CMA/1083/2009 of Goda Hanmantha Rao Vs Jakkidi Vittal Reddy on 29 December 2009

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directedagainst the orders passed being I.A Nos.634 & 635 of2008 in O.S.No.94 of 2008 on the file of the Senior CivilJudge, Siddipet, Medak District.

2. Back ground facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing ofthese Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by the petitioners are:-

3. One Goda Veeraiah @ Goda Veeramallaiah wasthe owner of Acs.12-02 Guntas, comprising Survey Nos.205, 337, 338,339 and 340. He purchased the said lands under aregistered sale deed in the year 1946. He died on6.5.1980. The appellants/plaintiffs claim that they are thelegal representatives of the Goda Veeramallaiah.

They filed the suit being O.S.No.94 of 2008 against therespondents herein for declaration of title and recovery ofpossession and rectification of revenue records in respectof the suit schedule properties. It is their contention thattheir father never sold the property to Tirumal Reddy and Gopal Reddy. They also filed two interlocutaryapplications being I.A.Nos.634 & 635 of 2008 seekinginjunction against the defendants not to alienate and alsonot to change the physical features of the property. Therespondents/defendants filed counter resisting theapplication. It is the plea of the respondents/defendantsthat they purchased the property from GodaVeeramallaiah under a sale deed dated 11.4.1960 forRs.4,800/- and got the sale deed validated under theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land andPattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). Theyalso pleaded that Goda Veeramallaiah deliveredpossession of the land to Tirumal Reddy and GopalReddy on the date of the sale deed and since then theycontinued to be in possession and after the death ofTirumal Reddy and Gopal Reddy, they are in occupationand possession of the suit lands being their legalrepresentatives. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffsmarked 20 documents as Exs.A1 to A20 and whereas thedefendants marked 64 documents as Exs.B1 to B64 insupport of their respective contentions.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering thematerial brought on record and on hearing the counselappearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss both theapplications by order dated 13.8.2009. The said ordersare assailed in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Moreprecisely CMA No.1083 of 2009 is directed against theorder dated 13.8.2009 passed in I.A.No.634 of 2008 inO.S.No.94 of 2008 and where as C.M.A.No.1100 of 2009is directed against the order dated 13.8.2009 passed inI.A.No.635 of 2008 in O.S.No.94 of 2008.

5. The respondents 1 to 3 filed caveat and received notice in the appeal. Notice to R4 & R5 stated to be notnecessary.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for theappellants/plaintiffs submits that the father of theappellants/plaintiffs died on 6.5.1980 and theappellants/plaintiffs, being the legal representativessucceeded to the suit schedule properties. A furthersubmission has made by the learned counsel that thedefendants kept the appellants/plaintiffs in dark withregard to the proceedings initiated before the revenueauthorities in respect of mutation of their names in therevenue records and these proceedings do not bind theappellants/plaintiffs. The learned counsel would contendthat the appellants/plaintiffs came to know of theproceedings secured by the respondents/defendants intheir favour, only in the year 2007, when therespondents/defendants started digging in the suitschedule property. He vehemently contends that theappellants/plaintiffs were not put on notice while mutationof the lands being affected in favour of therespondents/defendants by the revenue authorities.8. In support of his submissions, the learned counselplaced reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judgeof this Court in

A. Sarojamma and another v. A.Parvath Reddy (died)rep.by his L.Rs and others[[1]],wherein it is held that theMandal Revenue Officer has no power to adjudicate adispute between parties in respect of a property and makedeclaration about rights of the parties while validating thedocument in relation thereto.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that Tirumal Reddy andGopal Reddy purchased the property from GodaVeeramallaiah under a sale deed dated 11.4.1960 andsubsequently, sale deed has been validated by invokingthe provisions of the Act. A further submission has madethat since the proceedings have been issued by thecompetent authority, till they are set aside, the validity orotherwise of said proceedings cannot be gone into in thesuit. He would also laid much emphasis on the relevantportion of the recitals in the sale deed dated 11.4.1960,which reads as hereunder:- “I have sold the said lands in your favouron today for a sale consideration ofRs.48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight HundredOnly) in Indian Currency. Out of the saidamount of sale consideration, I have till thisday received a sum of Rs.3800.00 (RupeesThirty Eight Hundred Only) for which I haveexecuted receipts separately in your favour. Therefore, from today onwards, you shall holdand enjoy the said lands.

At the time of registration of Sale Deed, youshall make payment of the balance amount ofsale consideration. I shall reimburse to you theexpenditure of Rs.100.00 in connection withgetting permission for sale.”

By referring the sale deed, the learned counsel wouldcontend that, if at all there is any amount due towards inthe sale consideration, Goda Veera Mallaiah ought tohave filed a suit for recovery of such balance saleconsideration.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to thecontention of the parties. Indisputably, the Tirumal Reddyand Gopal Reddy initiated proceedings before the

revenue authorities for mutation of the suit lands in theirnames basing on the sale deed dated 11.4.1960 andultimately proceedings ended in their favour in 1994. The appellants/plaintiffs sought for the relief of declarationof title and the recovery of possession of the suit scheduleproperty. They also sought for the relief of setting theentries effected in favour of the respondents in therevenue records in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents/defendants claim possession of theproperty since the year 1960. The appellants/plaintiffsresorted to filing a suit nearly after three decades of thealleged sale deed executed by Goda Veeraiah @ GodaVeeramalliah. In that view of the matter, the only relief atthe most the appellant/plaintiff deserve is that in the eventany sale of the suit schedule property by therespondents/defendants, they (defendants) must indicatein the sale deed as to the pendency of the suitproceedings and the sale is subject to the outcome of thesuit proceedings.

11. Accordingly, these two Civil MiscellaneousAppeals are disposed of. In the given facts andcircumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to directthe Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within a period of six months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order uninfluenced by anyof the observations made by the Trial Court or by thisCourt. No costs.

_________________________________

JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

Date:29.12.2009

mrb

[1]2008 (4) ALT 431.