THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
SECOND APPEAL No.755 OF 1998
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated 23.03.1998 in A.S.No.23 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet (for short, 'first appellate Court'), wherein and whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.05.1992 in O.S.No.252 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Siddipet (for short, 'trial Court'), was confirmed. The said suit, filed by the respondents herein for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit properties, was decreed. The present appeal is at the instance of the defendants.
2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred to in the suit.
3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is that one Beemari Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, who is the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and grandfather of plaintiff No.1, was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0- 26 guntas in Sy.No.664/AA and Ac.0-12 guntas in Sy.No.664/E, total admeasuring Ac.0-38 guntas, situated at Toopran Village and Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter to as 'suit properties'). Beemari Narsaiah died leaving behind his three sons viz., Lingaiah, Muthaiah and Sathaiah to succeed him. Lingaiah died in the year 1985. Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of Lingaiah. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have succeeded the suit properties by way of inheritance.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties contain two parts. One part contains an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-12 guntas in part of Sy.No.664/E standing in the name of Lingaiah, the eldest son of Beemari Narsaiah. After the death of Lingaiah, the name of plaintiff No.1 was recorded as pattedar of the said property. The another part contains an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0- 26 guntas in Sy.No.664/AA standing in the name of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. After the death of Beemari Narsaiah, the names of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were recorded as pattedars, and in the possession column, either the name of Muthaiah or the name of Sathaiah or both their names were continued to be recorded as possessors. As per the plaintiffs, the defendants are unconnected to their branch of relations, but taking advantage of similarity of the surname and name of their ancestor, the defendants managed to mutate their names in respect of the suit properties under Ex.A-40 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Basing on Ex.A-40, when the defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs by denying their title, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.
5. The case of the defendants is that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the children of late Balaiah, defendant No.5 is the brother of Balaiah, defendant No.6 is the son of defendant No.5 and defendant No.7 is the younger sister of defendant No.5. In the original pleadings of the written statement, the name of the grandfather of defendant No.5 was mentioned as 'Balaiah', but it appears the same was corrected later as 'Narsaiah'. It is not known why and how the name was corrected in the better written statement. The defendants claim the title and possession from late Narsaiah. According to the defendants, the father name of defendant No.5 is Narsaiah. On the basis of the said claim, they obtained mutations and they are in possession of the suit properties. They contended that the plaintiffs are nothing to do with the suit properties and prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit schedule land?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of perpetual injunction?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek the mutation order set aside?
4. Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is correct?
5. To what relief?"
7. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, examined PWs.1 to 4 and relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-47. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and relied upon Exs.B-1 to B-7.
8. Both the Courts below found that the ancestor of the plaintiffs was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit properties, and accordingly, the suit was decreed. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed by the defendants.
9. The challenge in the present appeal is with regard to the findings in respect of land in Sy.No.664/AA only, but not with regard to the findings in respect of land in Sy.No.664/E. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is confined to the land in Sy.No.664/AA.
10. This Court, by order dated 21.09.1998, admitted the appeal without framing any substantial question of law, which is contrary to Section 100 of CPC. Therefore, the following substantial questions of law are framed:
"(i) Whether the findings of both the Courts with regard to title and possession suffer from any perversity?
(ii) Whether both the Courts were justified in granting relief of rectification of revenue records in the absence of any prayer from the plaintiffs?
11. Heard learned counsel for both sides on the above substantial questions of law.
Findings on the substantial question of laws:
12. A scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence of both the parties would indicate that there is no serious dispute between the parties that the original title holder to the land in Sy.No.664/AA was B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah. The plaintiffs claim that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is their father and the defendants claim that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is the father of Balaiah and defendant No.5. This means, both the parties claim that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is their ancestor.
13. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs show that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and the oral evidence of the defendants show that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is the father of late Balaiah and defendant No.5. Therefore, the crucial evidence is the entries made in the revenue records in respect of possessor column as well as patta column. The revenue records anterior to 1978-79 show that in the patta column, the name of B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah was recorded as pattedar, and in the possessor column, the names of Mutahiah, Sathaiah and Narsaiah were recorded. The names of defendant No.5 and his brother viz., Balaiah were never recorded in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.664/AA prior to mutation under Ex.A-40. Their names were reflected only after the mutation under Ex.A-40 i.e., after 1979 only.
14. The plaintiffs, to show that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is their ancestor, strongly relied upon Ex.A-6, chesala pahani for the years 1956-58 in respect of Sy.No.959/A to an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-06 guntas and Ex.A-15, Chowfaisla pertaining to the year 1976-77 in respect of Sy.No.959. In the said documents, the name of the father of B.Narsaiah was shown as 'Balaiah'. The defendants are claiming ownership over the lands in the said survey number i.e., Sy.No.959.
15. The original pleadings of the defendants also show that the father's name of B.Narsaiah is 'Balaiah'. Subsequently, the name of 'Balaiah' was corrected by overwriting with hand and wrote the name of 'Narsaiah'. The defendants, in the pleadings, have not specifically denied the claim of the plaintiffs that their grandfather's name is 'Narsaiah'. The names of Sathaiah, Muthaiah and their father Narsiah were continuously entered in the possessor column of the pahanis for the years from 1955-56 till 1976-77. At any point of time, the names of defendant No.5 and his brother Balaiah were not record3ed.
16. The above evidence clearly goes to show that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3's father name is Narsaiah and their grandfather's name is also Narsaiah. Such evidence supports the plaintiffs claim. Both the Courts below have relied upon such evidence in coming to the conclusion that the original pattedar i.e., B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is the ancestor of the plaintiffs. Such findings do not suffer from any perversity. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such findings.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants raised a contention that the trial Court granted relief of rectification without any prayer by the plaintiffs. It is a fact that the plaintiffs have not claimed any consequential relief of rectification of revenue records in pursuance of declaration of title and possession. In fact, as seen from the judgment of the trial Court, no such relief was granted, except granting declaration of title and injunction, as prayed for. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has granted the relief which is not sought for. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is unmerited. Accordingly, the substantial questions are answered.
18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.03.1998 in A.S.No.23 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 17.08.2022 TJMR