B.Sathaiah, vs Beemari Pochamma,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4170 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

              SECOND APPEAL No.755 OF 1998

JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal has been directed against

judgment and decree dated 23.03.1998 in A.S.No.23 of 1992

on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet

(for short, 'first appellate Court'), wherein and whereby the

judgment and decree dated 04.05.1992 in O.S.No.252 of

1990 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Siddipet

(for short, 'trial Court'), was confirmed. The said suit, filed

by the respondents herein for declaration and injunction in

respect of the suit properties, was decreed. The present

appeal is at the instance of the defendants.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the

respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit. For

the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they

were referred to in the suit.

3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is

that one Beemari Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, who is the father

of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and grandfather of plaintiff No.1, was

the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-

26 guntas in Sy.No.664/AA and Ac.0-12 guntas in Sy.No.664/E, total admeasuring Ac.0-38 guntas, situated at

Toopran Village and Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter to

as 'suit properties'). Beemari Narsaiah died leaving behind

his three sons viz., Lingaiah, Muthaiah and Sathaiah to

succeed him. Lingaiah died in the year 1985. Plaintiff No.1

is the daughter of Lingaiah. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have

succeeded the suit properties by way of inheritance.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the suit

properties contain two parts. One part contains an extent of

land admeasuring Ac.0-12 guntas in part of Sy.No.664/E

standing in the name of Lingaiah, the eldest son of Beemari

Narsaiah. After the death of Lingaiah, the name of plaintiff

No.1 was recorded as pattedar of the said property. The

another part contains an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-

26 guntas in Sy.No.664/AA standing in the name of plaintiff

Nos.2 and 3. After the death of Beemari Narsaiah, the

names of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were recorded as pattedars,

and in the possession column, either the name of Muthaiah

or the name of Sathaiah or both their names were continued

to be recorded as possessors. As per the plaintiffs, the

defendants are unconnected to their branch of relations, but

taking advantage of similarity of the surname and name of

their ancestor, the defendants managed to mutate their names in respect of the suit properties under Ex.A-40

without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Basing on Ex.A-40,

when the defendants started interfering with the possession

of the plaintiffs by denying their title, the plaintiffs filed the

present suit.

5. The case of the defendants is that defendant Nos.1 to 4

are the children of late Balaiah, defendant No.5 is the

brother of Balaiah, defendant No.6 is the son of defendant

No.5 and defendant No.7 is the younger sister of defendant

No.5. In the original pleadings of the written statement, the

name of the grandfather of defendant No.5 was mentioned

as 'Balaiah', but it appears the same was corrected later as

'Narsaiah'. It is not known why and how the name was

corrected in the better written statement. The defendants

claim the title and possession from late Narsaiah. According

to the defendants, the father name of defendant No.5 is

Narsaiah. On the basis of the said claim, they obtained

mutations and they are in possession of the suit properties.

They contended that the plaintiffs are nothing to do with the

suit properties and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed

the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit schedule land?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of perpetual injunction?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek the mutation order set aside?

4. Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is correct?

5. To what relief?"

7. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, examined

PWs.1 to 4 and relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-47. On behalf of

the defendants, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and relied upon

Exs.B-1 to B-7.

8. Both the Courts below found that the ancestor of the

plaintiffs was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit

properties, and accordingly, the suit was decreed.

Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed by

the defendants.

9. The challenge in the present appeal is with regard to

the findings in respect of land in Sy.No.664/AA only, but not

with regard to the findings in respect of land in

Sy.No.664/E. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is

confined to the land in Sy.No.664/AA.

10. This Court, by order dated 21.09.1998, admitted the

appeal without framing any substantial question of law,

which is contrary to Section 100 of CPC. Therefore, the

following substantial questions of law are framed:

"(i) Whether the findings of both the Courts with regard to title and possession suffer from any perversity?

(ii) Whether both the Courts were justified in granting relief of rectification of revenue records in the absence of any prayer from the plaintiffs?

11. Heard learned counsel for both sides on the above

substantial questions of law.

Findings on the substantial question of laws:

12. A scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence of both the

parties would indicate that there is no serious dispute

between the parties that the original title holder to the land

in Sy.No.664/AA was B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah. The

plaintiffs claim that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is their father

and the defendants claim that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is

the father of Balaiah and defendant No.5. This means, both

the parties claim that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is their

ancestor.

13. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs show that

B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and

3 and the oral evidence of the defendants show that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is the father of late Balaiah and

defendant No.5. Therefore, the crucial evidence is the

entries made in the revenue records in respect of possessor

column as well as patta column. The revenue records

anterior to 1978-79 show that in the patta column, the

name of B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah was recorded as pattedar,

and in the possessor column, the names of Mutahiah,

Sathaiah and Narsaiah were recorded. The names of

defendant No.5 and his brother viz., Balaiah were never

recorded in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.664/AA

prior to mutation under Ex.A-40. Their names were

reflected only after the mutation under Ex.A-40 i.e., after

1979 only.

14. The plaintiffs, to show that B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah

is their ancestor, strongly relied upon Ex.A-6, chesala

pahani for the years 1956-58 in respect of Sy.No.959/A to

an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-06 guntas and Ex.A-15,

Chowfaisla pertaining to the year 1976-77 in respect of

Sy.No.959. In the said documents, the name of the father of

B.Narsaiah was shown as 'Balaiah'. The defendants are

claiming ownership over the lands in the said survey

number i.e., Sy.No.959.

15. The original pleadings of the defendants also show that

the father's name of B.Narsaiah is 'Balaiah'. Subsequently,

the name of 'Balaiah' was corrected by overwriting with hand

and wrote the name of 'Narsaiah'. The defendants, in the

pleadings, have not specifically denied the claim of the

plaintiffs that their grandfather's name is 'Narsaiah'. The

names of Sathaiah, Muthaiah and their father Narsiah were

continuously entered in the possessor column of the

pahanis for the years from 1955-56 till 1976-77. At any

point of time, the names of defendant No.5 and his brother

Balaiah were not record3ed.

16. The above evidence clearly goes to show that plaintiff

Nos.2 and 3's father name is Narsaiah and their

grandfather's name is also Narsaiah. Such evidence

supports the plaintiffs claim. Both the Courts below have

relied upon such evidence in coming to the conclusion that

the original pattedar i.e., B.Narsaiah, S/o.Narsaiah is the

ancestor of the plaintiffs. Such findings do not suffer from

any perversity. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to

interfere with such findings.

17. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants

raised a contention that the trial Court granted relief of rectification without any prayer by the plaintiffs. It is a fact

that the plaintiffs have not claimed any consequential relief

of rectification of revenue records in pursuance of

declaration of title and possession. In fact, as seen from the

judgment of the trial Court, no such relief was granted,

except granting declaration of title and injunction, as prayed

for. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has

granted the relief which is not sought for. Therefore, the

contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants/defendants is unmerited. Accordingly, the

substantial questions are answered.

18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the

judgment and decree dated 23.03.1998 in A.S.No.23 of 1992

on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions,

if any, pending, shall stand closed.

________________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 17.08.2022 TJMR