Telangana High Court
Akula Mallesham vs M.Secr.P.Laxmikantha Rao on 6 April, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.12 of 1999
ORDER:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree
dated 20.10.1995 in O.S.No.58 of 1985 passed by the learned
Sub Court Judge, Karimnagar.
2. The Vavilal Khadi Gramodyoga Prathistan represented by
its Member Secretary namely, P.Laxmikantha Rao/plaintiff
initially filed the suit in O.S.No.58 of 1985 against the
defendants No.1 & 2 for Perpetual injunction and later amended
it for Declaration to declare it as the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property by cancelling the sale deed dated 11.03.1985,
executed by one Laxmi Narayana and Surya Prasad who are
sons of one Omkari Veerosa in favour of the defendants No.1 &
2 as null and void.
3. The plaintiff is a registered society established for
production of Khadi, Yarn and other Gramodyoga products.
Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the dry land bearing
Sy.No.755/2/A measuring 12 guntas of Jammikunta Village
(from hereinafter referred as 'suit schedule property). The
plaintiff acquired the suit land from the original owner namely
Omkari Veerosa S/o. Babushetti on 23.12.1955. From then
onwards, plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit
schedule property and established a bone crushing unit in the
said suit land by constructing sheds and other necessary
structures, but later they have been dilapidated. Plaintiff was
also paying land revenue and its possession and ownership was
recorded in Pahani Patrikas and other revenue records. The
concerned authorities were also issued rythu passbook in
favour of plaintiff society under Record of Rights after
conducting enquiry. Plaintiff also obtained permission letter
No.134/85, dated 12.07.1985 of the Gram Panchayat,
Jammikunta for construction of compound wall around the suit
land and the said construction work is in progress. The
defendants have no right in the suit land and they are land
brokers. They did not have license or permission from the
competent authorities to act as brokers in the real estate
business. Only with an intention to harass the plaintiff and to
extract money, they are trying to interfere with their rights and
possession deceitfully and forcibly styling themselves as owners.
On 01.08.1985, defendants tried to enter into the suit land and
take its measurements, but the plaintiff's employees prevented
the defendants and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, they
filed suit for injunction. The nature of the suit was altered to the
suit for declaration as per the Orders of the trial Court in
I.A.No.461 of 1995 dated 29.06.1995.
4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they
stated that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor possessor of the
suit land. Plaintiff never purchased the suit land under simple
sale deed and they are in possession of the suit schedule
property since 23.12.1955. They further stated that documents
obtained by the plaintiff are manipulated by the authorities.
They also stated that they are the owners and possessors of the
suit land. The original owner by name Omkari Veerosa died
more than 50 years back and his sons succeeded to his
property and mutation was also effected in their name. Hence,
they purchased the suit land from his sons namely Laxmi
Narayana and Surya Prasad through a registered sale deed
dated 11.03.1985 and they were put in possession of the suit
land. Since then, Faisal Patti for the year 1984-85 reflects the
mutation of their names as per the sale deed. Even in the
Pahanies for the year 1984-85 the names of the defendants are
shown as owners and possessors of the suit land and Ryotwari
passbooks which were prepared in the year 1978-79 also issued
to the vendors. As the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit
schedule property, the question of interfering does not arise.
Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the suit.
5. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to
A150 on its behalf. The defendants examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and
marked Exs.B1 to B11 on their behalf.
6. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record,
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and restrained
defendants No.1 & 2 from interfering with its possession and
enjoyment and also declared the sale deed dated 11.03.1985 as
null and void and ineffective and it will not bind on the plaintiff.
Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present appeal is preferred.
7. The appellant/defendant No.1 mainly contended that the
trial Court erred in holding the fact that plaintiff is in
continuous possession from the year 1955 without any
evidence. Ex.A1 is the un-registered sale deed and there is no
evidence to prove their possession. The trial Court interpreted
the evidence of defendants in erroneous manner and arrived to
the wrong conclusion. The issue No.2 was decided erroneously
in favour of the plaintiff. Exs.B1 to B11 were not appreciated
properly. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the
Judgment of the trial Court.
8. The Superintendent of the plaintiff society was examined
as P.W.1 and he stated that he was working in the plaintiff
society for the last 40 years. Ex.A1 is the simple sale deed which
was marked through him. He stated that at the time of
execution of Ex.A1, the society was named as Hyderabad Khadi
Samithi and in the year 1967 its name was changed as Metpally
Khadi Gramodyog Prathistan and again in the year 1983, its
name was changed as Vavilal Khadi Gramodyog Prathistan. The
properties and assets of Hyderabad Khadi Samithi were
amalgamated into the assets and properties of Vavilal Khadi
Gramodyog Prathistan. Ex.A1 was executed in favour of the
Secretary, Hyderabad Khadi Samithi namely P.V.Naik and one
Swamy Ramanandha Thirtha was its President at that time. He
also stated that P.V.Narsimha Rao was the President of Metpally
Khadi Gramodyog Prathistan and he is the President of the
present society from its inception. Since 1984, one
B.Laxmikantha Rao is the Secretary of the society. They
purchased the suit schedule property for a total sale
consideration of Rs.175/- under Ex.A1 and entry was made in
the ledger of Hyderabad Khadi Samithi for the year 1955 in Page
No.96 and it was marked as Ex.A2. The property covered under
Ex.A1 is Ac.0 - 15 gts at the time of its purchase, but now it is
to an extent of Ac.0 -14 gts. The subject property was in
Sy.No.755/2/A of Jammikunta village and bounded as follows:
East:- PWD road coming from Jammikunta to Huzurabad.
West:- Land of Thota Mallaiah.
North:- Oil mill of Mukka Ramalingam.
South:- Rice mill of Chandra Vishwanatham.
After purchasing the property they started Hyderabad Khadhi
plying centre for crushing bones for manufacturing fertilizers. In
fact, they purchased the land only for the purpose of
establishing plying centre. They also constructed sheds and dug
a well and made other construction for the said unit. They paid
Rs.500/- to Laxmaiah Mastry towards construction of the said
charges and entries were made in the ledger for the year 1955 at
Page No.98 on 26.12.1955, which was marked under Ex.A3. He
also stated about the entries under Ex.A4 and also regarding
the land revenue paid under Ex.A5 to A9 and A16.
9. He further stated that their possession was also entered
in the revenue Pahanies for the years 1974 to 1982 under
Ex.A10 to 15. Ex.A17 is the Rythu Pass book issued by the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammikunta showing the plaintiff
society as the occupant of the suit land. They constructed a
compound wall all around the plaint schedule property after
obtaining necessary permission and sanctioned plan from the
Gram Panchayat. Ex.A18 is the permission letter issued by the
Gram Panchayat dated 12.07.1985 along with the sanctioned
plan. They paid construction fees under Ex.A19.
10. He stated that Hyderabad Khadi Samithi also purchased
another property from Omkari Veerosa under Ex.A20 through a
registered sale deed dated 07.05.1959. He stated that Omkari
Veerosa was alive till 1969 and he executed Ex.A1 to A20 in
their favour. Neither defendants nor the sons of Omkari Veerosa
were never in possession of the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff has not received any notice from the defendants
regarding mutation of entries. During the cross-examination, he
stated that the house of Omkari Veerosa was under mortgage to
the Hyderabad Khadi Samithi for Rs.8,000/-. There is
resolution for setting up of plying centre and it was passed in
the year 1955. The entries under Ex.A2 to A4 were made by one
Mangamma, who is accountant-cum-Manager in the plaintiff
society. He further stated that they filed the order of the
permission of Khadi and Village Industries Commission Board,
Bombay before the Court. He also stated that plying centre was
run for two or three years and later the suit land was kept
vacant. He stated that he knows sons of Omkari Veerosa i.e,
Laxmi narayana and Surya Prasad. He filed Photographs
showing the suit lands and the compound wall under Exs.A21
to A24 and Ex.A25 to A28 are their negatives. They were taken
in the year 1985. As the plaintiff is the society, they filed all the
documents which are available with them to show the expenses
incurred for construction of the compound wall and all the
documents were marked through P.W.1.
11. They addressed a letter under Ex.A142 regarding the
construction of the plying centre and requested the head office
to train their employees namely D.N.Chary and it is endorsed by
the Secretary under Ex.A42 on 29.12.1955. He admitted that
compound wall was constructed after obtaining injunction
Order and Exs.A30 to A126 are relating to the expenditure for
the construction of the compound wall. He stated that they are
in possession of the minutes books and resolutions and other
records to shows about the merger of Hyderabad Khadi Samithi
and Metpally Khadi Gramodyog Prathistan into the present
society. He stated that head office of Metpally Khadi Gramodyog
Prathistan was situated at Metpalli and the head office of Vavilal
Khadi Gramodyog Prathistan was situated at Vavilal and both
the societies were registered under the Registration of Societies
Act. The head office of the Hyderabad Khadi Samithi and
Bhagyanagar Khadi Samithi was situated at Hyderabad. He
further stated that Khadi and Village Development Commission
will provide funds for all these Khadi samithies and watch the
activities of the Khadi Samithies and they purchased the suit
land with the permission of the Khadi Commission.
Subsequently, the Hyderabad Khadi Samithi was divided into
three units i.e., Bhagyanagar Khadi Samithi, Metpalli Khadi
Gramodyog Prathistan and Martwadi Khadi Gramodyog
Samithi. Later, Metpalli Khadi Gramodyog Prathistan was
divided into two units i.e., Metpalli and Vavilal Khadi
Gramodyog Prathistan and the suit land came into the area of
operation of Vavilal Khadi Gramodyog Prathistan.
12. P.W.2 is the mason, who worked for the construction of a
shed for bone crushing unit along with others. The shed was
constructed in 14 Guntas, situated by the side of Huzurabad
road, but the bone crushing factory was run for only 2 or 3
years. He constructed the compound wall in the year 1985. He
stated that the suit schedule property is in possession of the
plaintiff society. He filed Ex.A29 receipt in the cross-
examination. He stated that the shed was constructed in the
year 1956 and the dimensions of the shed are 18 x 4 yards.
Some machinery was also installed in the shed.
13. P.W.3 is the hand writing and finger print expert who
was practicing since 1971. He verified the signatures on Ex.A1
and A20 under Optical instruments, ultraviolet and infrared
radiation and after assigning the reasons, submitted the final
report under Ex.143. He came to the conclusion that the
signature in Ex.A1 and A20 were written and signed by one and
the same person and also enclosed the relevant document
under Ex.A144 to A146 along with his report.
14. D.W.1 is the second defendant in the suit. He stated that
originally land belongs to Omkari Veerosa, but he died 40 years
back. Later his sons inherited the property and their names
were also mutated in the revenue records. On 11.03.1985, they
purchased the suit land under registered sale deed under Ex.B6
and later their names were mutated in Faisal Patti for the year
1984-85 under Ex.B1. He also filed Pahanies for the year
1980-83, 1984-85 under Exs. B2, B3 and B4 and also filed
original Passbook under Ex.B5. They purchased the suit land
for Rs.10,000/- and on payment of sale consideration took
possession of the land. One Mohan Reddy and Narsaiah were
the attesters of the registered sale deed. The plaintiff society
took the building and two acres vacant land from Omkari
Veerosa in the year 1955 and established plying centre in that
vacant land. They never cultivated the suit land.
15. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that he did not
know exactly when Omkari Veerosa died, but he knows the
possessors of the suit schedule land and he stated that he paid
Rs.5,000/- and defendant No.1 paid Rs.5,000/- to the vendors.
He further stated that except himself, defendant No.1 and Laxmi
Narayana none else were present at the time of negotiations. He
further stated that original sale deed has not been filed before
the Court, they filed certified copy of the sale deed and also the
letter given by the District Court regarding missing of the
original document. He also admitted that suit land is originally
possessed by Omkari Veerosa and it is his ancestral property.
Ex.B6 is the Certified Copy of the registered sale deed dated
11.03.1985, Ex.B7 is the Certified Copy of the Faisal Patti for
the year 1977-78 and the cancellation Order issued by Gram
Panchayat was filed under Ex.B8. It was suggested to him in the
cross-examination that original is not filed as the signatures of
attesters and vendors were forged and impersonated before the
Sub-Registrar at the time of execution, but he denied the same.
16. D.W.2 is the son of Omkari Veerosa namely Laxmi
Narayana. He along with his brother Surya Prasad executed the
sale deed in favour of defendants. He clearly stated that his
father died in the year 1963. He also stated that suit schedule
property was in their possession at the time of death of their
father and later their names were mutated in the revenue
records and they were cultivating the suit lands through one
Chandraiah. They never sold the property in favour of the Khadi
Board and plaintiff society never constructed a shed for
establishing bone crushing factory and they sold the property
only in the year 1985 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- under
Ex.B6 and delivered the possession on the same day. He stated
that one Mohan Reddy and Narsaiah attested the sale deed.
17. In the cross-examination, he stated that he is having one
brother and four sisters. His mother died subsequent to the
death of his father, but his sisters and brothers are alive. His
father knows reading and writing Telugu and he used to sign in
Telugu, he can identify hand writing and signature of his father.
The hand writing in Ex.A1 and the signature of the executant
slightly differs from the hand writing and signature of his father.
He stated that no one identified him or his brother as the
executant before the Sub-Registrar and he did not know who
purchased the stamp papers and he did not go to Jammikunta
at the time of delivery of the suit land to the defendants. He was
born in the year 1933. His family members left Jammikunta in
the year 1959 and settled in Hanumakonda. He admitted that
plaintiff society has an intention to establish bone crushing unit
and established the same in the land which was sold by his
father through a registered sale deed, but he cannot say the
extent of the land sold by his father to the society through the
registered sale deed. He also stated that the property was sold
for Rs.33,000/- through a registered sale deed, which was
marked under Ex.A20 and the same was executed by his father
and brother and it was attested by him. His father signed as the
guardian of his minor brother Surya Prasad. Ex.A20(a)(b)(c) are
the signatures of his father on each page of Ex.A20.
18. He further stated that they have not partitioned the suit
schedule property after the death of his father. All the properties
left by his father are ancestral joint family properties, in which
he, his brother, mother and all his sisters have got rights, but
his sisters have not executed the sale deed in favour of the
defendants along with them. He further stated that Ex.10 was
misplaced before the District Court and they gave a memo
under Ex.B11 dated 23.03.1995. He further stated that unless
the original Ex.B6 is shown to him, he cannot say whether it
contained his signature and that of Surya Prasad as executors.
He also admitted that it is possible to get Xerox copy of the
hand writing and signatures which were not in the original
document by keeping white paper at the time of the Xerox.
19. The trial Court initially framed six issues and later three
additional issues were framed. The plaintiff society in the suit
mainly contended that it is the owner and possessor of the suit
schedule property and it purchased the same from Omkari
Veerosa on 23.12.1955 under Ex.A1 and it also purchased some
other properties under Ex.A20 from the same person for
establishing plying centre and filed original documents before
the Court. He also filed the permission letter obtained from the
Gram Panchayat for construction of the compound wall. Initially
plaintiff filed suit for injunction, but later amended it as the suit
for declaration of sale deed dated 11.03.1985 as null and void.
D.W.2 is the son of Omkari Veerosa. He stated that his father
died in the year 1963. They have ancestral joint family
properties, but they have not partitioned the properties either
during the life time of his father or after his death. His mother
died subsequent to the death of his father, but his four sisters
and brother were alive. Admittedly, father of D.W.2 executed the
registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff society on 23.12.1955
and he also executed another sale deed dated 07.05.1959
during his life time under Ex.A20 (it is in Urdu language) and
the translation of the said sale deed has not been filed before
the Court and he was alive till 1963. D.W.2 stated that he was
born in the year 1933 and as on the date of execution of Ex.A1,
he was aged about 23 years, as such he can very well
understand regarding the transactions made by his father in
favour of the plaintiff society, but he never raised any objections
during his life time either after execution of Ex.A1 in the year
1955 or after execution of Ex.A20 in the year 1959 and kept
quiet without demanding for any partition during his life time.
Even afterwards, they kept quiet for another 22 years and
executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants for the
same suit schedule property and denied the execution of the
sale deed made by his father to the plaintiff society under Ex.A1
and A20.
20. P.W.1 is the employee of the society, from the beginning
he was examined to mark several documents in support of their
contention and he was cross-examined at length by the learned
Counsel for the defendants, but his evidence was unshaken
during his cross-examination and inspires the confidence of the
Court. So also, plaintiff examined P.W.3, hand writing expert to
prove the hand writing and signature of Omkari Veerosa on
Ex.A1 and A20 and he clearly stated that the said hand writing
and signatures on both the documents are of the one and the
same person. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve
the contention of the plaintiff regarding execution of sale deed in
their favour way back in the year 1955 and 1959 respectively.
Of course, when Ex.A1 was filed before the Court, the said
document was impounded and the relevant Stamp Duty was
paid, therefore the validity of the sale deed cannot be questioned
now. Even D.W.2 admitted during his cross-examination
regarding Ex.A20, though he could not say the extent of land,
he stated that his father signed the document in his own
capacity and also as the guardian of his brother and he signed
it as an attester and it was executed for Rs.33,000/-. Apart from
that he also admitted regarding Ex.A1 and stated that society
has an intention to establish bone crushing unit and they
established the same in the land which was sold by his father.
This clearly shows that knowing pretty well about the execution
of the document in favour of the plaintiff society, with an
ulterior motive, he along with his brother executed the
registered sale deed in favour of the defendants in the year 1985
to defeat the interest of the plaintiff society.
21. Admittedly, the possession was also handed over to the
society immediately after the execution of Ex.A1 and they
constructed a shed for establishing bone crushing unit and they
examined P.W.2, Mason who constructed the same along with
his team. The society has also filed the receipts and vouchers
regarding the payment made to him for construction of the bone
crushing unit. Admittedly, the plying centre was constructed for
running bone crushing unit, but it was run only for two or three
years and later it came to dilapidated condition. The
Photographs along with negatives were also filed and they were
taken in the year 1985, but the trial Court disbelieved the
Photographs on the ground that the plaintiff could not examine
the Photographer. The defendants objected the said
Photographs on the ground that compound wall was not visible
in the said Photographs. Admittedly, the construction of the
compound wall was made just prior to the filing of the suit in
the year 1985 and it was completed after filing of the suit in
view of the injunction Orders granted by the trial Court.
Therefore, on that ground, the said Photographs cannot be
disbelieved. The plaintiff society also filed relevant land receipts
and Pahani Patrikas to prove their possession.
22. P.W.1 gave the details of the status and name of the
society in detail in his evidence and further stated that the
assets and properties of the society initially established were
merged in the present society. He filed the resolutions and
minutes books in support of his contention. The plaintiff society
purchased the property in the year 1955 and another property
from the same person in the year 1959 and they were in
possession of the said property. They came to know about the
registration of the execution of the registered sale deed in favour
of the defendants by the sons of Omkari Veerosa only in the
year 1985. When they tried to interfere with the property basing
on the said sale deed, initially they filed suit for injunction and
then amended the same as suit for declaration to cancel the
said registered sale deed. The trial Court considering the entire
evidence on record, rightly decreed the suit and restrained the
defendants from interfering with the rights, possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff society and also declared the said sale
deed executed by the sons of Omkari Veerosa in favour of the
defendants as null void, ineffective and not binding on the
plaintiff society. Even then the defendant No.1/appellant filed
an appeal in the year 1999 before this Court and the same was
kept pending for nearly 24 years to deprive the rights of the
plaintiff society. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and
reasonable to dismiss the appeal with costs.
23. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merits and is
dismissed with costs confirming the Judgment of the trial Court
in O.S.No.58 of 1985 dated 20.10.1985.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 06.04.2023
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No. 12 of 1999
DATED: 06.04.2023
TRI
