1
Dr.GRR, J
CRP_2008_2022
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2008 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - respondents - defendants aggrieved by the orders dated 11.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.215 of 2022 in O.S.No.190 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam.
2. The parties are herein after referred as arrayed before the trial court.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction and I.A.No.215 of 2022 for temporary injunction, submitting that she was the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property i.e. agricultural land in Survey No.6/2 to an extent of Ac.3.2920gts. situated at K.Veerabhadrapuram Revenue Village of Dummugudem Revenue Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. She succeeded to the said property from her husband Boda Sakru, S/o. Boda Bhukya. Her husband was the owner and possessor of the schedule property and he cultivated the said land during his life time. Her husband Boda Sakru demised on 22.09.2013 due to ill-health. After the death of her husband, she succeeded to the said property. The then, Mandal Revenue Officer, Dummugudem issued pattadar passbook bearing No.T27110230088, khata number: 60001 and Meeseva Pahani in her favour. She was regularly paying 2 Dr.GRR, J CRP_2008_2022 cist to the revenue authorities. Her name was recorded in the revenue records. She used to raise paddy crop. As usual, she ploughed the land and prepared for agricultural operations. Taking advantage of her loneliness, and that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe and was economically poor, the defendants who were strangers, were trying to interfere with her possession and enjoyment. On 25.07.2020, the defendants with the help of some henchmen tried to obstruct her agricultural operations. Due to her timely resistance, they could not succeed in their attempts. Apprehending danger to her peaceful possession over the schedule land, she filed the suit and also filed I.A.No.179 of 2020, seeking temporary injunction. The court granted ex-parte injunction order. She also filed I.A.No.229 of 2020 seeking Police Protection. Both the petitions were allowed on 04.09.2020. The respondents - defendants without approaching the trial court, approached the High Court and filed C.R.P.No.985 of 2020 against the ex-parte temporary injunction orders and Police Protection Order. The High Court allowed the C.R.P. and set aside the said orders and directed both the parties to file fresh I.A. and to advance their submissions. Hence, she filed the present I.A.
4. The petitioner relied upon the documents, copies of pattadar passbook No. T27110230088 and khata number 60001 , copy of Dharani land Record in her favour, copy of Meeseva Adangals, copy of sale deed in the name of her husband Boda Sakru, dated 01.08.2007 and link documents of the schedule 3 Dr.GRR, J CRP_2008_2022 property and the photos showing dismantling of the thatched house by the respondents - defendants.
5. The respondents filed counter submitting that the schedule property was situated in agency area. The only way to get a patta by non-tribes was by way of settlement under Regulation 2 of 1970. The respondents - defendants were non-tribes. A settlement was granted in favour of the respondents' father's brother's name on 25.08.1986, and they were in continuous possession over the land as on the date of grant of patta certificate. The schedule property belonged to their grandfather Uppu Chittabbai. He was having 34 acres. Survey No.6/2 to an extent of Ac.3.73cents in an oral partition fell to Uppu Rama Rao. The Settlement Officer granted settlement patta in favour of Uppu Rama Rao in Case No.3571. Uppu Rama Rao, by way of Vatamarpidi Pathram, had given the said property to his brother Uppu Thatha Rao on 27.06.2018 and Uppu Rama Rao's wife stated the said facts in her Pramana Pathram dated 16.12.2021. The respondents' father Uppu Thatha Rao constructed a house in the schedule land bearing No.4-53 and also constructed a church by name Ceyonu Prardhana Mandhiram at house bearing No.4-54/1 in the year 2015. The petitioner and her henchmen came to the schedule land and damaged the church. The respondents gave a Police Complaint against the petitioner and her henchmen.
4
Dr.GRR, J CRP_2008_2022
6. They filed the copies of settlement patta given by the Settlement Officer, Rajahmundry in favour of the respondents' father's second elder brother by name Uppu Rama Rao dated 25.08.1976, copy of the order in favour of Uppu Rama Rao issued by the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam, copy of Sthirasthi Raata Marpidi Pathram issued by Uppu Rama Rao in favour of the respondents, dated 27.06.2018, copy of cist receipts in the name of Uppu Rama Rao issued by Village Officer, dated 15.06.2017, copy of Pramana Pathram issued by Uppu Ramanujamma W/o. Uppu Rama Rao in favour of the respondents, dated 16.12.2021, copy of Vibhagapu Dasthaveju in favour of respondents issued by Uppu Ramanujamma, dated 16.12.2021, copy of house tax receipts bearing No.4-54 for the years 2016-2019 in favour of the respondents' father Uppu Thatha Rao issued by Gram Panchayat, Pragallapalli Village Secretary, copy of house tax receipts bearing No.4-54/1 for the years 2017-18, 2019, 2020-21 and 2022-23 in favour of the respondents' father by name Uppu Thatha Rao issued by Pragallapalli Village Secretary, copy of the order in Civil Revision Petition No.985 of 2020, dated 15.03.2020.
7. The trial court on considering the contentions of both the parties and the documents filed by both sides, granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner - plaintiff over the schedule property.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents - defendants preferred this revision contending that the trial court without verifying the actual possession 5 Dr.GRR, J CRP_2008_2022 of the property as on the date of filing of the suit, passed an injunction order. The trial court failed to mark the documents as exhibits in the I.A. and passed the orders, contrary to the Judgments of this Cosurt. The trial court failed to observe that the settlement patta still stood in the name of Uppu Rama Rao and the joint family. Without cancellation of the same, the petitioner - plaintiff could not succeed to the said property. There was no registered sale agreement by the original owner Sri Uppu Rama Rao. The documents filed by the petitioner - plaintiff were fabricated. The trial court without application of mind, passed the orders and prayed to set aside the same by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners - defendants and the learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the schedule property was situated in the agency area and the only way to get patta was by way of settlement patta under Regulation 2/70 in favour of the non- tribals. Although, the revision petitioners were non-tribals, a settlement patta was granted in favour of the petitioners' father's brother by name Uppu Rama Rao on 25.08.1998. The petitioners' family was a joint family consisting of the petitioners' father and his brother by name Uppu Rama Rao and another brother by name Uppu Thatha Rao, who was the younger brother. All of them were living in a joint family and enjoying the property covered under Regulation 2/70 6 Dr.GRR, J CRP_2008_2022 patta to an extent of Ac.3.73 cents in Survey No.6/2. The respondent fabricated the documents and obtained temporary injunction order without being in possession of the land. Without cancellation of the settlement patta and without there being any registered sale agreement by the original owner Sri Uppu Rama Rao, the petitioners - plaintiffs could not be in possession of the property. The documents filed by them were fabricated. They further contended that in the Civil Revision Petition No.985 of 2020 preferred by them earlier also, this Court granted interim orders that "to cut the crop in the presence of petitioners as well as respondent and to sell the same in the market and to deposit the proceeds before the court below until the entitlement of the said amount would be adjudicated by the court below'' and asked this Court also to pass orders accordingly.
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents in the present case) on the other hand submitted that the original owner of the schedule property was one Uppu Rama Rao, S/o. Uppu Chittabbai, being non-tribe, he faced a suo motu enquiry before Settlement Officer and proved his possession and got settlement patta i.e. ryotwari patta in the year 1977. On 15.06.1977, the said Uppu Rama Rao S/o. Uppu Chittabbai sold the said land to one Tumpelli Pedda Venkata Ramana W/o. Tumpelli Veera Raju through un-registered sale deed. The said Tumpelli Pedda Venkata Ramana W/o. Tumpelli Veera Raju enjoyed the said land and cultivated for thirty (30) years as owner and possessor. In 7 Dr.GRR, J CRP_2008_2022 those 30 years, she gave kowlu of the said land to Boda Sakru (the husband of the plaintiff) for some years. Smt. Tumpelli Pedda Venkata Ramana sold the said land to Boda Sakru on 01.08.2007 through sadabinama. Since then, Boda Sakru was cultivating the land. On his demise on 22.09.2013, the plaintiff succeeded to the said property and her name was mutated in the revenue records and she was issued E-patta passbook vide T27110230088 and khata number 60001. The petitioner was in possession of the property and was cultivating the said land. The trial court on examining all the documents, allowed the I.A. The revision petitioners were never in possession of the schedule property at any point of time and the land did not belong to them and prayed to dismiss the revision petition.
12. On a perusal of the order of the trial court, though it had not marked the documents by giving them exhibit numbers, referred all the said documents filed by the parties in its Order and stated to have considered the same while passing the Order. The trial court observed that the physical possession of the property as per the revenue records was in favour of the petitioner - plaintiff. Though the respondents had filed the settlement patta and other documents to show that the settlement patta was given in the name of their father's second elder brother by name Uppu Rama Rao on 25.08.1976 and contended that no registered sale deed was executed by him in favour of any third parties and the copy of the sale deed filed by the petitioner - plaintiff in favour of her husband 8 Dr.GRR, J CRP_2008_2022 Boda Sakru dated 01.08.2007 was a fabricated document, the genuinity of the documents will not be considered at the stage of granting injunction. The documents would be considered on their face value.
13. No document was filed by the revision petitioners - respondents in proof of their possession. As per the petitioner - plaintiff, the schedule property was an agricultural land and as per the contention of the respondents, a house and a church were constructed in the schedule land in the year 2015 and they filed house tax receipts to show that there was a house existing in the schedule land. It is a matter, which can be decided during the course of trial.
14. The revision petitioners were challenging the order only on the ground of non-marking of the documents, as per the judgments of this Court in T.Bhoopal Reddy and another v. K.R.Lakshmi Bai and another 1 and in Mahaveer Infoway Ltd., Hyderabad and another v. Tech Minfy Info Solutions Llp, Hyderabad and others2. Even though the documents were not marked, the same were considered by the trial court while granting interim injunction. As such, this Court does not find any need to set aside the order of the trial court.
1 1998 (1) ALD 770 (D.B.) 2 2017 (5) ALD 351 (D.B.) 9 Dr.GRR, J CRP_2008_2022
15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the trial court in I.A.No.215 of 2022 in O.S.No.190 of 2020, dated 11.08.2022.
________________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J 18th January, 2023 nsk.