Telangana High Court
LPA/172/2002 of V.YASODAMMA Vs K.SUNKI REDDI on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL L.P.A. No.172 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gooty, is the appellant herein. She filed the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL
L.P.A. No.172 OF 2002
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gooty, is theappellant herein. She filed the suit for declaration that the sale of the suit schedule property in thecourse of execution of a decree is wholly illegal. The suit was dismissed and thereupon she filedA.S.No.1704 of 1987 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appealthrough judgment, dated 04.12.2001. Hence, this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
The case pleaded by the appellant was that the suit schedule land is the Blacksmith Inam,assigned in favour of her ancestors and that she succeeded to the same. She pleaded that thewhereabouts of her father are not known since 1965 and that one Papamma filed O.S.No.131 of 1964 inthe Court of District Munsiff, Gooty, for recovery of amount and a decree was passed therein. Thedecree holder is said to have transferred the same in favour of the sole respondent. According to theappellant, the inam land is covered by the provisions of the Hereditary Village Officers Act 3 of 1985and the land was assigned by the Government in favour of the persons rendering the blacksmithservices etc., in the village is not alienable. She pleaded that there was contest of the suit, on accountof her father not being available and that the purport of the prohibition contained under that Act was nottaken into account. The suit was filed in the form of pauperis and after the appellant attained majority.
The respondent contested the suit by raising several objections, including that of limitation. Hehas also pleaded that there was nothing on record to show that the suit schedule property was an Inamland and at any rate the prohibition even if it existed at any point of time, ceased to be operative with theenactment of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). Other grounds were also raised. It was also pleaded that no objection wasraised in the course of execution of the decree, and that necessary parties were not impleaded in thesuit.
As observed earlier, the trial Court dismissed the suit and so is the case with the appeal preferred bythe appellant.
The entire claim of the appellant is based upon the so called prohibition contained in the Act. There is ample material to disclose that the land, at one pointof time was an Inam land and in the family partition, it has fallen to the share of the appellant. Notwithstanding these undisputed facts, the sale can be said to be invalid, if only there existed absoluteprohibition under any provision of law. No such provision is cited before us. Added to that, theappellant did not place the document through which the land was assigned.
It is only when the proceedings through which land was assigned contains a clause prohibitingalienation, that the plea of the appellant can be accepted. Analogy in this regard can be taken from theAndhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Section 3 thereof renders thetransfers void, if only the land in question was assigned to a landless poor and the order of assignmentin turn contained a clause relating to prohibition of alienation. If any of these ingredients are absent, anotherwise valid sale cannot be annulled.
Further, the sale took place on 25.10.1967 and was confirmed on 06.04.1968 and no objectionwas taken at any stage before the executing Court in the earlier proceedings. The present suit was filed in the year 1984. Even if the period during which the appellant was minor is excluded, the suit cannotbe said to be within limitation. The sale which took place 15 years prior to the filing of the suit cannot beset aside.
The trial Court and the appellate Court have taken the correct view of the matter. We are notinclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded therein.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.
___________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
_______________
M.S.K. JAISWAL, J.
31.12.2013
KH