Telangana High Court

Sudireddy Pulla Reddy And 4 Others vs The State Of Telengana And 3 Others on 23 November, 2021

Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                 WRIT PETITION No.19901 of 2021
ORDER:

Seeking to call for the records pertaining to case

No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0980/2021 dated 09.07.2021 on the file of

respondent No.2-Special Tribunal, Nalgonda, the present writ

petition is filed.

2) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner

No.1, who died intestate on 08.02.2020, was the absolute owner

and possessor of various agricultural lands including the land in

survey No.628 to an extent of Ac.1-08 guntas situated at

Thondalvai Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District. That in

the year 1971, the father of petitioner No.1 and his brothers have

partitioned the joint family properties and in the said partition,

petitioner No.1 had acquired the lands in survey No.626 to an

extent of Acs.3-27 guntas, survey No.627 to an extent of Ac.1-33

guntas, and survey No.628 to an extent of Ac.1-08 guntas and

since the date of partition they are in possession and enjoyment of

the said lands. After due enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer has

issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of petitioner

No.1 and his name is also entered in the revenue record. It is

further alleged that in the year 2015 respondent No.4 made an

application for correction of revenue records, based on registered

document No.6108 of 2005 claiming the land in survey No.628 to

an extent of Ac.1-08 guntas along with other lands in other survey

numbers. Respondent No.3, without looking into the recitals of the

registered document and without conducting any enquiry has

issued proceedings dated 08.12.2005 for mutation of name of

respondent No.4 in the place of Sudireddy Malla Reddy.

Thereafter, based on the application of respondent No.4,

respondent No.3 had issued memo dated 30.06.2008 directing the

petitioner No.1 as well as Sudireddy Narayana Reddy, late

husband of respondent No.4, to appear and produce pattadar pass

books and title deeds for verification. Aggrieved by the same,

petitioner No.1 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional officer

vide case No.B/1976/2008 dated 21.08.2008. He also filed

another appeal No.B/2922/2008 on 06.12.2008 challenging the

amendment register of the year 2004-2005. Pursuant to

G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 12.01.2021, the matter was transferred to the

Special Tribunal wherein both the appeals were clubbed together.

During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner No.1 has died and

his legal representatives viz., petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 herein are

brought on record. Initially, the Special Tribunal passed order on

04.02.2021 dismissing the appeals. Pursuant to the orders passed

by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No.20 of 2021, the

petitioners have filed the review application. The Special Tribunal

vide order dated 09.07.2021 dismissed the review application.

Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3) This Court, on 03.09.2021, while issuing notice before

admission, has directed to maintain status quo with regard to

entries in the revenue records.

4) Seeking to vacate the said interim order, unofficial

respondents have filed I.A. No.3 of 2021 along with a counter

affidavit mainly contending that only after manipulating the

revenue records changing the name of the pattadar from 'Malla

Reddy' to 'Pulla Reddy', the writ petitioner No.1 during his lifetime

started claiming the subject land. The Tahsildar having conducted

enquiry and found the manipulation and interpolation of the

revenue records, passed orders in favour of this respondent.

Based on the gift deed executed in favour of this respondent, she

approached respondent No.3, who after conducting a detailed

enquiry, has issued proceedings dated 08.12.2005 mutating her

name. It is further submitted that after finding the manipulations

that have taken place in the pahanies, she approached the

respondent No.3-Tahsildar, who after conducting a detailed

enquiry, passed orders correcting the interpolations made in the

revenue records and directed the VRO to effect the necessary

corrections. It is further contended that the Special Tribunal after

considering the material on record in detail has dismissed the

appeal and there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the

same. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri

M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused

the record.

6) The subject matter of the present writ petition is an extent

of Ac.1-08 guntas in survey No.628 of Thondalvai Village.

7) The admitted facts are that one late Sri Sudireddy Pulla

Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy had filed an appeal challenging the orders of

the Tahsildar in mutating the name of respondent No.4 herein.

Initially, the Tribunal vide order dated 04.02.2021 has dismissed

the appeal filed by late Sri S. Pulla Reddy. Even the review petition

was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.07.2021.

Pending the appeal, Sri Sudireddy Pulla Reddy died and his legal

representatives were brought on record. The present writ petition

is filed by the legal representatives i.e. wife and three daughters of

late Sudireddy Pulla Reddy.

8) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued

that the Tribunal without taking into consideration the entries in

the revenue records, the partition deed executed between late Sri

S. Pulla Reddy and the family of Malla Reddy has dismissed the

appeal in a mechanical manner and even the review petition filed

against the initial order of rejection was also dealt with in a

mechanical manner and orders are passed without assigning any

reasons dismissing the review.

9) Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to

the Partition Deed executed between late Sri S. Pulla Reddy and

Malla Reddy, the husband of respondent No.4 herein, to buttress

his case that in the partition between two brothers, the land in

survey No.628, has also fallen to the share of late Sri Pulla Reddy.

That the Tribunal without considering the said fact and solely on

the basis that in the Partition Deed there was no mention of specific

area in survey No.628 which has fallen to the share of the brothers,

has dismissed the appeal misconstruing the documents before it.

Learned counsel has further contended that the respondents have

never denied the partition executed between Sri S. Pulla Reddy and

Sri Malla Reddy and therefore the Special Tribunal ought to have

allowed the appeal filed by them. It is further stated that the

Tahsildar initially without putting the petitioners on notice has

mutated the name of respondent No.4. Thereafter when S. Pulla

Reddy came to know about the entries made in favour of

respondent No.4, he had filed an application seeking correction of

the entries and a memo was issued closing the case. Aggrieved by

the same, Sri S. Pulla Reddy has filed the appeal before the

Revenue Divisional Officer.

10) Learned counsel has further submitted that an area of

Ac.1-06 guntas has fallen to the share of S. Malla Reddy and his

brother Narayan Reddy and that they had a share of Ac.0-23

guntas each, but the revenue authorities without taking the same

into consideration have mutated the name of respondent No.4.

That Malla Reddy did not have Ac.1-06 guntas of land in survey

No.628 and without there being any legal basis he has executed the

gift deed in favour of respondent No.4 and the Tahsildar, without

putting the petitioners on notice, had mutated the name of

respondent No.4, which is not only illegal but bad in law.

11) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4

has denied the averments made in the writ petition and has stated

that during the life time of Sri S. Pulla Reddy, he was given ample

opportunity to produce the documents in their favour, but they

never come forward to submit any documents. Therefore, the

memo was issued. Learned counsel has stated that late Sri S. Pulla

Reddy and Sri Malla Reddy are not own brothers, but are agnates.

That the partition deed said to have been executed in the year 1971

is a sham, bogus and forged document, which is brought into

existence by late Sri S. Pulla Reddy after the revenue records were

manipulated by him to suit his needs. Learned counsel has stated

that, as a matter of fact, the partition has taken place between the

grandfathers of S. Pulla Reddy and Malla Reddy wherein the land in

survey No.628 has fallen to the share of family of Sri Malla Reddy

and Narayan Reddy. That late S. Pulla Reddy has no connection

with the family of Sri Malla Reddy and Narayan Reddy, who are

own brothers, and no share has been allotted to the family of

S. Pulla Reddy in the land in survey No.628 at any point of time.

Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the

Pahanies for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000,

2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 to buttress his case and to

demonstrate as to how the manipulations were made by late Sri

S. Pulla Reddy. He further contended that S. Pulla Reddy has

managed to change the name of 'Malla Reddy' to 'Pulla Reddy' but

as seen from the pahanies, the father's name is written as 'Gopal

Reddy'. Even though Pulla Reddy managed to change the name of

'Malla Reddy' to 'Pulla Reddy', but he could not change the name of

the father from 'Gopal Reddy' to 'Ram Reddy'. It is an admitted fact

that Pulla Reddy is the son of Ram Reddy and not Gopal Reddy.

Therefore, the very basis for claiming the land in survey No.628 is

on the basis of the fraud played by late S. Pulla Reddy and the

manipulated revenue documents. That ample opportunity was

given to Pulla Reddy to produce the documentary evidence before

the concerned Tahsildar, but they could not produce an iota of

evidence to show that the land in survey No.628 has fallen to his

share. Therefore the authority concerned, after coming to the

conclusion that Pulla Reddy had manipulated the record, have

issued the memo dated 13.05.2008. That the Tribunal had rightly

appreciated the rival contentions raised by both the parties and

dismissed the appeal filed by late Pulla Reddy.

12) Admittedly, in this case, the entire case of the petitioners

is on the basis of the partition deed said to have been executed in

the year 1971 between Pulla Reddy and Malla Reddy. Learned

counsel has vehemently contended that the total area of survey

No.628 is Acs.2-14 guntas, out of which, an area of Ac.1-08 guntas

has fallen to the share of Sri Pulla Reddy and Ac.1-06 guntas has

fallen to the share of family of Malla Reddy and his brother Narayan

Reddy. Admittedly, in this case, the name of the father of Pulla

Reddy is 'Ram Reddy' whereas the father's name of Malla Reddy

and Narayan Reddy is 'Gopal Reddy'.

13) In order to appreciate the issue 'as to whether late Sri

Pulla Reddy had any land allotted to him in survey No.628', it is

pertinent to examine the pahanies which are filed by respondent

No.4 along with counter. A perusal of the pahani of the year 1996-

97 clearly shows that the total area of survey No.628 is Acs.2-14

guntas and the same has been sub-divided into 628/a and 628/aa.

The extent of survey No.628/a is shown as Ac.1-08 guntas and

survey No.628/aa is shown as Ac.1-06 guntas. In the column

meant for recording the name of the pattadar, the name of

Sudireddy Pulla Reddy S/o.Gopal Reddy is shown in respect of

survey No.628/a. Insofar as survey No.628/aa is concerned, the

name of Sudireddy Narayan Reddy S/o.Gopal Reddy is shown. In

the possession column, for survey No.628/a, the name of Malla

Reddy is written and for survey No.628/aa the name of Narayan

Reddy is written. The same is the case for the pahanies of the years

1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001. But, in the pahani of

the year 2001-2002, the name of Sudireddy Pulla Reddy is written

for both survey numbers, but the father's name is still shown as

'Gopal Reddy' and so is the case for pahani of the year 2002-2003.

When it is an admitted fact that the name of the father of Pulla

Reddy is Ram Reddy, it is not understandable as to why Sri Pulla

Reddy has kept quiet and did not get the name of his father

corrected in the revenue records. Moreover, the name of Malla

Reddy is shown in possession column for survey No.628/a for the

years 1996-97 up to 1998-99 and in respect of survey No.628/aa

for an extent of Ac.1-06 guntas, the name of Sri Narayan Reddy

S/o.Gopal Reddy is shown in both the pattadar column as well as

the possession column. If the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioners has to be believed that in the partition deed, the Sri

Gopal Reddy had got half share in survey No.628 i.e. an extent of

Ac.1-08 gunats and the other half of survey No.628 i.e. Ac.1-06

guntas has fallen to the share of two brothers i.e. Malla Reddy and

Narayan Reddy, then Pulla Reddy ought to have taken steps to get

the revenue records corrected, but he had not done so. Moreover,

as seen with the naked eye in the pahanies, the name of Malla

Reddy is corrected to show as if it is 'Pulla Reddy', and as rightly

pointed out by the respondents' counsel, the name of the father

could not be changed from 'Gopal Reddy' to 'Ram Reddy'. This

Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fraud

vitiates all solemn acts. Any entry which is made on the basis of

fraud cannot be the foundation for the subsequent entries.

Admittedly, in this case, as seen from the record, more particularly,

the pahanies from the year 1996-97 onwards, there is a clear

interpolation in the revenue record and the name of Malla Reddy

S/o.Gopal Reddy is changed to Pulla Reddy. But, they could not

manage to get the name of the father changed and the name of

Gopal Reddy still stands in the revenue records. This fact has not

been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners either in his

arguments or in the reply filed by them. The parties cannot take

advantage of the wrong entries made in the revenue records.

14) In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath1, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a judgment or decree, which

is obtained by fraud, is to be treated as a nullity and can be

questioned in a collateral proceedings. Non-disclosure of relevant

material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to

fraud. At paragraph Nos.5 and 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

further held as under:

"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank- loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. .......................... A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

15) In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi 2, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:

"Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act.

Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person

(1994) 1 SCC 1

(2003) 8 SCC 319

or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent mis-representation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata."

16) In Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar v. State of

Maharashtra3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fraud

vitiates the entire proceedings and can be challenged at any time.

17) For the afore-stated reasons and following the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred

judgments, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the

orders of the Special Tribunal. The Writ Petition has to fail.

18) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made

clear that any entries made during the pendency of the appeal have

to be reverted back and the orders of the Tahsildar have to be

implemented.

((2015) 6 SCC 557)