Nandyala Rama Krishna Reddy vs P. Satyanarayana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1526 Tel

      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
                                        AND
            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

          CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.421 OF 2020

                                  JUDGMENT:

(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

This Appeal is preferred against the order dt.11.02.2020 passed in

I.A.No.503 of 2019 in O.S.No.231 of 2016 of the III Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit.

3. He filed the said suit against the respondent to declare that he is the

absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property and

for a consequential relief to declare the registered gift settlement deed

bearing Document No.9607 of 1987 dt.24.07.1987 as not binding on him

and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent and his men from

interfering into the suit schedule property.

4. The suit schedule property is agricultural dry land of an extent of

Ac.1.00 out of Acs.2.20 gts., in Sy.No.272/A of Turkayamjal Village,

Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District within specified

boundaries.

Case of the appellant

5. It is the case of the appellant that he purchased the suit schedule

property under a registered sale deed Ex.P1 dt. 09.12.2015 from Mekala

Ram Reddy for valuable sale consideration and that since the date of

purchase, he is in peaceful continuous possession and enjoyment thereof.

6. He contended that his vendor Mekala Ram Reddy had purchased

the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed bearing

Document No.4938 of 2008 dt.25.11.2008 from Pannala Ram Reddy and

14 others represented by their GPA holders A. Malla Reddy and S. Tulasi

Das under registered GPA bearing Document No.45 of 2006

dt.01.06.2006; and after purchasing the suit schedule property, the vendor

of the appellant got mutated his name in the concerned revenue records

as pattedar and possessor vide Patta No.1159 and vide Proceedings

No.B/4121/2015 dt.27.02.2016. He alleged that the appellant's name was

mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was also issued to

him with Patta No.1464.

7. He also contended that in January 2016, to protect the suit

schedule property from the land grabbers, he started construction of

compound wall and a room over the suit schedule property, and at that

time, the respondent, without having any manner of right and title tried to

dispossess the appellant from the suit schedule property.

8. The appellant alleged that with the help of family members, he

resisted the respondent, that then the respondent left the suit schedule

property and the appellant made a police complaint before P.S.

Vanastalipuram on 06.01.2016, but the police did not respond properly.

9. He alleged that again on 08.01.2016 the respondent came to the

suit schedule property and tried to demolish the constructed compound

wall of the appellant and on the very next date i.e., 09.01.2016, the

appellant again lodged a police complaint, but the police did not register

crime against the respondent.

10. He also contended that the respondent appears to have made a false

complaint against him, registered as FIR No.20 of 2016 of P.S.

Vanastalipuram, wherein the respondent himself admitted that the

appellant constructed compound wall and a room over the suit schedule

property and it clearly shows that the appellant is in peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

11. He alleged that they got the matter enquired into and then came to

know that the respondent, who is his neighbour, is trying to claim the suit

schedule property under a Gift Settlement deed Doc.No.9609 of 1987

dt.24.07.1987, that the property of the respondent was located in

Sy.No.272/AA and the respondent is not in possession and enjoyment of

his property at any point of time, while the appellant's property is in

Sy.No.272/A.

I.A.No.503 of 2019

12. Making same allegations the appellant filed I.A.No.503 of 2019

seeking ex parte ad interim injunction in his favour restraining the

respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

Counter filed by the respondent in I.A.No.503 of 2019

13. The respondent filed counter affidavit in I.A.No.503 of 2019

stating that the appellant had earlier filed I.A.No.210 of 2016 in the main

suit with same prayer, that the said I.A. was heard at length and the same

is still pending, and with the very same averments, the appellant has filed

I.A.No.503 of 2019, and therefore I.A.No.503 of 2019 is not

maintainable.

14. He also contended that the appellant's vendor Mekala Ram Reddy

had filed O.S.No.603 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District to grab the suit schedule property from the

respondent and during the pendency of the suit, Ex.P1 registered sale

deed was executed in favour of the appellant and the suit was got

dismissed as not pressed on 02.03.2016.

15. According to him, the said suit O.S.No.603 of 2015 was filed

seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering

with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the vendor of the

appellant over the suit schedule property and for a mandatory injunction

directing removal of illegal and unauthorised compound wall raised on

the northern and southern sides of the suit schedule property.

16. It is alleged that the appellant is fully aware of the pendency of

O.S.No.603 of 2015 when he purchased the suit schedule property under

Ex.P1 dt.09.12.2015 and that the property mentioned in the said sale deed

and also in the plaint schedule does not exist within the boundaries

indicated.

17. It is contended that there was no 100 feet wide road leading to

Brahmanapalli Village as southern boundary and cold storage plant as

eastern boundary.

18. It is contended that the respondent's predecessor-in-title

and brother P. Yadaiah had obtained the suit schedule property under a

registered sale deed bearing Document No.6768 of 1980 dt.08.07.1980,

and the suit schedule property was gifted to the respondent under

registered gift settlement deed bearing Document No.9609 of 1987

dt.24.07.1987 and the boundaries shown therein tally with the boundaries

existing on the site.

19. It is alleged that the Registering Authority should not have

entertained sale deed dt.25.11.2008 in favour of the vendor of the

appellant since the vendor did not retain any such property by that date

having already sold his available land of Acs.2.00 in Sy.No.272 to

Yadaiah, the donor of the respondent, under registered sale deed

dt.08.07.1980. He also contended that any mutation in revenue records

and issuance of pattadar passbook by revenue authorities basing on the

document produced by the appellant would not confer any title or right

on the vendor of the appellant or on the appellant; and according to him,

all these proceedings had been issued by the revenue authorities behind

the respondent's back and that of his predecessors-in-title.

20. It is alleged that the respondent had constructed compound wall

around the suit schedule property much prior to 09.12.2015 itself and for

demolition of the same, the vendor of the appellant had instituted

O.S.No.603 of 2015 and he had also filed I.A.No.510 of 2015 seeking ad

interim injunction which was dismissed on merits on 11.08.2015 and

thereafter Ex.P1 sale deed dt.09.12.2015 was brought into existence and

the suit was then withdrawn on 02.03.2016.

21. The respondent denied that the appellant had started construction

of compound wall over the suit schedule property in January, 2016 and

that the respondent had attempted to dispossess the appellant and

demolish the compound wall constructed by the appellant.

22. The respondent denied that the appellant was in physical

possession of the suit schedule property after 09.12.2015 or 09.01.2016

or on the date of filing of the suit.

23. He alleged that he has been in possession of the suit schedule

property from 24.07.1987 and his predecessor was in possession and

enjoyment of the property from 08.07.1980 as he acquired rights by way

of a registered sale deed on that date. He also claims that he was issued

Occupancy Rights Certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga

Reddy District on 08.04.1996.

Reply affidavit filed by the appellant

24. After denying the allegations levelled against him by the

respondent, the appellant in the reply affidavit contended that for an

extent of Acs.11.10 gts., in Sy.No.272, Smt. Gopamma and Ragamma

were recorded as Inamdars and a Certificate under Section 38-E of the

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1950 was issued by the concerned Revenue Authority in favour of

Pannala Lingaiah in respect of this land and also other lands in

Sy.Nos.271 and 273 of Turkayamjal Village.

25. It is contended that the legal heirs of the said protected tenant

Pannala Lingaiah executed GPA on 01.06.2006 in favour of A. Malla

Reddy and S. Tulasi Das in respect of Acs.6.00 in Sy.No.271, Acs.2.20

gts. in Sy.No.272, and Acs.11.11 gts., in Sy.No.273 of Turkayamjal

Village.

26. According to the appellant, the GPA holders representing the legal

heirs of Pannala Lingaiah executed registered sale deed dt.25.11.2008 in

respect of Ac.1.00 out of Acs.2.20 gts. in Sy.No.272 of Turkayamjal

Village in favour of Mekala Ram Reddy; and Mekala Ram Reddy then

sold it to the appellant under Ex.P1 dt.09.12.2015. He also claimed that

he was put in possession of the schedule property by his vendor on the

date of execution of the registered sale deed in his favour.

27. The appellant contends that though the respondent has taken a plea

that his donor Yadaiah purchased the suit schedule property under

registered sale deed dt.08.07.1980 from the legal heirs of Gopamma,

such sale deed would not confer any title to the suit schedule property.

According to him, there is discrepancy between the schedule of property

mentioned in the gift deed dt.24.07.1987 and the plan appended thereto.

28. He also alleged that he came to know about O.S.No.603 of 2015

filed by his vendor only after reading the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent; and that the pleadings in that suit relate to the claim of

easement rights of the vendor of the appellant and the dismissal of the

said suit has no bearing on the instant suit.

The order dt.11.2.2020 in IA No.503 of 2019

29. In the Court below, the appellant marked Exs.P1 to P28 and the

respondent marked Exs.R1 to R15.

30. By order dt.11.02.2020, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.503 of

2019.

31. After considering the contentions of the parties, the Court below

observed that it is not able to appreciate why the vendor of the appellant

did not pursue O.S.No.603 of 2015 but got it dismissed on 02.03.2016.

32. It also observed that whether the land claimed by the respondent

and the appellant is one and the same would have to be considered at a

later point of time and since the appellant had sought injunction, it is for

him to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience.

33. It also referred to the dismissal of I.A.No.510 of 2015 in

O.S.No.603 of 2015 and observed that its dismissal would show that the

vendor of the appellant did not make out prima facie case and balance of

convenience in respect of the suit schedule property and had also not

chosen to challenge the said order in I.A.No.510 of 2015 before appellate

authority.

34. On the basis of the above observations, the Court below then held

that the very filing of O.S.No.603 of 2015 and dismissal of I.A.No.510 of

2015 would go to show that neither the appellant nor his vendor was in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; that Ex.R6

Proceedings dt.08.04.1996 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer

show that the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the land in

Sy.No.272 of an extent of Acs.2.00; that the said Ex.R6 is much prior to

Exs.P1 and P2 sale deeds of the appellant and his vendor, while Ex.R2

sale deed dt.08.07.1980 in favour of P. Yadaiah, i.e., donor of the

respondent, is in respect of Acs.2.00 in Sy.No.272.

35. The Court below also observed that the pleadings of the parties

show that there is a dispute with regard to identity of property and no

document is filed to show as to when Sy.No.272 was sub-divided ; and

that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the property covered

by Ex.R2 sale deed dt.08.07.1980, Ex.R3 pattadar passbook and Ex.R6

Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dt.08.04.1996.

36. It also observed that Exs.P1 to P28 do not establish any prima

facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent and

not in favour of the appellant and the appellant did not approach the

Court with clean hands.

The present CMA

37. Assailing the same, this Appeal is filed.

38. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri

Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent.

39. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the appellant is

claiming title to the plaint schedule property under Ex.P1 registered sale

deed dt.09.12.2015 executed in his favour by Mekala Ram Reddy. The

said Mekala Ram Redy had obtained title to the property under Ex.P2

registered sale deed dt.25.11.2008 from Pannala Ram Reddy and 14

others through their GPA holders A. Malla Reddy and S. Tulasi Das

(registered GPA dt.01.06.2006).

40. According to the appellant, there was a Certificate (Ex.P21)

dt. 16.12.1975 issued under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh

(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect

of an extent of Acs.17.21 gts., in Sy.No.271, Acs.11.11 gts., in

Sy.No.273 and Acs.11.10 gts., in Sy.No.272 of Turkayamjal Village in

favour of Pannala Lingaiah.

41. As per law, under this Certificate issued by the competent

authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, title to the property had passed to the

person mentioned therein, i.e., Pannala Lingaiah in respect of Ac.11.10

gts. in Sy.No.272 of Turkayamjal Village and other lands in Sy.Nos.271

and 273.

42. Also, Ex.P17 1-B RoR filed by the appellant shows that the

appellant is in possession of Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.272/A as on

07.03.2016, just prior to filing of the suit on 8.3.2016.

43. Therefore, prima facie on the date of filing of the suit, the

appellant, as per above revenue record is in possession of the suit

schedule property.

44. Coming to the case of the respondent, they are claiming title to the

suit schedule property on the basis of a Gift Settlement deed (Ex.R1)

executed in his favour by P. Yadaiah on 24.07.1987. In that gift

settlement deed, the property is described as Acs.2.00 in Sy.No.272 of

Turkayamjal Village. The donor of the respondent is said to have

obtained the said land under registered sale deed (Ex.R2) dt.08.07.1980

from K. Srinivas Rao and others.

45. There is no mention in this sale deed as to how the vendors of the

donor of the respondent obtained title to the suit schedule property.

46. But in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, he claimed that

an Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ranga Reddy District on 08.04.1996 in his favour (Ex.R6).

47. How such Occupancy Certificate could have been given in favour

of the respondent when much prior thereto on 16.12.1975 there was a

Certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 issued in favour of Pannala

Lingaiah for Ac.11.10 gts. in Sy.No.272 of Turkayamjal Village, is not

explained by the respondent.

48. A reading of Ex.R6 dt.08.04.1996 suggests that the respondent's

brother by name P. Yadaiah had purchased it from the legal

representatives of the Inamdar Smt. Gopamma on 08.07.1980 and later

Yadaiah had gifted it to the respondent on 24.07.1987.

49. When for Ac.11.10 gts. in Sy.No.272 Pannala Lingaiah, the

protected tenant, had been given Certificate under Section 38-E of the

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1950 on 16.12.1975, there was no title vesting in Smt. Gopamma or her

legal representatives to transfer title prima facie to P. Yadaiah, the

brother of the respondent, and therefore the brother of the respondent

could not have prima facie any title to land in Sy.No.272 of Turkayamjal

Village to gift it under Ex.R1 dt.24.07.1987 to the respondent.

50. Thus, we are satisfied that the appellant has prima facie case as

against the respondent and he was also in possession of the suit schedule

property on the date of filing of the suit.

51. The Court below seems to have unnecessarily given undue

importance to the filing of O.S.No.603 of 2015 by Mekala Ram Reddy,

the vendor of the appellant, against the respondent for perpetual

injunction, and the dismissal of I.A.No.510 of 2015 filed therein for

temporary injunction.

52. It also seems to have misread the order passed on 11.08.2015 in

I.A.No.510 of 2015 in O.S.No.603 of 2015 (Ex.R10). In the said order,

the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District observed merely

that the photographs filed by the appellant's vendor show that the land is

open land without any construction and so also was the property of the

respondent, and easementery rights of air and light are prescriptive rights,

and the appellant's vendor has to prove acquisition of the said rights for

the prescribed period. There is no mention therein about lack of

possession and enjoyment of the appellant's vendor. The above finding

as recorded by the trial court also contradicts the claim of the respondent

of constructing a compound wall around Acs.2.00 gts. of land and

possessed by him as stated in para no.4 in Written Statement filed in

O.S.No.603 of 2015.

53. But the Court below in para 20 proceeded as if there was a finding

in I.A.No.510 of 2015 about lack of possession and enjoyment of the

schedule property by the appellant's vendor.

54. That apart, the Court below gave undue importance to Ex.R6

dt.08.04.1996 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer granting

Occupancy Rights to the appellant and ignored totally, without giving

any valid reason, Ex.P21 Certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950

issued long prior thereto on 16.12.1975 to Pannala Lingaiah.

55. The finding of the Court below that there is no document filed to

show when Sy.No.272 has been sub-divided is also, in our opinion, not

proper because such information would come during the course of trial

when the Revenue Authorities are examined.

56. But prima-facie, Ex.P22, the Pahani for 2003-04 shows that there

was a sub-division of Sy.No.272 into Sy.No.272/A and Sy.No.272/AA

from 2003-04 onwards and it appears from the revenue record that the

name of the respondent is recorded in respect of Sy.No.272/AA as

pattedar and possessor, while the names of Pannala Ram Reddy and

others, who are vendors of the appellant's vendor under registered sale

deed dt.25.11.2008, are recorded as owners and possessors of the land in

Sy.No.272/A.

57. Therefore, though there may be an issue about identity of the suit

schedule property, i.e., whether both parties are claiming the same parcel

of land or that their lands are different, that does not mean that the

appellant should be denied temporary injunction as sought.

58. Merely because an earlier Application for temporary injunction

filed by the appellant, i.e., I.A.No.210 of 2016 in the same suit was not

taken up by the Court below for whatever reason, the appellant cannot be

left remediless and at best the said I.A. could be permitted to be

withdrawn by the appellant since I.A.No.503 of 2019 is now decided. It

cannot be said that the appellant had suppressed the filing of IA No.210

of 2016, because the record of the very same suit would disclose the

filing of IA No.210 of 2016.

59. We do not appreciate the action of the Court below in not at all

discussing Exs.P1 to P28 and straight away giving a finding that they do

not establish any prima facie case in favour of the appellant, and that the

claim of the appellant has to be gone into during trial.

60. In this view of the matter, order dt.11.02.2020 in I.A.No.503 of

2019 in O.S.No.231 of 2016 of the III Additional District Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is set aside; and the said I.A. is allowed.

61. Accordingly, the CMA is allowed. No costs.

62. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall stand

closed.

____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

____________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 02-06-2021

Svv