Dismissed

D. Ramaiah (died) v. Gutta Radhamma

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024AS/1355/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a decree in a suit for rectification of a survey number and perpetual injunction. The court held that the agreement was valid for transfer of property, not security for dowry, and approved the correction of the survey number based on boundaries.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed, confirming lower court decree granting rectification of survey number and perpetual injunction.

D. Ramaiah (died) Vs Gutta Radhamma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

APPEAL SUIT No: 1355 oF 2000

¶7

Appeal filed under Se_ction 96 of C.p.C., against the Judgment and decree dated 31 .03.2000 passed in o.s.No. 28 of 19Bg onlhe fite of the dourt of tre senior Civil Judge at Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . D. Ramaiah (died).

¶10

Dama Venkateswra Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agricuture Rl/o. Lalpuram Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Disirict.

¶11

Dama Shankar (Died).

¶12

Dama Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o. Shankara Rao Aoe: 13 vears. minor. (beino minor rep by their next friend and matemal Uncle p. Appa ilao)

¶13

Dama Sailaja, D/o. Shankara.Rao Age: 10 years, minor, (being minor rep by their next friend and matemal Uncle P. AppaRao)

¶14

Dama Kalavathi, D/o. Shankara Rao, Age: I years, minor, (being minor rep by their next friend and matemal Uncle P. Appa Rao)

¶15

Dama Sarada, D/o. Sankara.Bag {Se;6 years, minor (being minor rep by their next friend and maternal Uncle^p-. Appd Rao)

¶16

...Appellants/Defendants

¶17

AND

¶18

Gu(a.Radhamma, Wo. Radha Krishna Rao, Occ: Household and Agriculture, Rl/o. Hasthanagurty Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District.

¶19

,..RespondenUPlaintiff

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2000(CMP. NO: 9376 OF 2000)

¶21

Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and Judgment in o.s.No. 2g of 1989, dated 31.03.2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2000(CMP. NO: 10320 OF 2000)

¶23

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of the decree and^judgment dated 31.03-2000^passedin O S,No. 28 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam,^pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶24

LA. NO: 3 OF 2000( CMP. NO: 12182 OF 2000)

¶25

Between:

¶26

Gutta Radhamma, W/o. Radha Krishna Rao, Occ: Household and Agrlculture, Fl/o Hasthanagr,rrty Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District.

¶27

...Petitioner

¶28

AND

¶29

D. Ramaiah (died).

¶30

Dama Venkateswra Rao. S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agricuture Rl/o. Lalpuram Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

¶31

Dama Shankar (Died).

¶32

Dama Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o. Shankara Rao Age: 13 years, minor, (being minor rep by their next friend and maternal Uncle P. Appa Rao)

¶33

Dama Sailaja, D/o. Shankara Rao Age: 10 years, minor, (being minor rep by their next iriend and maternal Uncle P. Appa Rao)

¶34

Dama Kalavatiii, D/o. Shankara Rao, Age: 8 years, minor, (being minor rep by their next friend and maternal Uncle P. Appa Rao)

¶35

Dama Sarada, D/o. Sankara Rao Age: 6 years, minor (being minor rep by their next friend and maternal Uncle P. Appa Rao)

¶36

...Respondents

¶37

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension granted in C.M.P.No. 10320/2000 in A.S.No. 1355/2000 dated 30,06.2000 in the interest ofjustice.

¶38

Counsel for Appellants : Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla,

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao

¶40

The Gourt delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶41

SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶42

APPEAL SUIT No .l 355 0F 2000

¶43

JUDGME NT:

¶44

Fecling erggneved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passcd by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in O.S.No.28 of 1989, dated 31.O3.2000, defendants in the suit prefcrred the present Appeal.

¶45

Appellants are defendants in the suit and respondent is plaintiff, s,ho filed the suit on the basis of agreement dated 14.O2.1979, for rectifrcation of the agreement by inserting Surwey No. 258 instead of Survey No.291 and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in suit property.

¶46

For the sake of convenience, array of parties is made as was done in the trial Court.

¶47

It is the case of plaintiff that she is the youngest daughter of the lst defendant and sister of defendants 2 and 3 and her marriage was performed in 197g as per Hindu Customs. Defendants gave Acs. T.l2 g!s. situated at l,alapuram Village, Konijarla Mandal, Khammam District towards pasupu Kumkuma (Gift) at the time of her marriage and executed an

¶48

agreement dated^{14.O2.1979ancl dellvcreclpossession l-hereof} and since then, she^{has becn irlpcatcefttlpossessionand} enjoyment over the^{subject lancl allrl thc revenue authorities} mutated her tretme in^{revenuc rt:col-<lsin rcspectoI the subject} land. Her matrimonial^{houseis at Il.rsalngllrtr village,which is} at distance of 2O^{kilometers from thc strbjectland, henr:e,she} entrusted the subject^{land todefcrldantsfor cultivation,on} condition to pay^{Rs.3,0OO/ pcr leartowards leaseand} accordingly, <lefendants^{are payrng ltis the case of prlaintiff} that after death of her^{mother int 988, dcfendants developed} greedy eye over the subject^{land cllrc to surgein land rates and} had taken 'U' turn and^{declined to pay the le ase amor:nt' In} view of the obstructions^{made Lr1' dcfendants,she filed the suit} for rectification of wrong survey^{numberand torestrain} defendants from interfering^{in suit scheduleproperty.}

¶49

ln the suit, defendants filed^{written statement} denying the averments^{made inplaint and possession of} plaintiff over the suit schedule^{lernd, however, admitted the} relationship and execution of^{the agreement in her favour.} They further contended that they^{performedthe marriage of} plaintiff and agreed to pay dowry of^{Rs.30,000/ -} to^her husband, but due lo financial^{problems, they could not pay the}

¶50

¶51

same. Subsequently on the pressure of plaintiff,s husband, they executed agreement tou'err-rls sccurity to pav the balance amount of Rs.25,00O/-. It is the c:rse of defendants thar subsequently, they paid the due amounr of Rs.25,OOO/ to plaintiffs husband, but the latter did not return the agreement saying that it was destroyed by white ants.

¶52

6 Defendant No.3 had raken out I.A. No. 10O5 of 1994 seeking compromise u.ith plaintiff on 02.12.1994, during pendency suit, duly admitting execution of agreement dated 14.02.1979 and delivery oI suit property in lavour of plaintiff.

¶53

Plaintiff got examined^pWs.1 to 3 on her behalf and marked Exs. A1 to A4 to substantiate her case. plaintiff as pWl reiterated the averments made in the plaint; pW2, attestor of Ex.A 1-agreement, deposed in {avour of plaintiff as to the execution of Ex.Al by delendants I to 3 and deiivery of the subject land in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants did not dispute the evidence of PW2 and attestation of Ex Al. pW3, who is none other than own sister of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, deposed that subject property was given to plaintiff by defendants at the time of her marriage. Defendant No. 3 - brother of plaintiff filed sworn affidavit admitting execution of

¶54

--"-:---:!

¶55

¶56

trx. A 1 and delivery of^{possession oI sr-rbject land in far ottr of} plaintiff. Village pahanies marked^{as Exs A3 arld trx A4 reflect} rhe name of plaintiff in^{respect of subjct't lanc1. On behalf of} defendants, DWs.1 to 8^{were examined arld trx.Blpronlissory} note was marked. DWS former^{patwari of the viilarge dcposed} thal on the request of the^{1st defendant, he scribccl Ex.l\1and} dehvered physical possession of subjecr^{lancl inlavcurof} plaintiff.

¶57

The stand taken by defendants^{is that Ex.,|lrvas} exccuted only towards security^{of dowry amolrntoI Rs.25',000/-} payable to the husband of plaintiff and later,^{paid tkre said} amount to the husband of plaintiff, but^PWl did^{I'rot retl.trn the} same. The trial court held that, DW1^{deposedin his evidence} that on the demand of plaintiffs husband, they^{cxccutedtrx A1} agreement, whereas in the written statement,^{defendantsstated} that agreement was executed for the iand in^{Survey Nos.26O} and 267 on the demand of plaintiff, the^{evidencc of defendants} are inconsistent and not reliable.

¶58

Learned counsel for appellants Sri Jiteclt:r^Rao Veeramalla submits vehemently that the learned trail Court ought not to have decreed the suit. On the other hand, learned

¶59

¶60

counsel appearing for the respondent Sri Kadaru prabhakar Rao strbmits that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned decree and judgment, hence, appeal may be dismissed.

¶61

10 In view of the material on record and having heard learned counsel on either side, .the foilowing polnts are lormulated for determination in this appeal.

¶62

l) Whether trial Court was right in passing decree and Judgment re I,r ing on Dx.A I agreement?

¶63

Whether the trial court was right in correcting the Sy.No.25g in the place of Sy.No.29i for the subject land ?

¶64

Whether plaintiff satisfied essential ingredients to grant perpetuat rnJunction?

¶65

1 l. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that plaintiffs case is that pursuant to the agreement executed by defendants on 14.02.1979, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the propert5r. pW_2 _ scribe of Ex.A1, P.W.3 - sister of pW_1 supported pW-1 version. D.W.S _ former patwari of vinage, who is scribe of Ex-A 1, admitted execution of Ex-Al. Thus, the evidence of pWs.l to 3 and DW5

¶66

¶67

clc.lrh' stll)p()rte(l the^{plzrintifl's case and Exs' A1 to4} corrob()r itLc(l tltc saicl^{ef idence Dcfendantsalso admitl.edthe} very cxecution of Ex.Al^{agreement, but took a plea inthe} writtcn stateln,r t that it^{was done only towards security for} 61e11,ry pavablc to^{plaintiff'shusband.However, no credible} evidencc^\ as ad(lttced in^{that regard, except markingone} promissory note as Ex B1,^{whichdoesnot concern to the facts} of the casc. ?laintiff also^{submittedacopy of FIR dated} 27.06.2014 c,r the filc of^{P.S. Konijerla registered lor the} offences undtr Section s^{324, 294(bl and 506 read with Section} 34 IPC against dcl'endant^{Appellant No.2, which clearly reveals} their interlerence uith peacelul^{possessionof plaintiff over the} subject lanc1.

¶68

Learnecl counsel for respondent^{- plaintiffsullmitted} that during pendcncy of^{the Appeal, interim stay \tras granted on} 17.O2.2O11 clirecting the appellants^{to deposit Rs. 15,000/-per} year towards iease amount for the^{subject land in favour of} plaintiff, hovt'eve r, appellants failed to comply^{with the said} direction and the said order was^{vacated by order dated} 05.03.2O14, cJirecting the appellants^{to hand over possessionof} property to plaintiff. This Court in Contempt Case^{No. 1328 of} 2Ol4 uide orcler dated 26.02.2015, observed that appellant

¶69

¶70

deliberately violated the order clatecl O5.O3.2O14 and sentenced to simple imprisonment lor three months along with fine of Rs.2,O00/-. Thc Divisional Bench in Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2013, directed the appcllants to handover possession of subject property to the plainri[f uide order dated O8.O3.2021. In pursuance of the said clirection, in E.P.No.85 of 2015, the trail Court directed to put the plaintiff in possession of subject land. Accordingly, physical possession of subject land was delivered to plaintiff uide panchanama dated 24.O6.2OL5.

¶71

Ex.A I recitals clearly disclose the . specific boundaries of subject land and DW-5, former patwari of village, scribe oI Ex-Al categorically dcposed that the relevant survey number is Survey No.258 for the subject land but it was wrongly entered as Sur-vey No. 291 in Ex.Al. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the event of boundaries established the correct survey number specified in the document, the relief sought for correction of wrong survey number is admissible. He placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shs6dhyan Singh v. Sanichara Kuerl held that where the boundaries as well as plot number were mentioned in sale certificate, but there was a mistake in t AIR t963 sc 1879,

¶72

¶73

mentioning^{the plot number, mistakemustbe trc:itcd as mere} miss-description^{u'hich does not :rffcctthe idcntity rrf the} property sold.^{The same hnding has bccn cotrsiclered L'y the} Hon'ble Apex^{Court inP. Udayani Devi v'V'V' Rajeswara} Prasad Rao2.^{In Gurram Anantha Reddyv' Katla Sayanna3'} it was observed^{that inrespect ofpropcrtt withit-r the} boundariesasmentionedinthcsuitagleemcntofsaleand decree only^{and in the name of miss description of one of the} survey numbers,^{the legitimateright oI the dccrt:e holder<:annot} be permitted^{to be frustrated As such, the trial court rightly} decreed the^{suit for rectificationofSnrvcyNo. 258 f'lrthe} 29 I as cntered^{in Ex.A1.} subject land^{in the place of Sur-ve' No}

¶74

Further, the^{recitals of Ex Al clearlyspeak passing} of title and^{possession of subjectland in favour of plaintiff by} the defendants^{without imposing any condrtion Plaintiffapart} from title,^{established pima} facie^{lawful possessionover the} subject land^{on the date of fi1ing of suit' The trial Court} '1id^not commit any illegality^{or improprietyand rightly passedthe} decree and^{judgment impugned restraining the defendants from} interfering with^{the peaceful possession and enjoynrent of}

¶75

'(1995)^{3 scc 2s2} 3 2015 (4) ALD 7).6

¶76

()

¶77

¶78

plaintiff over the subject land and rectifving the wrong survey number. The trial court rightlv observed that Ex.A1 is reliable document and the contention of clefendants that thcy executed the same as security towards d orvrv amount, is highly unbelievable. Hence there is no ground to interfere u,ith in the impugned^judgment and decree

¶79

The Appeal is accordinglv, disrnissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in O.S.No. 28 of 1989 dated 31.03.2000.

¶80

At this stage, learncd counsel for plaintiff submitted that during pendency of the Appeal, Appellant No.2 created a gift deed dated 27.07.2O11 in lavour of his wife Smt. Dama Susheela in respect of subject land and filed an Application before the Tahsildar, Konijerla Mandal to issue^pattadar passbook under ROR Act and the samc was rejected uide order dated 30.O4.2015. Questioning the rejection order, Appeal No.A3l73I2 of 2015 was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam and the same was also dismissed uide^order dated 26.03.2O20. Therefore, respondent /^{plaintiff is at liberty} to proceed for recovery ofdues^payable by defendalts,^pursuant

¶81

¶82

to thc interim orders of this Court duly follou,ing rtrc process of

¶83

Iau., u'rthout looking in to the limitation period. No cosrs.

¶84

Consequently, the miscellaneotts Ap1;licat:ons. if

¶85

anv shall stancl closed.

¶86

Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGIS/IRAR //TRUE COPY// ,$ SECTION^OFFICER

¶87

To,

¶88

The Senior^{Civil Judge at Khammam(with records)} i o;;Lt'to-^{sti Lit"ndutRao veeramalia' Advocate [oP^uc]} 5 il; 66 i"^{sti (rtiiJ praurratarRao'Advocate [oPUC]}

¶89

Two CD^CoPies

NJ b r-f

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912024

G ff rA.(
7
e s- >.
o'
lr{ir * c
"
-i)
\j.

JUDGMENT

(2 Drafts)

(+ Decree)

AS.No.1355 of 2000

DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶99

G^{coeR"t</sup> a- ;,ufal}

¶100

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶101

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶102

PRESENT

¶103

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶104

APPEAL SUIT No: 1355 0F 2000

¶105

Between:

¶106

D. Ramaiah (died)

¶107

¶108

1. Dama Venkateswra Rao, S/o R."fg!gf,, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agricuture Rt/o. Lalpuram Village, Konijerla lr,4andal, Khamm"jm Oisirict.

¶109

Dama Shankar (Died).

¶110

Dama Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o. Shankara Rao Age: 13 years, minor, (being minor rep by their next friend and maternal Uncle plAppa haoi'^- '

¶111

Dama Sailaja, D/o. Shankara.Tug &"i 10 years, minor, (being minor rep by their next friend and marernat Uncte F. nppa,nioi

¶112

Dama Kalavathi, D/o. Shankara Rao, Age: g years, minor, (being minor rep by their next friend and maternal Uncle p. Appa haoi'

¶113

Dama Sarada, D/o. Sankara.Tag {Sej 6 yqars, minor (being minor rep by their next friend and maternat Uncte pI nppj nJoi

¶114

...Appellants/Defendants

¶115

AND

¶116

Gutta Radhamma, g Rr{!p Kristrna Rao, Occ: Household and Agriculture, R/o. Hasthanagurty llage, Wyra l\4andal, Khammam District.

¶117

... RespondenUPlaintiff

¶118

Appeal filed under section 96 of c.p.c., against the Judgment and decree dated 31.03.2000 passed in o.S.No. 28 of 1989 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge at Khammam.

¶119

ORDER : This appeal coming on for- hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lowei. court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, .Advocate for Appellants and sri Kadaru prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Judgment and decree as follows:_

¶120

That the Appeal^{Suit be and herebyis dismissed'confirmingthe Judgment} and decree^{passedby the SeniorCivil Judge, Khammamin O S'No 28 of} 1989 dated 3'1 .03'2000;

¶121

IhaL the RespondenUPlaintiff^{be and hereby isat libertyto Proceedfor} recoveryofduespayablebydefendants'pUrsuanttotheinterimorrlersofthis Courtdulyfollowingdueprocessoflaw,withoutlookingintothelimitation period; and

¶122