Four second appeals arising from a partition suit over agricultural land. The plaintiff failed to prove his father acquired suit 'A' schedule property; the High Court upheld the first appellate court's reversing finding, held the land was not joint family property liable to partition, and dismissed all second appeals 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 94 OF 2009 1332 1336 1357 0F 2008
s.A. NO. 94 0F 2009 :
Appeal Under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. B ol 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad , Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S. No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Chevetla, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
G.Peter, S/o. Late Gungur Venkaiah Retd. Employee H.No.1-1, Kanakamamidi village, Moinabad Madnal, Rangareddy District
...Petitioner/ Plaintiff
AND
(Respondent Nos. 17 to 20 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 10 vide Court order dated 16-03-2023 in l.A.No. 12 of 20231
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Order 39 Rule'1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents No. 1 and 3 his family members and his henchmen not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till the disposal of the second appeal in the interest of justice otherwrse, we the petitioner will be put to serious and irreparable loss which may not compensate in terms of money and leads to multlplicity of proceedings.
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and their family members or intentionally and deliberately violated the orders of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice otherwise, we, the petitioners will be put to serious and irreparable loss which may not compensate in terms of money and leads lo multiplicity of proceedings .
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. ALLAM RAMESH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : SRI G. POORNASRI
Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 : SRI P. VINAYAKA SWAMY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1'l to 13, 17 lo 2O: MARIE DESAI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1332 OF 2008
Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. 8 ot 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District prefeired against the Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
G.Vinod Kumar, S/o Late G.Venkaiah, business R/o.H.No. 6-3-1261124. Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .. AppellanU3'd Respondent / 3'd Defendant
AND
(RR 1 I to 13 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased as per the order of the Hon'ble Court in SAMP No. 51 of 2013, dated 13.6.2013)
( Respondent Nos. 14 and 15 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 8 vide Court Order dated 15:2-2023 in l.A.No. 3 of 2023 )
( Respondent No. 16 is brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 8 vide Court order dated 15-02-2023 in l.A.No. 6 ot 2O231
( Respondent Nos. 17 to 1 9 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 10 vide Court order dated 15-02-2023 in l.A.No. 9 ot 20231
.., RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Order -39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 his family members and his henchman not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till the disposal of the second appeal in the interest of justice otherwise, we, the petitioners will be put to serious and irreparable loss which may not compensate in terms of money and leads to multiplicity of proceedings .
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondent Nos.'l and 3 and their family members or intentionally and deliberately violated the orders of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice otherwise, we, the petitioners will be put to serious and irreparable loss which may not compensate in terms of money and leads to multiplicity of proceedings
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(SAMP . NO: 3011 OF 2008)
Petition under Order 41 Rule 27 Rlw. Sec. 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 receive the faisalpatti 1954-55 along with English translated copy in the above SA. as additional document.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(SAMP. NO: 3010 OF 2008)
Petition under Section 15'1 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 Judgment and decree in A.S.8/2007 on the file of the SrCivil Judge, Vikarabad, R.R.District Dt. 20.,l0.2008 pending disposal of the above SA.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. R. BALA SUBRAMANYAM
Counsel for the RespondentNos.l to 4 : SRI G. POORNASRI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 14, 15:. SRI A. NARASIMHAREDDY
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1336 OF 2008
Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. I of 2O07 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
(Appellant Nos. 8 to 11 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Appellant No. 3 vide Court Order dated 08-02-2023 in l.A.No. 6 ot 2023 |
...APPELLANTS
AND
(Respondent No. 3 in A.S.No. 2007 set aside party by order dt.31-10-2006 in l.A.No. 238/ 2006 in O.S.No. 54 /95 . Hence not necessary party in this Appeal)
( Respondent No. 7 is not necessary party in this appeal)
...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents 2, 3, 5/ Defendants 2,3,9
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(SAMP . NO: 3017 OF 2008)
Petition under Section 15'1 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 including the execution as per the decree at 20.10.2008 in A.S.No. 8 ot 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Viakarabad, Ranga Reddy District of during pendency of Second Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellants: Smt. RACHNA S WADDEPALLI
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : M/s. G. POORNASRI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1357 OF 2008
Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. I ot 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
( Appellants No. 2 & 3 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Sole Appellant, vide Court Order dated 20-01-2023 in l.A.No. 2 ot 2018)
...APPELLANTS
AND
(Respondent No. 14 is brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 9 vide Court order dated 02-03-2023 in l.A.No. 6 of2023)
( Respondent Nos. 15 to 18 are brought on record as per LRs ofthe deceased Respondent No10 vide Court order dated 02-03-2023 in l.A.No. ...RESPONDENTS 3 ot 2023 )
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008{SAMP. NO: 3075 OF 2008}
Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Petitioner and
against the Respondents No.1 to 5 restraining them interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the petition schedule properties.
PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
All that part and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 27, admeasuring Ac. 5- 39 guntas, bounded by: EAST : Sy.No. 77 and Land of B.Eraiah WEST : Land of Kamalamma SOUTH : Land of Telugu Anjaiah NORTH : Land bearing Sy.No. 77 And Land bearing Sy.No. 77, admeasuring Ac. 16-06 guntas, bounded by : EAST : Land of Malla Venkataiah WEST . Land of Tunga Chandraiah SOUTH : Land Bearing Sy.No. 27 NORTH : Road Leading from Hyderabad to Vikarabad. Totally admeasuring Ac 22-06 guntas, situated at Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad Madnal, Ranga Reddy District.
Gounsel for the Appellants: SRl. A. NARASIMHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : M/s. G. POORNASRI
Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI ALLAM RAMESH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7: SRI R. BALASUBRAMANYAM
The Court delivered the following Common Judgment :
THE HONOURABLESMT.JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI SECONDAPPEAL Nos.94oF 20091332 1336 135 7 of2OO8
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved bythe Judgmentand Decreedated 20'10'20O8 in A.S.No.S of2OO7on the file of learned SeniorCivil Judge at VikarabadDistrict,theseSecondAppealsarefiledbyplaintiff, defendant No.3,defendantNos'8, 10 and 11 and defendant No.9 respectivelY.
2
nlt;P, r ..a1 ,,0o.. 1.J3,!. 1-136 &. 1357 20AA
the sole plaintiff, defendant No.3, defendant Nos.8, lO,11 and defendant No.9 have preferred the present Second Appeals to set aside thc impugnedjudgmentpassed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and confirm thejudgment passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella.
a) The plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 and husband of defendant No.2 by name G. Elia are real brothers. Their father Gunjum Venkaiah was the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural lands bearing sy.No.27 admeasuring Ac.5.39 guntas, Sy.No.77 admeasuring Ac. 16.O6 guntas total admeasuring Ac.22.O5 guntas in residential house situated at Kanakamamidi village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Gunjuru Venkaiah died in the year 1976 leaving behind the plaintiff, defendant Nos. I and 3 and husband of defendant No.2 by name G. Elia as his legal heirs and
.l
s-94 2OO9,1332,133.e,13572(bA
successors.
b) Thereafter, theplaintiff and his brothers werein joint possesslon and enjoymentof the suit properties'Revenue authorities granted successionand mutation ofpattaof schedule "A"properties and implementedthe same in paisal patti for theyear l97a-7g.The second son of G' Venkaiah i'e'' G. Elia died inthe year 1989 leavingbehindhim' his widow Smt. G. Rajamma,who is defendant No'2 as his legal heir'
c) Defendant No.1havingfabricatedunregisteredsale documentpurportedto the year of 1953 initiated proceedings beforetheMRO,Moinabadforvalid.ationfal-selyclaimingthat he purchasedsuit schedule property'After due enquiry' M'R'O' rejected his claimfrle order dated 26'10'1994 irt proceedings No.B/5Oa8/ 1989.In the presence of elders, he demanded the defendants toeffectpartitionof the suit schedule propertiesinto four equal shares.The defendantNo' I is making attemptsto alienate the suitscheduleproperty to third parties' Hence' the plaintiff filed the suitfor partitionof suit scheduleA' arrd 'B' scheduleproperties into four equalshares and for allotment of one such shareto the Plaintiff.
6 During thependency of the suit,defendantNo' 1 died and
1
NAP. J s 94 20a9,1332. 133A& 1357_2aoa
-t
thereby his legal representativesr.vere brought on record as defendant Nos.4 to 6, which filed their written statement and the brief averments of which are as under:
a) G. Venkaiah was an agricultural coolie having four sons and four daughters. Defendant No.l became a teacher in Methodist Boys High School, Abids ald with his eamings prior to 195O itself a stationary shop was established in the name of G. Harris and Sons. The wife of defendant No. 1 also workecl as Nurse in Nizam palace. With the earnings of wife and husband, they purchased suit 'A' schedule properly through an unregistered sale agreement on 22.05.1953 from Konda SatSranarayana Reddy for a sum of Rs. 1800/-. Konda Satyanarayana also gave an affidavit before the revcnue authorities stating that the suit A' schedule property was purchased by G. Harris. Defendant No. I used to cultivate the lands and in possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property.
b) The grandfather of these defendants passed away in the year 1976 leaving behind plaintiff, defendant No. 1, husband of defendant No.2, defendant No.3 and defendant nos.8 to 11. Plaint A' schedule property is the self acquired property of G.
L
MCP,J 94 2(n9,1332 1336& 1357.2004
Harrisi.e.,defendantNo.l.Theplaintiffisnothavingany cause ofaction against thesedefendantsand suit valuation and court fee Paidthereon 1S not correctand thus,prayed to dismiss thesuit.
Late G.Venkaiah,who was the owner and possessorof a) plaint A' and'B' scheduleproperties'died in L}rre year 1976 Ieavingbehindfour sons and four daughters i'e'' plaintiff' defendantNos.l, 3, husband defendant No'2 and defendant Nos.8 to11. The scheduleproperties are self acquired propertiesof G- Venkaiah' After the death of G' Venkaiah' the defendantsalong with the plaintiffare in joint possession and enjoymentof schedule properties' A successionis granted in respectof suit A' scheduleproperty by MRO and the same was implementedin the year lg78-7g 'Paisal Pathi is absolutely
MAP, J s 94 2009, 1332, t336& 1357 2008
false. It seems by colluding with revenue officials, succession order was obtained and as a matter of fact defendant Nos.8 to 11, who are daughters of G. Venkaiah also succeeded to the suit schedule properties being the iegal heirs but the MRO without enquiring the matter properly passed the alleged succession orders without any notice to the defendant Nos.8 to 11, as such, the alleged orders have no value and not binding on these defendants.
b) Defendant Nos.S to 11 being daughters of G. Venkaiah are also entitled for their legitimate share i.e., 1/8G share to each of these defendants. Plaintiff and defendant Nos. I to 3 filed the above collusive suit with a view to deprive the legitimate share of these defendants. The plaintiff never approached these defendants nor demalded .for any partition and the alleged date of cause of action is only an imaginar5r one for filing of the suit.
c) The valuation made by the plaintiff is incorrect and in fact the suit lands are worth more than Rs.50,0O0/- per acre and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.
7
*94-2AO9,1332'1336& l3s7'2OOA
which areas under:
Whetherthe plaintiff isentitledfor '| . propertyas prayed ol""t."'.i' ""it--".'t"at-'rt for? 2. Whetherthe plaintiff is entitledto ll4th shareclaimedin the Plaint? 3. To whatrelieP 4. WhetherExs'Bl to 83 are not admissible on theground of fabricated one?
B
MGP, J e u 2ao9,1i32, 1336& 1357 2OOA
by the same, the sole plaintiff, defendant No.3, defendant Nos.8, 10, 11 and defendant No.9 have preferred thepresent Second Appeals to set aside the impugnedjudgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and confirm the judgment passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella.
a) Whether the appellate court isjustified rn relying on Ex.Bl, which is an unregistered deed for the purpose of rebutting the presumption to be drawn on the basis of Ex.A 1.
b). Iq v_igw of the fi.nding of the learnecl Junior Civil Judge that Ex.B 1 is not admissible in evidence whether the Appellate Court isjustified in coming to a conclusion that the suit schedule property is not a joint family property.
c) The findings of the Appellate Court to the effect that the suit scheduie property is the self acquired property of the father of the defendant Nos.4 to 7 is perverse and contrary to the material on record.
a) The lower appellate court failed to see that late Venkayya had perfected his title by adverse
9
MCP, J e s4 2OO9li32, B3AA Bs7-2ooa
possessionfrom 1953 onwards which is evidentfrom Faisalpattiof 1954 -1955'Late Venka}ya has been shown aspattadarin pahani' which is nothing but title tothe land has been recognizedunder Section2 (11) of A.P.(Telangana Area)Land Revenue Act'1917 Fasli.
The appellantand respondent No'l and LRs of b) late. Harrisand Elia also perfectedtheir title through their fatherVenkaYYa'
The lowerappellatecourt erred in reversingthe c) findingof the TrialCourt by hoiding that the schedule propertyis the self acquired propertyof defendant No. 1, whichis totallydevoid of merits'
The lowerappellate Court oughtto haveseen d) that underEx.A2Pahani 1988-89' the respective shares offour brothers were shown and recordedin the revenuerecords, whereequalsharesare givento brothers.The conduct of G' Harris also amounts to estoppeland operates againsthim'
The lowerappellatecourt failed to see that the e) allegedagreementof sale Ex'Bl' cannotbe admitted as documentas itis sulferingfrom the following infirmities.
! Thepurchaser name is not disclosed The agreementnot witnessed by any person' d
10
MAP'J e-94-2OO9, 1332, 1336& 1357-2004
h) The document is unregistered. i) The document does not contain any schedule or boundaries or survey numbers.
j) The time fixed for registration i.e., 8 months lapsed long back and any suit based on the said document is barred by limitation.
k) The lower appellate court grossly erred in relying on Ex.B 1 an unregistered and void sale agreement inadmissible in evidence by virtue of the prohibition contained in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 17 (b) and 49 of the Registration Act.
1 3. Substantial questions of law raised in S.A. No. 1336 of 2008 are as under
a) Whether the document whose recitals do not contain the nalne of the purchaser, seller, consideration, boundaries of the schedule propert5r and the factum of delivery of possession of the property which constitutes the essential ingredients of sale can be termed as sale deed under the Transfer of Property Act, and basing upon such documents, whether title to property can be granted?
li
MEP,J s44 2\og, 1332,1336& 1357-2dN
Whetherone son of aperson' who died b) intestatecan exclude his own brothers and sisters for succeedingto the property of their fatherunder IndianSuccessionAct,1925?
That ina partition suit the burdenof proving the a) fact asto whether the suit schedule propertiesare self acquired ProPertiesofthe defendantlies onthe defendantor the PlaintifP
b) That aCourt acting in its original jurisdiction canrecord a findingon presumPtionsand assurnptionswheqthg qia rlgding 1s contraryto the pleadingsor not supported by any pleading?
Whetherthe entries in KhasraPahanican be c) overlookedon thebasis ofpresumptionszind assumPtions?
Whetherthe Ex'B1 can be admitted in evidence d) for thepurpose of decidingthe title for wantof 17 of the registrationas required under Section RegistrationAct.?
The appellateCourt erred in not considering the e) fact thattili the death of late Sri G' Venkaiah' the entriesin ttre revenuerecords reflected that he is the pattedar?
l2
s 94 200q, 1332, 1336& 1357_200A
f) Whether Ex.B 1 was proved in accordance with the provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
g) Whether the appellate Court wasjustified in reversing thejudgment of the trial Court without even discussing the oral evidence on record?
Whether Ex.B1 can be treated as Sale Deed even h) though it does not satis$r the requirement as contemplated under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
i) Whether the appellate Court wasjustified in not deciding the issue of admissibility and genuineness of Exs.Bl to E}3 even though a specific issue was framed and decided by.the triaJ, Court?
13
4.N 2009.13321t336e-13572004
No. 1 andthe other branch (plaintiff'defendant No'2' defendant No.3, defendantNos.Bto 11 and their respective legalheirs) claiming thatsuit 'A' schedule propertyis the self acquired property oflateG. Venkaiah'There is no dispute with regard to thepreliminary decree passed by the learned Trial Court in respect ofpartitionof suit 'B' schedulepropertybetween the parties.Thus, we are only concerned with suit A' schedule property in theseappeals' Hence' now the only point to be adjudicatedintheseappealsis whether suit 'A' schedule property is selfacquired property of defendant No'l or the self acquiredproperty of lateG' Venkaiah'
I.1
MGP,J e 94 2.Nq, 13f,2. 1336 31 1357 2AOa
if marked in evidence by mistake, could not beacted upon.In this connection, reliance is placed on a decision in Krishnakumari v. K. Suresh Kumarr, wherein the HighCourt for the State of Karnataka at Bengaluru observed that thereis a complete and express bar under sub-section(1-A) of Section17, which requires that, in such agreement wherebyphysical possession of the property is delivered, it would require to be registered compulsorily. Further, it is the contention of the plaintiff that immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/ - has to be through registered documents and in this regard, reliance is placed on decision of High Court of Madras in K. Narayanaswamy Pillgi v,. Smi. Kannamal2 . and also the decision of High Court of Karnataka. in Shriehail v. Tippawwa and others3. I-earned counsel for the plaintiff while relying upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Suraj Lanp Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryaaaa submitted that an Agreement of sale or AGPA does not confer title over a property. Learned counsel for the piaintiff further relied upon a decision in K. Seetharama Reddy and another
'r{ANU/ KA/0736/0015
, 2014 SCC Or ine Mad 1260
3 MANU /KA/2r74120174
{ MANU/SC/ r222l201 I
15
v. Haasatr AliKhan and otherss, wherein it wasobserved by the HighCourt for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradeshthat under Section5-A of the A.P' right in Land and PattadarPass Books Act,197 l, an agreement of sale simplicitor is not enough for regularisationof the document underSection 5-A of the said Act. A similarviewwastaken by High court for the Stateof in Makhala KotilingambyLRs v' Joint Collector'R'R' District6. InRangammal v' Kuppuswamiand anotherT the HonourableSupreme Courtobservedthat the burden of proving a fact alwayslies upon the person who asserts it and until such burden isdischarged,the other party is not required to be called uponto Provehis case'
s 2Oo2 SCC Oiline AP 1036
6 2oo5(21 ALD 834
7 t2OW 12 Supreme Court Cases22O
/
1a)
sa-91-2009, 13,J2, 1336& 1357 200a
property. A proof of the existence of ajoint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family isjoint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property wasjoint to establish the fact. But wherein if it is established that the family possessed somejointproperty, which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of thejoint family property.
observed that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of ajoint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the propert5r is a joint family property. if, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims
3 (1955) I SCR l
\ \ , (2003) lO SCC 310
17
T"P, J sa 94 f,(n9,1332,t336A. 13572OOA
it to be self-acquiredproperty to prove that he purchasedthe property with hisownfunds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available.Therefore, tJle law is well settledthat the burden lies uponthe person, who ailegesthe existenceof the Hindu undividedfamily to provethe same,and if the persons so assertingproves that there was no nucleus with whichthe joint family propertycouldbe acquired, there would be presumption of the propertybeing joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it tobe self-acquired propertyto provethat he purchased thepropertywith his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus thatwas available''
la
ycP, J * 94 2OO9,1332, 1336& t357 2008
representatives and otherslo wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that revenue record does not confer title to the property nor day they have any presumptive value on the title. [n Union of Iadia and others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and otherslI the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:
"This Court in seueraLjudgments has held that th.e reuenue records do nol anfer title. In Corpn. of the Citg of Bangalore u. M. Papaiah this Court held tlut:
'5. .... It is finnlg established that the reuenue recordsqre not documents of title, and the question of interyretcttion of a d.ocument not being a docutnent of title is not a question of lanu." 22. However, in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy v. D. Narsing
Raoi2 the Honourable Supreme Court observed that Khasra Pahani is the basic record of rights prepared by the Board of Revenue Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-55 and as per Regulation No.13 any entry in the said record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. In the 2nd edition (1997) of "The Law kxicon" by P.Ramantha Aiyer, Khasra is described as register recording the incidents of tenure and is a historical record and that it would serve the purpose of a deed of title, 'a,hen there is no other title deed. In G.
to AIR 2O21 Supreme Court 4739 "(2OI4)2 SupremeCourtCases269 "MANU/SC/0024/2015 \
t9
,tfcr, J
Satyanarayanav. Governmentof AndhraPradeshr3 the High
Court forthe erstn'hile State oi AndhraPradesh observedas
under:
'From the lenqthydisrttssiorlon tf@ lafldtenures ttderlakerl hereinbefore,it cruld be ieduced that the qenesisof oies title is trace.ohletohi.spossess.on.Areqkteredoc.llpantofthPtand.,'bothuader ii")it ".tenureand also under the esl@tes'i's recoqnised'os@ persolr it&iiq ialnt"ouerthe land Subiect to paumentof land reuenuettll the nia i t orokn"dk) anotherperson'aregistered ,occt'Lpontwas Jrla iiri ttqrtsht of setlr..sthe land to a:u thilT pqrtstt'ithout ,itta"dorr".Thns' therecoqnised possessiot canbe said to.be the source- of a nersotts title.l"heposiession of a person is reftectedin thc rccord's' ";r":;;,:;-.;;;;.,. ,'lo'i ppq,st.r/ Diqtot in Madras. Pre'sidetrcuo^d the Sethwaf inTelangana a,"i. o.the'|r,otherof alt the Regtsters. Thouqh i"'irrLrtlintnniion of prepainq this Reqbt..rwas,to clc.ssifllthe lr:.tu7s "i.lriiirrq then.rmesofl,heperson:;illoccupatioftwasonequdllllimportafutobiectio the soitona iZtt"tiolit'and assess the:eu.enue'recording in-pr.poang hontgister,for,Loithoutreardinqthenantesof the persotLs in oqpation, the(ioueotmentwitl notbe able to coltect .reuenue' ALI the reuenue-recnrds "'"ito" ntqi'ttt" A to E anrl-.monthJgandannual a""""L ,vr.lto 4 and io"ioAr;r;ount"in Andhraore.a and wasool gooui. Xtr-Sro Pr.hq,ti, Pahani Patik'Choufasla' Faisal pattietc ' ;3;;;.;;;;",,b"'t,i, ii r"t""s""aAreoare based .onthebasic .-.i"tet of Diolot/ Sethu'l.lr'Therefore' if o persons rutmeis recordedas ';:";k;i";,*;;' ;;;;tri' in tn""' reards' a ne<,,ss,,rupreswnption u.tould(lisein hb fowuror in faoourof thq persons.uhoclaimthrouqh ii^ tinot nnflotdstitle: to the land'In wse of a dispute betueentlDo priudte prrrties' tnop'"tu-ptioi *nb.e rebutted' bll th?-ioalclaimontbu nto.lucina beneteutdence'suchas subsequentpartttions'fitttalion in lhe ';i,;;;'i.;;; trans(tctionsetc'In manlt cases' after 'iri"*rlii" ,i o.lot/'*thwat, ";;"'".,iii,,)ii ""t' changes in ort,nershio o[ larul molt occ r' ln such cases,o pn.:;on *io ""t"iP nualclaim.mustbe dbleto show th\t eithefhe o,ni" pr.a.ii"or-in-titledeiued righttlaough s{tle deeds supporledbg enties in reuenue record "
23.Further,inShikharchardJainv'DigaEberJainPraband
Karini Sabhaand othersl4 the Honourable Supreme Courtobserved that Khasrais a recordof right accordingto Section 45 (2) of the Central ProvincesLand Revenue Act' 1917 and Section 80 (3) of that Act providesthat entries in a record of right shallbe presumedto be
r.' MA]\tu/Al,/0431/20| 4 tr4974l I Suprcmc CourtCasrs 675
20
MCP, J s 94 21fr9,1332, 1336& 1357 2004
correct unless the contrary is shown.This provision raises a presumption of correctness of Khasra entries.In MylaramLachaiah and others v. NafeezunnisaBegum aad anotherlsthe High Court for the erstwhile State of AndhraPradesh observedthat once it is held that Khasra pahani of which thecorrectionwas sought by the lst respondent is the recordof rights preparedunderthe regulation, the Collector under Section 15(2) of the Regulation has the right to correct the entries made in the record of rights. InVeera Macheneni Ranga Rao v. State ofA.P.16 thisCourt observed as
under:
' "As per tle ratiolaid doutnin G.Satganarayana case(4 supra) while dealing with the Telangana AreaLand C.ettsus Rules, 1954, the erstirhile High Cciiiiof AndhraPradbsh held at para No.83 as under:
's(t972) ILR 6s2
16 (2021) 09 TDL CK 0063
2t
s 942009, t:).i2, 1336 & 1337-20l)4
unlesstheContraryisshown.lnPartapSingh(dead|through legal representativesand others v' Shiv Ram (deadthrough legal representativeslTtheHonourable SupremeCourt observedthat the presumption of truth attachedto the record of rights canbe rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entryor the entry wassurreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed.lt was further observedthat it will not be proper to relyon the oral evidenceto rebut the statutory presumption asthe credibility of oral evidenceuis-a-uis documentaryevidenceis at a muchweaker level'
r? (2OlO) I I Supreme Court Cases 242
22
+toP,J s-l4-2009,1332, 1336 & 1357 2AOa
proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer that he alienated suit 'A' schedule property to defendant No. 1. Though PW 1 deposed that his lather purchased the suit A' schedule property from one Sat5ranarayana Reddy, he failed to adduce any evidence as to when (date/ month/year) the said lald was purchased, what was the sale consideration amount involved in the said transaction and what was the mode of acquisition etc. If at all father of PW1 purchased the suit 'A' schedule property from Satyalarayana Reddy, there could have been some material under which the sale transaction took place between PWI and Sat5ranarayana Reddy. PW1 pleaded ignorance about exqqulion g[.gny. dgcu,r4pn!, at. the-.dme ql pgqhasg of suit Arschedule property.
23
s s4 2009,1332,1336&13572004
'pattedar'.As per the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue(Land Reforms), caremustbe taken to show how the occupant'sright is derived from pattedar' The transactionsof sale, gift,partitionetc.,which mighthave taken piace before the the occupantof columnNo' 13 right hnallYdevolved uPon I11 thepresent case, there rs no should beindicated. But indication ormentioneither shortly or brieflyas to howG' Venkaiahcametoholdthelandfromtheoriginalpattedar.In fact, G.Venkaiah, himself was shown as pattedar at column No.14.Further, entry should showwhether the transaction is covered bya registeredor an unregistered document' The names of-persons from whorn'theright 'is deriv-ed and' 'the amount ofconsideration paid should also be indicated' If the ownership ofa certainland changes' the name of previous owner maybe cancelled by drawing vertical parallel linesacross the entryand the name of new owner shall be written below it' In thepresent case, there is no mention as to how the sale transactiontookplacebetweenoriginalpattadarKonda SatyanarayanaReddyand G' Venkaiah and as to what is the sale considerationfor the said transaction'Ex'A1doesnot even disclosethe name of the vendor from whom G' Venkaiah alleged to havepurchased the suit 'A' schedule property'
2,1
MEP,J * 94 2001r,1332,1336&1357-2004
25
NGP. J sd 94 2009, 1332, li3661357 2004
q l.
')6
MAP,J so 94 20A9, 1332, 1336& 1357 2008
Venkaiah is also liable to be entered inthe revenuerecordsin respect of property held by G. Venkaiah. Admittedly defendant No.1 was not even served with any notice as required underthe A.P. ROR Act in the saidproceedings before theMRO, Moinabad, which is against one of theprime principles of 'audi alteram pattrt' .
I
27
EP, J e 94-2009, 1332,1336 & 1357-2004
PWI deposed that hisfather cultivatedthe lands of Konda Satyanarayana Reddy.There is no clarit5r as to whether father of PW1 has cultivated thelands of Konda SatyanarayanaReddy on lease orpurchased the lands from Konda Sa$anarayana Reddy. Thus, theveryown versionsof PW1 on differentdates of his cross examinationare contradictingwith each other' In Ramesh Kumar andanother v. Furu Ram and anotherl8,the Honourable SupremeCourt observed that it is well settled that no amount ofevidence contraryto the pleadings can be relied on or accepted. Itwas further observed that differentversions clearly demonstratefraud and misrepresentation'
rs (2Ol l) 8 Suprcme Court Cases 613
MGP, J satrt 2OO9, 1332 1336& 1357 2OAA
scheduie property. PW 1 admitted that he has not filed any written application for mutation of their names in the revenue records. If entering the name of defendant No. 1 in the revenue records as pattadar from 1980-86 in respect of suit A'schedule property is illegat as per the version of PW1, then certainly PW1 alleging to have share in suit A' schedule property, would have filed an application for mutation of his names and names of other defendants in revenue records.
2t)
MGP. J tu_942009,1332, 1336 &1357 2008
of reuenue recordare sumntaryirL natureThestatements iecorded by ttrcReuenueOfficer during tle proceedingsfor conection ojreuenue record are not per se admissible in euidence' Mag be thi euidence ofthe witnesses could be usedto confront the- uitness being apreuious stotement if such a statement is made on oath- iherefore,the referetce of correctionsof Khasra gird,auari proceedtngs ist.rthollg unutarrantedwhest suchenties are notproued to be incorrect.'
30
tlcP, r * 94 20Aq,1332, 1336& 1357 20Aa
same was recorded by him in his own hand writing and similarly he has recorded the statement of Mallamma, Veeraiah, Ramaiah under Ex.XS. Though plaintiff contended that Exs.X2 and X5 cannot be considered as admissible evidence, by considering the evidence of DW3, it can be said that Exs.X2 and X5 are genuine. Through this witness defendalt Nos.4 to 7 intended to prove that defendant No.1 has hled an application for regularisation of agreement sale under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. At the cost of repetition, it is made it clear that this court is not here to decide the title or ownership of defendant No. I. over suil. 'A' schedule. property. The application of defepdant, No.,1,for regularip*iSn of aCfqeg-rgqt.qf , qJg.g,a,s_f1!gd before the MRO, Moinabad and the said application was rejected and aggrieved by the same, defendaol No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, wherein the matter was remanded back to Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad for deciding the matter afresh based on the record. However, this Court has no jurisdiction to make comment on the above said aspects, more particularly in a suit hled by the plaintiff for partition.
e5.According to theevidence of plaintiff/ PW I , during \ Jamabandi of Kanakamamidi, Konda Satyanarayana made a
31
s 94 2d)9,1332,1336& tisT 2ooa
statementto the effect that sinceG'Venkaiahdied' the land is to begiven to his four sons and based on the said statementthe names of foursons of G' Venkaiahwere entered in revenue records. Butsurprisingly, the ptaintifffaiied to produce the said StatementallegedtohavebeengivenbyKondaSatyanarayana before theMandalRevenue Offrcer,Moinabad' It isthe contentionof the plaintiff that after recording the statementof K. SatyanarayanaReddy, their names were enteredand at that time defendantNo- 1was not called' InChinnam Pandutangamv.MandalRevenueOfficer,serilingampally Mandal andothersle the High Court for erstwhile State of Andhra : pradesh obsbrved .that thirl i language of Form-vlll in which the noticeis required to be published cannot control the interpretationof the substantive provision containedin Section 5(3) , which,as mentionedabove,casts a dutyon the recording authority toissue notice in writing to all persons whose names are enteredin the Recordof Rights and who are interestedin or In thepresentcase, affected bythe proposed amendment over suit schedule'A' though defendantNo'lhas interest property, noticewas not issued to him before entering the namesof plaintiffand his other brothersin the revenue records
re AIR 2OO8 Andhra Pradesh15
\ \
32
sa 94 20A9, 1332, 1336 & 1357 200u
in respect of suit schedule 'A' property, which isnothing but violation of principles of naturaljustice. On the other hand,the defendant No.1 coulcl produce the statement under Ex.X2given by original pattadar of plaint A' scheduleproperty i.e., Konda Satyanarayana before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad, wherein it was stated that he alienated plaint 'A' schedule property to defendant No. I for a sale consideration of Rs. 18O0/-
ai3
sa 94.-2009,1332, 1336& ll57 2UOa
property to Defendant No.l for Rs.1800/-, when PWl was confronted with statement of K. Satyanarayana Reddy under Ex.X2, he admitted that in response to Ex.X2 he alongwith defendant No.3 submitted Ex.X1 to the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, Moinabad not to consider trx.X2. Thus, it cannot be saidthat plaintiff was not having an opportunity to deny the statement given by Konda Satyanarayana under Ex.X2.
34
MAP, J s 94 2049, 1.732, t336& ]357 200A
-..-
35
MEP, J s 94 2@9,13i2,l.l.16 &1357 20r,4
the attestorsto Ex.Bl i.e., KattulaRamaiah is his relative'In such circumstances,there is no necessityfor KattulaRamaiah to stand againstplaintiff,wifeof defendant No'2and defendant No.3, moreparticularly whenhe is relative to PWl' Further' Konda SatyanarayanaReddy, who is the originalpattedarof suit A' scheduieproperty and also a third party to the suit' has no necessit5/ tospeak falsehoodagainstthe plaintiff' Since Konda SatyanarayanaReddy has received sufficient sale considerationfrom defendantNo'l, he was compelled to state before the MandalRevemreOfficer about the transaction between himself anddefendantNo' 1' However' Konda SatyanarayanaReddy was not alive Lry the time of trial Perhaps thatmight be the reasonwhy his evidencecould not be secured by the triaiCourt. Insuch circumstances' the statement of KondaSat5ranarayana Reddywas considered for corroborative PurPose.
\ \
3t)
MGP' J sa 94 2009, 1332, 1336& 1357_2(n8
Reddy, on careful perusal of the entire plaint, there is no such whisper. Further, the plaintiff averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 has created unregistered sale deed. However, the plaintiff did not make any efforts to file any rejoinder to deny the above said two aspects and thereby make averments in the rejoinder that Konda Saffanarayana Reddy has alienated the suit A' schedule property to G. Venkaiah and that his brother defendant No.1 has created unregistered sale deed. It is settled law that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into.
I
37
so,942OO9, 1332,1336 & 13572OO8
common.But no proof is filedby the plaintiff to show that suit schedule 'A'property was purchased by G' Venkaiahand after his demise thesaid property was being enjoyed by all the descendantsof G. Venkaiahjointly' PW1 admittedin his cross examinationthat as the name of Venkaiah is shownas pattadar in the revenuerecords,he filed the suit for partition basingon theordersoftheMRo.ButintheCauseofactionparainthe plaint, it wasaverred that the cause of actionarose on 23.O4.lggiand whereasthe plaint was hled in the year 1999' But even asper the plaintiff,the name of G' Venkaiah is appearing inthe revenue recordssince 1954-1955'If at all the contention ofplaintiffthat the suit filed by him wasbased-o-n.' the entry ofname of his fatherin revenue records' lhen plaintiff ought tohave filed the suit for partitionimmediatelyafter the demise of hisfather G. Venkaiahin the year1976 but there is no such instance.Evenas per the own documentof plaintiff under Ex.A15pahani patrikafor the year 1988-89the name of defendantNo. 1 along with his brothers were shown and the nature ofproperty was shownas self acquired' Further'Ex'AS produced bythe plaintiff disclosesthe name of defendant No'1 and thenatureof the property was shown as self acquired'
\ \
NA?, J s 9.1 2(n9,1332, 1336& t357-2OOa
establish his case. PW2 is the farm servant of Konda Sa\ranarayana Reddy and served for 25 years. In the chief examination, PW2 deposed that he came to know that PW1 purchased the suit land from Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy. This statement of PW2 is quite contrary to the contention of the plaintiff that the suit A' schedule property was purchased by his father G. Venkaiah. The evidence of PW2 also disclose that as defendant No. 1 and his wife were doingjobs in city, they used to look after plaintiff, wife of defendant No.2, defendant No.3 and also defendant Nos.8 to 11. Further, DWl, who is sailing along with plaintiff, admitted that he heard about Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy giving a statement before MRO that he sold A' schedule property to defendant No. 1. Thus, the evidence of DW I is supporting the case of defendant No. 1 rather than the case of plaintiff and other defendants. There was no document to show the transfer of ownership ol title and possession of the suit 'A' schedule propert5r from Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy to G. Venkaiah i.e., father of PWr /plaintiff.
39
sa 94_2OO9,1332, 1336 & 1357_2048
no evidence is adduced to that extent. Admittedly, Konda Satayanarayana Reddy is the originai pattadar of suit schedule A'property and he is a third party to the suit. G. Venkaiah and his son i.e., defendant No.1 are third parties to Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy. In such circumstarces, he is least bothered as to whom the propertSr is to be sold. He is only concerned with the person, who is ready and willing to pay sale consideration to purchase his propert5r. Since defendalt No. 1 paid sale consideration, Konda Satyanarayana Reddy stood in favour of defendant No. 1.
40
waiting till passing of orders by MRO to file partition suit, draws an adverse inference against him about genuineness of Ex.A 1 .
,o (2OO2l 6 Supremc Court Cases 404 2r (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 468
.11
e 94200a, 1332, 1336& 13572004
relied upondecisions of the Honourabie Supreme Courttn IshwarDassJain(dead|throughLRsv.SohanLal(dead)by LRs22,P.Chan&ashekaranandothersv'S'Kanakarajanand others23,HeroVinothv'seshammal2a'Boodireddy Chandraiahand others v' ArigelaLaxmi and others2s and State ofRajasthan and othersv' Shiv Dayal and others26 In MalluruMallappav. Kuruvathappa2T the Apex Courtobserved thatevenwhenthelrrstappellatecourtaffirmsthejudgmentof thetrialCourt,itisrequiredtocomplywiththerequirementof Order 41rule 31 and non-observanceof this requirementleads to inhrmityin the judgment of the ftrst appellate courtNo doubt,when iire appeilate'courtagrees with"t1re views of the trial courlon evidence, it need not restate effect of cvidence or reiteratereasons given by the trial court'Expressionof a general agreementwith the reasonsgiven by the trial court would ordinarilYsuffice'
,, MANU/SC/0747l 1999
,3 2oo7 {5) SCC 669
,1 MAliu lsc 12774 /2006
5 MANU/SC/3839/2007
," MANU/SC/ lO92l2019
,, l2O2Ol4 Supreme court Cases313,
- iZOtO; tS Supt nte CourtCases2lt)
\
\
12
lvaP, r * 94 2Ot)9, t332, 1336 & 1357_2OOa
excluding relevant materiai or by taking intoconsideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageouslydefieslogic as to suffer from vice of irrationali8 incurring theblame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered inlirm in the eyeof the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidenceor evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidencethat suffers from the vice of procedure irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at thosefindings, then the hndings may be said to beperverse. Further, ifthe findings are either ipse diit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, thejudgment suffers from the additional inhrmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated.
\ ,e MANU/SC/0027/ l9a7
.13
sa942OO9,1332' 13'16& )3572OOA
evidence.lt was furtherobservedthat if the additional evidence which theHigh Courtconsidersit appropriate to receiveeven at the stageof a second appeal in accordancewith law is in the form of adocumentand does not require any formalproof' the High Courtcan receiveadditionalevidenceitself and proceedto determinethe matter in accordancewith law'But in the present case,there is no instance of any additional evidence and theonlyissueto be dealt in these Appealsis whether the plaintiff couldestablish on his own strengththat suit 'A" scheduleproperty is self acquiredproperty of G' Venkaiah' Thus, thefacts stated in -th9.abo11 31ia{eiislon cannottre made applicableto the fucts of the presentcase'
30 (2O01) 3 SuPremeCourtCases179 \ ,
14
MCP, J s 94 2d)9, t332, t336&1357 2004
law be a substantial one. In Somakka ldead) bylegal representatives v. K.P. basavaraj(dead| bylegal representatives3l the Honourable Supreme Courtobsewed that thejudgment of the appellate court shall be inwriting and would include the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and wherethe decreeis reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Though several grounds were raised by the appellants, none of the grounds were appearing to be based on substantialquestion of law, more particularly, when the appellants failed to establish that'suit 'A' schedule property is ajoint familyproperty and liabte for partition. Though, it is contended by thg appqtlgn!,s .,, that the learned hrst appellate Court has passed the impugned Judgment only based on inadmissible under Exs.Bl, 82, Xl, X2, X3 and X5, such judgment is appearing to have been passed in proper perspective as the said judgment is based on valid and sufficient grounds/reasons and al1 other relevant aspects.
31 {2022) 8 scc 261 \
I
.15
sd 942009, 1332.1336&13s7 2oo8
Pandurang Petkarandothers32 the HonourableApex Court observed thatjurisdiction undersecondappeal not to be exercised merelybecausean alternate view is possible lt was observed in Hamidav. Mohd. Khalil33that whileexercising jurisdiction under Section 1O0of the Code of Civil Procedure' cannot reversethe findingsof the lower appellatecourt on facts merely on theground that on the facts found by the lower appeilate courtanotherview was possible'This positionwas reiterated by AvtarSinghand Others v'Bimla Deviand others3a.However,there are certain exceptionsto the rule as pointed out by theApex Court inNazirMohamedv'J' Kamalass as under: '"
"33.4. Thegeneralrule is, ttnt tlle HighCourt rt.tillnot interfere withthe cincurrent findingsof. the courts .belolo'But it is not Ln absoluterule. Someof the uetlrecognised exceptionsare ineie: 14 ttecourts below hiue ignored material euidenceor acted in no ika.nn;(ii) the courts haue drawnwronginferencesJrom proued facts bg applyingthe lau e:noneouslg; .or(i\ the courishaue iro"gtA clst;he^bu;de;of proof' A decision based on no euidence' does'iot rekr onlgto caieswhere there is a totdl dearlh of euidence, bitalso refersto case, utheretheeu{dence'takenas a u.rhole, ii rwt reasonibtycapabteof supportingtle finding'"
,r, 2023 Uve Law (SC) 821 r3 (2010) 12 SCC 74O
Y 1202r lJ SCC 816
I
\ " izozoire scc s7 t
.r6
lnoP, J s_94 2(n9, 1332, 1336&, t357,2004
of evidencc is palpably erroneous and the finding offact incorrect as held in V. Ramachandra Ayyar v.Ramalingam Chettiars6.
5 I . It is to be seen that in the present Appeals, it isnot the case of 'concurrent findings' but in fact it is 'reversing finding'. There is no doubt that the first appellate court has given credence to Exs.B 1 ar:d 82 while passing thejudgment in A.S.No.8 of 2OO7. Ex.B1 being an agreement of sale not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence to consider the title ofa party over immovable property. But as can be seen from Ex.B1, possession of suit schedule IAl properff .was .n9t--de,livered b5r: Konda Satyanarayana Reddy to defendant No. 1. The High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in B. Bhaslcor
Reddg u. Bommireddy Pattabhi Rami Reddg (dted) per LRs and others.T observed that wherever the agreement holder is not in possession of the property under agreement of sale, even though there is a recital in the agreement as to delivery of possession, he need not pay proper stamp duty as required. Even otherwise, as discussed supra, this Court is not here to decide the ownership of defendant No.l over suit 'A' schedule \ \
5 AIR 1963 SC 302
3? 2010 (6) Al,D 307
I
17
MGP''] * 94 2009, 1332, 1i36& 1357 2AA8
property. Though the learned first appellate gone to the extent of deciding the ownership of defendant No.l based on Exs.Bl and 82, the oniy point that is to be adjudicated is whether suit A' schedule property is joint family property or not, more particularly, in a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff. It is settled law that plaintiff has to stand or fa1l on his own legs and he cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants in establishing his case.
.2.2' i
48
MGP. J e 94 2009, 1332, 1336 & 1357 200A
Khasra Pahani, no other regular registered sale deed is filed by the plaintiff to show that suit A' schedule property has been purchased by late G.Venkaiah in his name by way of registered sale deed. Moreover, the original owner of the said iand by name Konda Sat5zanarayan Reddy gave statement before the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.X2 and specifically stated that he sold the property in favour of defendant No. 1 for a sale consideration and also delivered possession of the property. The testimony of original owner has not been specifically contradicted by the plaintiffs nor any admissions are elicited that the said property was not sold to defendant No. l.
19
s4 94 2oot,1332,133b& 13572004
1
t
!3
plaintiff failed toestablishthat his father G' Venkaiah has purchased suit A'scheduleproeprtyfrom his own funds' Moreso,whenthereisnoproofofthefinancialcapacityor sourceofincomeofG.VenkaiahtopurchaseplaintA,schedule property, thisCourt is not inclined to believe the verson of the plaintiff thatplaint'A' schedulepropertyis also joint family property andis liablefor partition' The {irst appellate court has consideredthe entire gamet of the controversywith referenceto thematerialavailableonrecordinproperperspectiveandhas rightly heldthat scheduleA' propert5r is not joint family property.Thelefore, gventhough there i1 no regularregrstered sale deedobtained by defendantNo'1 in pursuance of Ex'B1 but by thatitself it would not establish the caseof the plaintiff that plaintA' schedule property is a joint famiiy property' 54. Havingconsidered the entire materialavailabieon record' rivalcontentionsandalsothefindingsrecordedbytheiearned first AppellateCourt, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interferencewith the said findingsin an Appeal filed under Section100 of the Code of CivilProcedure'Hence'these SecondAppeals deserve to be dismissedas devoid of merits'
55 In the result,these second appeais are dismissed' There
SO
'ucz,t so 91 2oot, 1332, 1336 & 1337 2008
I
shall be no order as to costs
As a sequcl, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed
Sd,- M. RAMANAKRISHNA DEPYTYREGISTRAR
// TRUECOPY//
SECTIONSECTI ON OFFICER
L"
kul/gh @
"'1(r
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/08/2024
COMMON JUDGMENT
S IAr€
1 6E
(
q
f
0 5 0E[ 2021 a
o
DESPAT
SECOND APPEAL Nos : 94 OF 2009. 1332,1 .1357 0F 2008
DISMISSING THE ALL SECOND APPEALS
WITHOUT COSTS
I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 94 OF 2009 1332 1336 1357 0F 2008
s.A. NO. 94 0F 2009 :
Between:
...Petitioner/ Plaintiff
AND
7 Smt. Mariya, Wo. Dr. Jashwanth Rao Samuel (Died)per LRs RR 11 to 13 ,PlotNo. 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghada Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
(Respondent Nos. 17 to 20 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 10 vide Court order dated 16-03-2023 in l.A.No. 12 of 20231
...RESPONDENTS
Appeal Under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. 8 of 2007 on the fite of the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad , Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S. No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
DECREE: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant Court and the Court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLAM RAMESH,Advocate for the Appellant and of M/S. G. POORNASRI, advocate for the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri P. VINAYAKA SWAMY, Advocate for Respondent No. 6 and Sri MARIE DESAI, Advocate for Respondent Nos. l1 lo 13 , 17 to 20.
SECOND APPEAL NO:'1332 OF 2008
Between:
G.Vinod Kumar, S/o Late G.Venkaiah, business R/o.H.No. 6-3-126/124. Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .. AppellanU3'd Respondent / 3'd Defendant
,AND
I
,
./7
.l 10 Smt G.santhoshamma, W/o. Dr J.J Luke H.No. 5-B-50/A, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad. (died per LRs RR 17 to.19
//
(_Respondent Nos. 14 and 15 are brought on record as per LRs ofthe deceased Respondent No. I vide Court Order dated 15:2-2023 in l.A.No. 3 of 2023 |
(_Respondent Nos. 1 7 to 19 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 10 vide Court order dated 15-02-2023 in l.A.No. 9 ot 20231
...RESPONDENTS
Appeal Under Section 100 of CpC against the decree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008 in A.s.No. 8 of 2007 on the file of the court of the
l
,/ Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the I Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
DECREE :This Second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant Court and the Court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. BALA SUBRAIVIANYAM, Advocate for the Appellant and of M/s. G. POORNASRI, Advocate for the Respondent Nos 1 to 4 and Sri A. NARASIMHAREDDY, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 14, 15
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1336 OF 2008
Between
I
(Appellant Nos. 8 to 11 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Appellant No. 3 vide Court Order dated 08-02-2023 in I.A.No. 6 oI 2023 |
...APPELLANTS
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents 2, 3, 5/ Defendants 2,3,9
Appga! Under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and Judsment dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. 8 of 2007 on th-e file of the Gourt of the Senior Civil Judge, !ika1a-ba!, R11ga Rgdly District preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No.54 of'1995 on th6 file of the Cold of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
DECREE :This second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant court and the court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the
ryE{"
arguments of smt. RACHNA s WADDEPALLI Advocate for the Appellant and of trrl/s G. POORNASRI, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1357 OF 2008
Between:
...APPELLANTS
AND
( Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 are brought onrecord as-per LRs^of.the - -. leceised Respondent No. 8 videCourt Order dated02-03-2023in I'A'No' 9 of 2023 )
( Respondent Nos. 15 to 18 are brought on.record qs^pq1t-!s-9[th.e^ -. ieceised Respondent No10vide Gourtorder dated 02-03-2023 in l.A.No. 3 of 2023 ) ...RESPONDENTS
Appeal Under Section 100 of CPCagainst thedecree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008in A.S.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad,Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and decree dated05-01-2007in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge,Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
DECREE : This Second Appeal comingon for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decreeof the LowerAppellant Courtand the Court of the First instance and thematerial papersin the suit and upon hearingthe arguments of Sri A. Narasimha Reddy,Advocate for the Appellantand of Sri M/s. G. Poornasri , Advocate for theRespondentNos. 1 to 4 and Sri Allam Ramesh,
Advocate for Respondent No. 5 and Sri R. Bala Subramanyam, Advocate for / Respondent No. 7
This Court doth order and Decree as follows.
1 . That the all appeals be and hereby are dismissed and
Sd/- M. RAMANA KRTSHNA DEPUTY{REGISTRAR \
Se-ctto^l 6FF\cgt,
To 1. The Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad , Ranga Reddy District 2. The Junior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
i
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:,2310812024
COMMON DECREE
SECOND APPEAL Nos : 94 0F 2009, 1332. 1336, 1357 0F 2008
DISMISSING THE ALL SECOND APPEALS WTHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether suit 'A' schedule agricultural land is the self-acquired property of defendant No. 1 or the self-acquired/joint family property of the plaintiffs' father G. Venkaiah.
Whether plaintiff could rely on Ex.A1 Khasra Pahani to establish that his father acquired the land, given doubts about its genuineness and completeness.
Whether an unregistered, unstamped agreement of sale (Ex.B1) relied on by the first appellate court warranted reversal of the trial court's preliminary decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishnakumari v. K. Suresh KumarRelied on¶18
MANU/KA/0736/0015
K. Narayanaswamy Pillai v. Smt. KannammalReferred¶18
2014 SCC OnLine Mad 1260 · Who else cites this
Suraj Lamp Industries Private Limited v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶18
MANU/SC/1222/2011
K. Seetharama Reddy v. Hasmat Ali KhanReferred¶18
2002 SCC OnLine AP 1036 · Who else cites this
Makhala Kotilingam by LRs v. Joint Collector, R.R. DistrictReferred¶18
2005 (2) ALD 834
Rangammal v. KuppuswamiRelied on¶18
(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 220
Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti DeviRelied on¶20
(1955) 1 SCR 1 · Who else cites this
D.S. Lakshmaiah v. V. BalasubramanyamRelied on¶20
(2003) 10 SCC 310 · Who else cites this
Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag v. Arun Kumar BhardwajRelied on¶21
AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4739 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society LimitedRelied on¶21
(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269
Joint Collector Ranga Reddy v. D. Narsing RaoRelied on¶22
MANU/SC/0024/2015
Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini SabhaRelied on¶23
(1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 675
Partap Singh v. Shiv RamRelied on¶24
(2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 242
Ramesh Kumar v. Furu RamApplied¶31
(2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 613
Chinnam Pandutangam v. Mandal Revenue OfficerRelied on¶35
AIR 2008 Andhra Pradesh 15 · Who else cites this
Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane v. Nanilal Harakchand ShahReferred¶45
(2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 404
Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul v. Pratima MaityReferred¶45
(2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 468
Hero Vinoth v. SeshammalReferred¶45
MANU/SC/1277/2006
Malluru Mallappa v. KuruvathappaReferred¶45
(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 313
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam TiwariRelied on¶48
(2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 179
Somakka v. K.P. BasavarajRelied on¶48
(2022) 8 SCC 261 · Who else cites this
Abdul Ghani Memorial Trust v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf BoardDistinguished¶47
MANU/SC/0027/1987
Nazir Mohamed v. J. KamalaRelied on¶49
(2023) Live Law (SC) 821
V. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam ChettiarRelied on¶50
AIR 1963 SC 302 · Who else cites this
B. Bhasckor Reddy v. Bommireddy Pattabhi Rami ReddyRelied on¶51
2010 (6) ALD 307
4 provisions across 3 enactments
G. Peter
G. Vinod Kumar
Mariya
V. Kamala
Martha
G. Allen
M.G. Priyadarsini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
