Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Garivineni Radha Rani vs The Assistant Commissioner And Another on 18 June, 2024
1
APHC010602272018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 817/2018
Between:
Garivineni Radha Rani ...APPELLANT
AND
The Assistant Commissioner And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. K RAMACHANDRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MEKAPOTHULA SRINIVASA RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENTS PALNADU
PRAKASAM AND SPSR NELLORE
2.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the
Decree and Judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed in O.A.No.945 of 2011 on the
file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani.
2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents herein are the
petitioners in O.A.no.945 of 2011 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal,
Amaravathi at Pedakakani (for short "the Tribunal").
3. For convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as
arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petition scheduled property is an
agricultural dry land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in S.No.305 of Vinukonda
belongs to the 2nd petitioner temple. The 2nd petitioner temple is the absolute
owner of a total extent of Ac. 20.05 cents of land in S.No.305, which was
purchased by the then trustees of the temple as per the Sale Deed under
Document No.1132/1913, S.R.O., Vinukonda Town, Guntur District. In the
said document, the temple purchased a total extent of Ac.38.68 cents i.e., an
extent of Ac 20.05 cents in S.No.305 and an extent of Ac 18.63 cents in
S.No.58. The present scheduled land of Ac. 5.00 cents is part and parcel in
the said land of Ac.20.05 cents in S.No.305 purchased by the temple. The
respondent is in unauthorized occupation of the said land and enjoying the
same without paying any amount towards damages. The 2nd petitioner temple
is in occupation of the remaining extent of Ac. 15.05 cents and the said land
was being put in public auction for lease hold rights from time to time, which is
deriving an amount of Rs.30,500/- per annum. Inspite of repeated demands,
the respondent failed to vacate and handover possession. Hence, the O.A.
has been filed.
5. The respondent filed counter and denied all the allegations made in
the application. It is stated that the respondent is a bonafide purchaser of the
petition scheduled property and she purchased it from one Nagaraja Kumari,
W/o Radhakrishna Murthy by virtue of sale deed dated 09.07.2006 under
regd. Doc. No. 1724/96 and ever since, she has been in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the petition scheduled property with the knowledge of one
and all including the petitioners. The vendee of the respondent also handed
over the link document and in the said document, it is clearly mentioned that
the property was sold for the purpose of renovation of the 2nd respondent
temple. The vendee of the respondent has purchased from the trustee of the
2nd petitioner temple on 14.09.1986 under regd. Document No. 850/86. The
2nd petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.29 of 2002 before the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Narasaraopet for declaration of the title and for consequential recovery
of possession of the petition scheduled property. The said suit was dismissed
for default on 15.03.2007. After dismissal of the suit, the petitioners kept quiet
for more than 5 years and filed this petition with a view to harass the
respondent. There are no bonalides in the petition. Therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following
issues for trial:-
1) Whether the subject temple is owner of the scheduled property
and the respondent is in unauthorized occupation of the
scheduled property and if so she is liable to be evicted?
2) To what result?
7. During the course of trial, in order to establish the case of the
petitioners, the Ex.Manager of the 2nd petitioner temple was examined as
P.W.1 and got marked Exs.Al to A5. On behalf of the respondent, she herself
was examined as RW.1.
8. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence adduced on either side
and on considering the contentions made by both the counsels, allowed the
O.A. directing the respondent to vacate the deliver vacant possession of
petition scheduled property within one month to the 2nd petitioner. Aggrieved
by the same, the respondent/appellant preferred the present civil
miscellaneous appeal.
9. Heard Smt. Mandalika Kavya Sudha, learned counsel representing
Sri Mojjada Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Manikya
Veena, learned counsel representing Sri M.Srinivas Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
10. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order
of the Tribunal is contrary to the law, weight of evidence ad probabilities of the
case and that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the O.S No.29 of 2002
before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet which was filed by the
respondents herein was dismissed. She further submits that the Tribunal also
ought to have seen that, after dismissal of the said suit, the respondents
herein kept quiet for over 5 ½ years long time and filed the O.A. Learned
counsel mainly contended that the appellant herein is the bonafide purchaser
and the 2nd respondent sold the property for the revocation purpose to the
vendor of the appellant. She further submits that the respondents herein
taken the fresh cause of action for filing the O.A. after issued notice to vacate
and handover the petition schedule property dated 6.6.2011 and 22.8.2011
even though they are having knowledge of previous suit dismissal. She
submits that the tribunal has not taken all these facts into consideration and
grave error in allowing the application. Therefore, learned counsel requests
this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent while
denying the contentions made by the petitioner, contended that, the 2nd
respondent is the absolute owner of the total extent of Ac 20.05 cents of land
in S.No.305 which was purchased by the then trustees of the temple as per
the Sale Deed under Doc.No.1132/1913,S.R.O. Vinukonda, Guntur District. In
the said document, the temple purchased a total extent of Ac 38.68 cents i.e.,
an extent of Ac 20.05 cents in S.No.305 and an extent of Ac 18.63 cents in
S.No.58. The present scheduled land of Ac 5.00 cents is part and parcel in
the said land of Ac.20.05 cents in S.No.305 purchased by the temple. He
mainly contended that the appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the said
land and enjoying the same without paying any amount towards damages. In
spite of repeated demands, the appellant failed to vacate and handover
possession. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent temple issued registered notice
dated 6.6.2011 and 22.08.2011 to the appellant calling upon her to vacate and
deliver possession otherwise legal action would be initiated. Hence, the 2 nd
respondent temple got eviction case under Section 83 of Endowments Act
30/1987 before the A.P Endowments Tribunal praying to pass eviction orders
for removal of encroachment by the appellant and for passing necessary
orders and that the Tribunal has rightly allowed and directing the appellant to
vacate and handover possession, but the appellant miserably failed to vacate
and handover the possession and also filed the present appeal to drag on the
proceedings. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
12. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that, PW.1 in his
examination stated that he did not know whether the respondent temple was
previously under the management of Sri Kanyakaparameswari Temple and
whether the trustees of the said temple sold the schedule property to the
vendee of the appellant. It is further observed that, the temple previously filed
a suit in O.S.No.29 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet
against the appellant herein for the same property seeking for eviction and the
said suit was dismissed. It is observed in the impugned order that, the
Tribunal has already held that after perusing the documents produced by the
petitioners therein and non-production of any documents by the respondents
i.e., appellant herein it is proved that the 2nd respondent is the absolute owner
of the schedule property.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court finds that the Tribunal without taking into consideration the documents
i.e., sale deed dated 9.7.1996 filed by the appellant, has erroneously passed
the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside
and is inclined to remand back the matter to the Tribunal for proper
appreciation.
14. Accordingly, the impugned Decree and Judgment dated
09.05.2018 passed in O.A.No.945 of 2011 on the file of the A.P. Endowments
Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakanim is herein set aside. Further, the matter
is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to accept the documents
filed by the appellant herein and conduct fresh trial and dispose of the case, in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending
miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 18 -06-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.817 of 2018
Date : 18.06.2023
Gvl
