A presumption^{has been def-rned as}

¶114

"an inlerence, affirmative or disafhrmative^{of the} truth or falsehood of a doubtful^{fact or} proposition drawn by a^{process of probable} reasoning from something^{proved. or takenfor} granled" (Izhar Ahmad^{KLnn v. Union of India} IAIR^{1962 SC 1os2 : (19621 2 CriLJ 2151, AIR}

¶115

at p. 106O, para 18).

¶116

They are rules of evidence^{which attempt to assist the} judicial mind in the matter of weighing the^probativeor persuasive force of certain^{facts provedin relation to} other facts presumed^{or inferred (ibid-).Sometimesa} discretion ii left with^{the court either to raise a} presumption or not as in^{Section114 of the Evidence} Act. On other occasions, no such^{discretion is givento} the court so that when a certain^{set of facts is proved,} the court is bound to raise the^{prescribed presumption'} But that is all. Thc presumption may^{be rebutted."}

¶117

'^{(zooa)g scczoq}

¶118

¶119

lt is aiso apt to reler to det:isron of Apex Court in the case of M.S. Narayan Menon vs. State of Kerala3, nhere in at para

¶120

Nos.28 to 33, it is held as follorvs

¶121

"28. What rvould be thc cllect of the expressions "may presume"- 'shall prcsurr-lc" ar-rcl "conclusivc proof' has been considercd by this Court in Urtiott of Indict" v. Pramod {}upta [(2OO5) 12 SCC i ] in the lollowing terms: (SCC pp. 3O-31, para 52)

¶122

"lt is true th.rt thc lcgrslaiurc used t*'o different phraseologics'shall bc prcsumed' and 'may bc prcsumcd' in Section 42 oI the Punjab l-and Revenue Act an<l furLhermore although provided for the modc and manncr ol rcbutttrl of such prcsumption as regards thc right Lo mines and minerals said to bc vested in the Government vis-a-vis the absence thcreof in relation to the lands prcsumcd to br: rctaincd by Lhe landowners but thc sarme u'ould not mean that the words 'shall prcsumc' '',,'ould bc conclusive. The meaning of lhc exple ssions 'may presume' and 'shall presumc' h:rvc bcen cxplained in Section 4 of thc [ividencc Act, 1872, from a peruseLl rl,hereol it rvould be evident that u'hencver it is directed tllat lhe court shall prcsume a fact iL shall rcgard such fact as proved unlcss disproved. In terms o[ the said provision, thus, the expression 'shall presume' cannot be held to be synonymous rvith 'conclusive proof'."

¶123

In terrns oi Scction 4 of thc Evidence Act whenever it is provided by the Act that the court shall^presumea fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless^and until it is disproved. The words "proved"^and "disproved" have been^dcfinerl in^{Secrion 3 of the} Evidence Act^(the interpreLation clause)^{to mean:}

¶124

" 'Proued'.-A fact is said to be^{proved when,} after considering the mattc.s before it, the court either believes ii to exist, or considers^its existence so probable thilt a prudcnt^man

¶125

'1zooo1^e scc:s

¶126

¶127

ought, undcr the circumstances of the particular casc, to .rct upon rhc supposition that it exists.

¶128

'Disproued'.-A fact is said to be disproved when, aftcr considenng the matters before it, the court ejther believes that it does not exist, or considcrs its non-existencc so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition rhat it does not exist..

¶129

Applying rhe said definirions o[^,,proved, or 'disproved" [o thc principle behind Section tiS1a1 of ttre Act, the court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration docs not cxist or considers the nonexistence of thc considcration so probabie that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration docs not exist. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable delence. Even for thc said purpose, the Lvidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon.

¶130

A Division Bench of rhis Court in Bharot Barcel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand pagretal [(1999) 3 SCC 351 albeit in a civil case laid dou,n the law in the following terms: (SCC pp. 50-51, para 12)

¶131

" 72. Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of lau, which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section I l8(a) would arise that it is supported b"v a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non existence of a consideration by raising a probable defcnce. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof shou,ing that the existence of considcration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff r.r,ho will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitlc him to the grant of relief on the basis of the ffegrEls ble instrument. The burden

¶132

,!E --v

¶133

¶134

upon the defendant o[ proving the noncxistencc of Lhe consicleration can be e ithcr dircct ol by brir-rging on rt,c-ord the 1;reponderance of^proba bilitics ttv rclerence to the circumstances uport r,r'hich hc rclies. In such an evcnt, the plainr.iff is t:ntitled undcr lar,r, to rely upon all thc evidence led irr the case including that of Lhe plaintifl as rreil. In case, u,here the defendant faiis to discharge the initial onus of proof ltv shot'ing the nonexistcnce of the consideration, rhc plaintil[ u,oulcl invariably be held enLitled [o tl.rc bencllt of presumption arising under Scction 1 18(a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the delcndant to disprove the existence of conslderzttion by leading dircct cvicler.rcc as the existence of negative cvidencc is neitl.rer possible nor contemplated ancl cvcn il lcd, is to be seen u,itl'r a doubt."

¶135

This Court, therefore, clearly' opinecl rhat it is not necessarv for the defendant to disprovc thc existence of consideration blr way ol direct euidencc

¶136

The standard of proof evidentl,t' is pre pondcrance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials on record but also by reference to thc circumstances upon which he reiies.

¶137

Presumption drawn under a statute has only an evidentiary value. Presumptions are raiscd in terms of the Evidence Act. Presumption drawn in respect o[ one lact may be an evidence evcn for thc purpose of drawing presumption under anothe r.

¶138

In the present case, the discretion is left to the Court either

¶139

to presume or not by virtue of wording of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since words used are 'may presume'. The entire decision of the lower appellate Court is not clear whether it is fit case either to presume or it is not fit case to presume. Even f the Court decided to presume, the Court has to satisfy the

¶140

¶141

requirement for invoking presumptiorr and the same has to be proved

¶142

In the present case, onc of the requirements is that the document must be purporting or proved to exist 3O years old. The IS date of document itself is not enough. Now the question whether Ex.B-2 existed before 3O vears back? The evidence on record shows that Ex.B 1 r,r,as acted upon in respect of properties covered under Ex.B-2. It is proved. The entries in pahani from 1970 onwards upto 1983 clearl-v demonstrate and give evidence to the transaction under Ex-B- 1. The vendor of transaction under Ex.B-1 is purchaser of such land in Ex.B-2. The above circumstance lends support to the existence of Ex.B-2 prior to Ex.B-1. The lower appellate Court has not properly assessed the evidence. No prudent man rvith the evidence on record would come to the conclusion that of the los,er appellate Court, to hold that Ex.B-l has not been proved. At one stage, the lower appellate Court accepts truth of Exs. B- 1 and B-2 . At another stage held that from such documents, no rights are created as they are not registered. There are no findings that Exs.B-1 and B- 2 are not proved. There is ample evidence on record to prove Ex.B- 1. There was no need even to invoke presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. To prove Ex.B 2,

¶143

¶144

I ?

¶145

attcmpts \rere made by defendant No.3 to examine the scribe of the Ex.B-2, but the same lailed since the s.itness i.c.. D.W.5 could not able to recognize the Ex.B-2 on accounL of ltrs 94 r,ears old agc. Hou,ever, cross examination shou, tl-rat he ',r'as in habit of scribing agrcements, but he could not remember scribing of present agreement since he was aged 94 vears. Dclendant No.3 also made atternpt to prove the signature of other attestor of Ex. B- 2 b_r, examining, the son of attestor as D.W.B, but thc said attempt also failed.

¶146

The evidence on record shon,s that defendant No.3 could abic to provt: the existence of Ex.B- 1 . The source ol Ex.B- 1 document is trx.B-2. The purchaser under Ex.B-2 is vendor under Ex.B- 1 . The purchase of property under Ex_B- 1 itself is one of the factor ald circumstance to shou, the exis[ence of Ex.B-2. When Ex.B- I is proved to be in existence for more than 30 years and when the nghts are claimed under Ox.B- 1 basing trx.B-2, it could be easily said that E,x.B-2 was in existence from more than 30 years. Therefore, the conditions to invoke presumption that such document exists 30 years back is proved. The custodv is also properly derived and all the requirements for invoking the presumption are proved. Now, such a presumption can be invoked for consideration of this case.

r f

')')

,.}

The evidence on record shou,s that the plaintiff claims that his title and possession are bv inheritance from his father.^No document is filed to show that his father u,as in possession prior to 1969. According to plaintiff, his fatl'rcr died in the year 1967 and succession was obtained in lhe year 1969. Ever since, he is in possession. In support of his claim, he relied upon the cist receipts from the year 1969 to 1994 under Exs.A-l1 to A-19. However, his cross-examination shou's that he has not^personally paid cist to the land and he has not explained r.r,ho has paid such cists and obtained receipts.

¶151

On the contrary, defendant No.3 fited cist receipts showing that he paid cist. If payment of cist receipts IS discarded, absolutely there is no evidence on record from the side of plaintiff to show that his father was in possession of the suit^schedule property prior to l97O-7l. Whereas, there is continuous possession of defendant No.3 from l97O 7l to 1982-83 and the possession of plaintiff from 1983-84 rvas not established upto 1990-91. The possession of plaintiff from 1990-91 was recorded solely on the basis of proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer Such proceedings are not placed on record. It is not known whether defendant No.3 was given notice of such proceedings When defendant No.3 is in possession from l97O to 1982 for more

¶152

¶153

tj-4. i.' f' I I I !I i I I I I t I I I !

¶154

than 12 r'c:rtrs, the plaintiff has not claimed dispossession of delendant No-3 artd his occupation. The plaintiff clalms that he is in possession of the suit schedule propert]. prior to 1969. It is his adrnission tl'rat. his father died in tl-re year 1967. By that time he r/as just four years old. Il that is so, he cannot be said to be in possession at the age of four years.

¶155

In the said circumstances, it is fit case lor invoking presumprion under Section 9O of the Indian Evidcnce Act, 1g72, in r,-.spect ol Ex.B-2. Once such presumption is invoked, rt is for thc plaintiff 1o rebut such presumption. Absolutell,, therc is no evidcnce to shou, that document under Ex.B 2 u,as not executed anci presumption has not been rebutted by the plajntiff b1. u,ay of evidence on record. Therefore, this Court finds that thc lou,er appetlate Court has not properly considered the principles in invoking presumption ald disregarded the applicability to invoke such presumption. The findings of the lower appellate Court suffers from perversity.

¶156

In the said circumstances, it is apt to refer to prir-rciples referred b1' the Apex Court in the case of Chandrabhan vs. Saraswati+, at para No.33

¶157

2022 sCC Online SC 1273

¶158

r (

¶159

¶160

"33.^{The principlesrelating to Section 100 ofthe CPC} relevant for this case may be summarised thr-rs:

¶161

(i) An inference of fact from the rccitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of larr', is also a^question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction ol a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a^question of law.

¶162

(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question ol 1au,, and not^a mere question of law. A question of lalr having^a material bearing on the decision of the case^{(that is,} a question, answer to which aflects the rights^of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by ar-ry specific^{provisions of} law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in^a contrary situation, where the lega1 position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law^or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to^such legal principle. In the second type of cases,^the substantial question of Iaw arises not^{because the} law is still debatable, but because the^decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law.

¶163

(iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at^{by the} courts below. But it is not an absolute^{rule. Some of} the well-recognised exceptions are^{where (i) the} courts below have ignored material^{evidenceor acted} on no evidence;⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ the courts have^drawnwrong inferences from^proved facts by^{applying the law} erroneously; or⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ the courts have^{wrongly castthe} burden of proof. Wlrcrr'we refer to^{'decisionbased on} no evidence", it not only refers^{to casesu'here there} is a total dearth of evidence, but^{also refers to any}

¶164

¶165

a I ii ltI

¶166

F.'. la.:-:^i.*=##::. "+.:F1P

¶167

case. u'herc the er.idence, taken as a whole, is not rearsonabll. capable of supporting the finding."

¶168

h-r the contexr ol the above principles, if this is exar-nined, this Court lincls that findings rendered b1, the lorver appellate Court are noL reasonably capable ol supporting the evidence on record. Tl-rercfore. there is substantial question of law, r'hich is righti,v lramecl and this Court finds that the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be invoked ard such presumption has not been rebutted.

¶169

Further. question is whether the contents of Ex.B 2 had been provcd. The truth of contents shall be proved b1' direct evidencc or bv circumstantial evidence. The circumstance in the present case is purchase of suit schedule property under Ex.B, 1, which itsell suggests existence and truthfulness of contents under Bx.B 1. The purchase of land under Ex.B- 1 suggests that the father of plarntiff has parted away his rights over the suit schedule property under Ex.B-2. The purchaser under Ex.B,2 has parted arvay his rlgtrts under Ex.B- 1. The revenue records shor.r, possession of delendant No.3 and his brother. This probablizes and proves truth of con tents of the document under Ex.B-2 . Therefore, the contents of the documents are also proved.

¶170

¶171

!iI

¶172

Accordingly, this substantial question of law is answered in favour of defendant No.3

¶173

Substantial Question of Law No.2:-

¶174

The lindings of the Court that Exs.B- 1 and B'2 are not registered and no rights are created thereunder cannot be accepted. Such findings are not correct. Section-S3-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 protects possession of person b-r, virtue of un-registered document. He can resist the attempts of vendor to take possession. Therefore, such findings of the lower appellate Court are unsustainable and it gives raise to substaltial question of law. Such findings suffer from perversity and accordingly, such findings are set aside.

¶175

Substantial Ouestion of Law No.3:-

¶176

The evidence on record shows that plaintiff did not file any document to show his possession as on the date of suit except the pahanies pertaining to the year 1990-91. If such document is discarded, absolutely, there is no evidence that he has filed any proof of possession. The plaintiff accepted that he has not paid the cist. Both the Courts below have not laid much stress on the fact that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that he is in possession. If the paharilee of 1990-91 and thereafter are

i i : l

{

i l l I I I I

discardecl, absolutcl-r. thcre is no evidence to show how the plainLiff gor possessr.n in thc year l99o-91. The plaintiff failed to produce Lht: proceedings of the Mancial Revenue Officer, basing on ',r.hich^his lossessiorr u.as recorded in the said pahanies. The plarrtiff has not proved l-ror,l, he derived the possession from defendar-rt No.3. AII through, he contended that he acquired possession lrom his father. There is no evidence on record to prove such contention. In fact, he u,as only four years old when his father ciir:C anri tlre pahanies placed on record show that upto i982 83 ciefcndant No.3 r.r.as in possession. The evidence of P.Ws. I ar-r d 2 shou,s that mango garden was aged about 20 to 25 years and su<:h evidence, nas recorded in the year 1996. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father raised the mango garden. If the father of the plaintiff raised the mango garden, it should be more than 30 years old and not 25 years old. This aspect demolishes that the claim that mango garden was raised by the father of the plaintiff. The evidence of neighbours and farm servants clearly demonstrate that the mango garden was raised by the father of defendar-rt No.3 and that defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit schedule rlroperty. This was not consrdered by the lower appellate Court and such lindings sulfer from perversity. Hence, this substantial question is also a,swered in favour of defendant No.3

¶185

¶186

i I I I l I i I I J l i I IL ,i

;.i'

ln the result, the second appeal is allowed and^{the judgment} ald decree dated 28.O3.200 1 in A.S.No.1 of 1998^on the^{file of the} Court of the Senior Civil Judge^at Sathupalli,^{is set asidear-tdthc:} suit is dismissed confirming the^{findings of the trial Court. No} order as to costs. Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pendingshall}

¶192

stand closed

¶193

SD/- K. SRINIVAS RAO, JOINT REGISTRAR /i.I+2 //TRUE COPYII

¶194

SECTION OFFICER

¶195

¶196

The Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli , Khammam District. (with records)

¶197

The District Munsif at Sathupalli, Khammam District.

¶198

One CC to SRl. P. V. MAHESH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶199

One CC to SRl. D. JAIPAL REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶200

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

MLJ

DATED:08/09/2023

I^Otc"",'-

JUI)GMI]N T

SA.No.323 of 2001

l\ t\f- srAro
q
c: C'
'J [ 1 0tt 2[2] .:' 't
?
t ../),'

¶208

ALLOWIN(i flIlr SIr( OND.\l'l']lln l \I'ITHOIJI'('OS I'S

¶209

/>--
lv/ t--t. <br>tf<br>v7
42

¶210

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶211

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶212

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶213

sEcoND APPEAL NO: 323 OF²⁰⁰¹

¶214

Between:

¶215

Athuluri Papa Rao, s/o late Kistaiah Business . and Agriculture^{r/o. Dammapeta} Khammam District. ... 3'd Defen-dant / R -2 / Appellant

¶216

AND

¶217

Pasumarthi Veera Raghavulu, s/o.^{late ChinaVeeraiah Agriculturer/o.} Dammapeta Khammam Dist.^{.. Plaintiff i Appellant/R1}

¶218

2 chakrala Anjaiah, s/o Muthaiah Agriculture^r/o Dist R"r7[33r"jfl[Ximmam

¶219

( R -2 is not necessary in this SA )

¶220

' Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 28-03-2001 in A.s.No.^{'t of 19980n the file of the courtof the senior} civil Judge at sathupally^{preferred against the Judgmentand decree dated 24-11-} 1997 in O.S No. 12 of 1990^{on the file of the Court of the DiskictMunsif,} Sathupalli^.

¶221

This second Appeal coming^{on forhearingupon perusingtheGrounds of Appeal.the} judgments and l)ecrees o[ the l,ovrer Appetlate Court^{and the Court at firstinstance andthe} matcrial^papcrs in the^{Suit andupon hearingtheargumentsof Sri P.V. Mahesh. Advocatefor} the Appeltant and Sri D. Jaipat^{Reddy,Advocate forRespondent No l'}

¶222

'I'his Cou( doth order and decrce as follows:

¶223

l. That the appeal be^{and hcrebyis allowed.}

¶224

That rhe^{judgnrent and decreedated 28-03-2001in A.S.No. I of19911 on the filc of} the courl of the Senior civil^{Judge at Sathupalli,be and herebyis set asideandthe} suit is disn.rissed confitlning^{thc lindingsof the trial Court and}

¶225