The vs Civil Judge
2022 Latest Caselaw 2583 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
 MAIN CASE No: S.A.NO.240 OF 2022
                                  PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl.                                                                                                 OFFICE
                                                                                                     NOTE

No.
       DATE                                           ORDER
1.    21.06.2022   KSR,J

                                               S.A.NO.240 OF 2022

                        The plaintiff in O.S.No.120 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Junior
                   Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, Kadapa District is the appellant herein. He filed
                   the above said suit against the respondents herein seeking declaration of

title, delivery of possession and also for grant of mandatory injunction restraining the respondents to remove the hut and 12 cement pillars existing in the suit schedule property.

The plea of the appellant is that the suit schedule property is ancestral property and originally one Komaragiri Venkata Subbaiah was having Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.2000-A of Chinnaorampadu Village. Subsequently, certain property was sold to the third parties and suit schedule property alone was retained by the plaintiff. In support of his contention, he filed various documents i.e., 1-B extract, RSR and other revenue records to show his title.

On the other hand, the plea of the respondents/defendants is that they were granted possession certificate by the Tahsildar, Obulavaripalli Mandal for obtaining the loan from the Bank. Except the said document, the defendants are not having any other document evidencing their title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed Exs.A-1 to A-6 to show title over the suit schedule property.

On appreciation of the entire evidence, the trial court decreed the suit by judgment and decree, dated 08-12-2017. On appeal, the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet reversed the judgment of the trial court solely relying on the possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar.

In view of the same and in view of the following substantial questions of law, ADMIT the Second Appeal.

(a) Whether the lower appellate court is right in disbelieving the documentary evidence of pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the plaintiff, which has the presumption in favour of plaintiff's title under Section 6 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,1971?

(b) Whether the lower appellate court is right in disbelieving the evidence of old revenue records like RSR which is a oldest record and considered to be record of title unless the same is contra proved?

 Sl.                                                                                             OFFICE
                                                                                                 NOTE

No.
      DATE                                       ORDER

(c) Whether the lower appellate court is right in dismissing the suit, particularly once the plaintiff discharged his burden of proving his right over the property by adducing cogent documentary evidence as required under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872? AND

(d) Whether the lower appellate court is right in reversing the judgment of the trial court particularly in view of the finding that the land is a private patta land which was clearly established by producing an age old document, which is presumed to be genuine unless the same is contra proved.

_________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J

I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 The respondents/defendants are directed not to alienate and change

the nature of the suit schedule property pending the Second Appeal.

                                                                      _________________
                                                                      K.SURESH REDDY,J



             TSNR
 Sl.                  OFFICE
                      NOTE

No.
      DATE   ORDER