Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A Annapurna vs V Srimannaryana on 21 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.1434 of 2018
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
4. 21.04.2022 SRS,J
The appellant/plaintiff filed the present second appeal
against the judgment and decree, dated 03.10.2017 passed in
A.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of learned senior civil Judge,
Ramachandrapuram, confirming the judgment and decree,
dated 11.06.2013 passed in O.S.No.249 of 2003 on the file of
learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru.
The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.249 of 2003 for
declaration of her title over the suit schedule property and for
consequential relief of permanent injunction.
The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the plaint
schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff's
maternal grandmother, Veedhi Ranganayakamma, who in
turn executed a registered settlement deed, dated 06.05.1976
i.e. Ex.A1. Basing on the said document, suit was instituted.
Defendant No.3 filed written statement denying the title
of said Veedhi Ranganyakamma. It was contended that
Veedhi Ranganayakamm is not the owner of the suit schedule
property and thus, she cannot pass better title to the
appellant/plaintiff. It was pleaded that in fact, the suit
schedule property is Government Inam land and husband of
defendant No.2 got the same from government and leased out
the same to defendant No.1 about 26 years back. It was also
pleaded that defendant No.1 paid rents to defendant No.2 and
subsequently eviction petition vide ATC No.15 of 1997 was
filed against defendant No.1 and during pendency of said ATC
defendant instigated the plaintiff to file suit.
Defendant No.2 adopted the written statement filed by
defendant No.3.
To prove Ex.A1, the appellant/plaintiff got examined
herself as PW1 and examined the scribe of Ex.A1 as PW3. The
trial Court by judgment, dated 11.06.2013 dismissed the
suit.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff preferred
A.S.No.46 of 2013 and the same was dismissed by the
judgment and decree, dated 03.10.2017 against which, the
present second appeal is filed.
Heard.
Admit.
The following substantial questions of law arise for
consideration.
1. Whether the suit land is a service Inam land and
whether the adjudication under the "Ryotwari Act"
1956, by Act 30 of 1956 r/w Act 20 of 1975, resulting
in the grant of patta-Ex.B1 in favour of defendant No.1
is final and conclusive without following due process of
procedure under the Act, 1956 and Rules, 1957 and
overriding the registered settlement deed 06.05.1976?
2. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in
ignoring the decree passed in ATA 1 of 2006, wherein
the Court held that respondent had unequivocally
stated that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
schedule property since 1976 and there is no landlord
and tenant relationship between the defendants and
himself and he is not in possession of the property?
3. Whether the grant of patta-Ex.B1 in name of defendant
No.2 in the year 1992 without following due procedure
is valid and binding over the plaintiff with registered
settlement deed, dated 06.05.1976 amd in possession
of the property?
Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is permitted
to take out personal notice on the respondents/defendants by
RPAD and file proof of service.
______
SRS,J
I.A.No.1 of 2018
Issue notice to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take
out personal notice on the respondents through RPAD and
file proof of service by 16.06.2022.
List on 16.06.2022.
______
SRS,J
ikn
