Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rampa Apparao vs Gattu Jagan Mohana Rao on 8 August, 2024
APHC010358262000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
FIRST APPEAL NO: 2374/2000
Between:
1. RAMPA APPARAO, S/O GANGAIAH ADDATEEGALA
...APPELLANT
AND
1. GATTU JAGAN MOHANA RAO, ATTENDER, FOREST DEPT.,
RAMPACHODAVARAM
2. GATTU BHULAKSHMI, W/O JAGAN MOHANA RAO ADDATEEGALA
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal against the Judgment passed in O.S.No.5 of 1998, dt: 29-5-2000
on the file of Agent to the Govt., E.G. Dist.., Kakinada
IA NO: 1 OF 2000(CMP 16672 OF 2000
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay the operation of the impugned order dt: 29-5-2000 on the file of the Agent
to Govt., E.G. Dist., Kakinada
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. G VASANTHA RAYUDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V V L N SARMA
The Court made the following:
Judgment:
Assailing the order dated 29-5-2000 of Agent to Government, East
Godavari District, Kakinada, passed in O.S.No.5 of 1998, whereby the suit of
the plaintiff is dismissed, the instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff
in the said suit.
2. Heard Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the appellant
through virtual mode and Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred as they are arrayed in
the suit.
4. The plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1998 before the Court below sought the
relief of declaration of title and so also for recovery of possession of the plaint
schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom and for also
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and
their men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff in the plaint schedule property after restoring the possession of the
plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is having title in the plaint
schedule property.
5. The defendants pleaded before the Court below that they never
encroached the road margin and the 1st defendant is a permanent resident of
Addateegala village and constructed a thatched house in Survey No.18 with
the permission of Gram Panchayat and thereafter converted into thatched
house. The defendants further pleaded that they are living in their site only
and they have not encroached any site of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed
the suit to harass the defendants for unlawful gain.
6. On hearing both sides, the Court below passed the following order:
"Suit is dismissed. Patta is to be cancelled and the land resumed to
Government."
7. The relief sought by the appellant/plaintiff is to declare his title into
the plaint schedule property and so also recovery of possession after evicting
the defendants thereon and also sought consequential relief of permanent
injunction.
8. It is trite law that in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on
the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such
a declaration and the weaknesses, if any, of the case set up by the defendant
would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The onus to prove title to
the property in question was on the plaintiff. In a suit for ejectment based on
title, it was incumbent on the part of the Court to record a finding on the claim
of title to the suit property. The Court is also bound to enquire or investigate
that question on first before going into any other question that may arise in
a suit. By ignoring the law, as stated supra, the Court below passed a two-line
cryptic order without assigning any reasons and dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiff.
9. The learned Agent to Government, East Godavari District, Kakinada,
rather than examining that question in depth as to whether the plaintiff has
succeeded in establishing his title on the suit property, a cryptic two-line order
is passed viz., "Suit is dismissed. Patta is to be cancelled and the land
resumed to Government". No reasons were assigned by the Court below for
dismissing the suit and no finding was given with regard to the alleged
ownership of a party. The Court below also failed to discuss in depth who is
the owner of the property. Thus, the order passed by the Court below is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Therefore, interest of justice requires
that the matter has to be remanded back to the Court below with a direction to
give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence on the alleged title
of the parties and also to examine who was the owner of the property and
appreciate the facts and evidence on record with governing law and dispose
of the suit on merits. For this purpose, this Court set up the following points
for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff in the suit is having right and title in the plaint
schedule property ? and
(2) Whether the plaintiff in the suit is entitled to the relief of
possession of the plaint schedule property and consequential relief
of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
10. Accordingly, the appeal suit is allowed and the order dated
29-5-2000 passed in O.S.No.5 of 1998 is liable to be set aside and the matter
is remanded back to the Court below with a direction to give an opportunity to
both the parties to adduce evidence, if any, on the two points set up supra by
this Court and after hearing arguments, pass an order on merits.
The entire exercise shall be completed within 3 (three) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
closed. In the circumstances, each party do bear their own costs in the
appeal.
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J
To,
1. GATTU JAGAN MOHANA RAO, ATTENDER, FOREST DEPT.,
RAMPACHODAVARAM
2. GATTU BHULAKSHMI, W/O JAGAN MOHANA RAO ADDATEEGALA
3. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT
VGKRJ
DATED:08/08/2024
ORDER
