Telangana High Court

Chinna Nagamma vs The Tahsildar And 7 Others on 20 April, 2023

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI


                     Writ Appeal No.180 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr.V.V.Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant;       Mr.T.Srikanth          Reddy,       learned   Government

Pleader for Revenue on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5;

and Mr.S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.6 and 7.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

18.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

Writ Petition No.11737 of 2020 filed by the appellant as the

petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition

assailing the legality and validity of the order dated

23.10.2019 passed by the Joint Collector of Mahabubnagar

(briefly 'Joint Collector' hereinafter).

4. It may be mentioned that by the aforesaid order

dated 23.10.2019, Joint Collector had set aside the order of

the Tahsildar dated 01.12.2016 whereby the Tahsildar had

mutated the name of the appellant in the revenue record in

respect of the subject land.

5. Subject land measures Ac.0 - 32 gts in Sy.No.127

and Ac.01 - 26 gts in Sy.No.177/A situated at Kanmanoor

Village of Addakal Mandal in Wanaparthy District.

According to the appellant, respondent Nos.6 and 7 had

created bogus document to show that Chinna Nagamma

had sold the subject land to them. Based on such

document, respondent Nos.6 and 7 got their names

mutated in the revenue record.

6. This was challenged by Chinna Nagamma before

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy who by order

dated 03.02.2013 set aside the order of the Tahsildar and

directed the Tahsildar to mutate the name of Chinna

Nagamma in respect of the subject land. Tahsildar

thereafter restored the name of Chinna Nagamma in the

revenue record who then executed a gift deed in favour of

the appellant gifting the subject land to the appellant.

7. On that basis, appellant made an application

before the Tahsildar seeking mutation of his name in the

revenue record. Tahsildar by proceedings dated

01.12.2016, mutated the name of the first appellant in the

revenue record. This order came to be challenged by

respondent Nos.6 and 7 before the Joint Collector by filing

the related revision case. By the impugned order dated

23.10.2019, Joint Collector allowed the revision case by

setting aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 01.12.2016.

This came to be challenged in the related writ petition.

8. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy had passed a

reasoned order dated 03.02.2013 which formed the basis of

the order of the Tahsildar dated 01.12.2016. Joint

Collector was not justified in interfering with the said

order. It was pointed out that in various documents

husband of Chinna Nagamma was recorded as Sayanna

but in the sale deeds, relied upon by respondent Nos.6

and 7, his name was shown as Hanumanthu. It was

contended that it was clearly a fraudulent action on the

part of respondent Nos.6 and 7. This fact was appreciated

by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who thereafter passed

the order dated 03.02.2013, based on which Tahsildar,

Mahabubnagar passed the subsequent order on

01.12.2016. Joint Collector had mechanically passed the

order dated 23.10.2019.

contested the writ petition by filing affidavit. Stand taken

by them was that respondent No.7 had filed O.S.No.23 of

2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy seeking

injunction against Chinna Nagamma in respect of the

subject land.

10. In the said civil proceedings, Chinna Nagamma

had contended that her husband name was Sayanna and

not Hanumanthu as reflected in the sale deeds and

therefore questioned the veracity of the sale deeds.

However, it was pointed out that at the time of execution of

the sale deeds in the year 1982, the husband had already

expired. Thereafter, Chinna Nagamma contracted second

marriage with a person called Sayanna. Therefore in

subsequent documents name of the husband was referred

to as Sayanna.

11. Chinna Nagamma had filed the appeal before the

Revenue Divisional Officer after 25 years of execution of the

sale deeds possibly because of rise in the land price and

therefore sought to make unlawful gain at the expense of

respondent Nos.6 and 7.

12. The appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation.

However, Revenue Divisional Officer without considering

this aspect allowed the appeal on 03.02.2013. This was

questioned before the Joint Collector by respondent Nos.6

and 7 by filing revision case and by the order dated

23.10.2019, the revision case was allowed.

13. In the hearing before the learned Single Judge,

attention of the Court was drawn to the interim injunction

passed by the Civil Court in I.A.No.77 of 2014 in O.S.No.23

of 2014. Appellant had challenged the said interim order in

appeal being C.M.A.No.2 of 2015 before the IX Additional

District Judge, Wanaparthy which was dismissed on

08.09.2016.

14. After considering the rival pleadings and

submissions, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion

that the appeal was filed by the appellant before the

Revenue Divisional Officer after a long gap of 25 years from

the date of execution of the registered sale deeds in favour

of respondent Nos.6 and 7. There was no explanation for

such long delay. Joint Collector had rightly allowed the

revision case by setting aside the order of the appellate

authority.

15. Before us learned counsel for the appellant

submits that when there is fraud question of limitation

does not arise.

16. When we asked learned counsel for the appellant

to point out the relevant averments in the writ affidavit

alleging the fraud by respondent Nos.6 and 7 to justify

belated filing of appeal before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, he could not point out any such avernments in the

writ affidavit.

17. Learned Single Judge after due consideration had

passed order dated 18.11.2021 in the following manner:

"As seen from the record, there are registered sale deeds executed in favour of unofficial respondents way back in the year 1982. The petitioners' mother, Chinna Nagamma and others have executed the said registered sale deeds, wherein the name of the husband of Chinna Nagamma was shown as late Hanumanthu, and as on the date of the execution of the said registered sale deeds, she was aged 45 years. Subsequently, when the respondent No. 7 has filed O.S. No. 23 of 2014 for injunction simplicitor, Chinna Nagamma had taken a stand therein that she is not the executant of the said registered sale deeds, but, the said documents may have been executed by some other person, whose husband name is shown as Hanumanthu.

That the name of her husband is Sayanna and not Hanumanthu. But the said contention has been rejected by the learned trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court, at para No. 7, has observed as under:-

"...The petitioner in his plaint as well as in the Interlocutory application affidavit has clearly mentioned that the respondent as on the date has contracted seven marriages, and that in support of his version the petitioner has filed one third party affidavit who is none other than the cousin brother of the respondent herein."

After contest, interim injunction orders were granted in favour of plaintiff, respondent No. 7 herein. Aggrieved by the said interim injunction orders granted by the trial Court, Chinna Nagamma filed a C.M.A. However, by orders, dated 08.09.2016 the said C.M.A. was also dismissed. Thus, the findings of the trial court that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of Chinna Nagamma has become final and therefore, having invited the said findings, the petitioners are estopped from contending in the present writ petition that the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the unofficial respondents are not by their other, but some other person. Once a

registered sale deed is executed in favour of a vendee, the vendor i.e., the original owner looses all rights, interest and title over the said property and in case the owner, subsequently, wants to dispute the said sale deed, his/her remedy is to approach the civil court for setting aside the sale deed. But simply by taking a stand that the name of the husband of petitioners' mother is shown as Hanumanthu, but not Sayanna, the petitioners cannot deny the execution of the registered sale deeds. As seen from the record, the petitioners have filed an appeal after long lapse of 25 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed in favour of unofficial respondents. There is no explanation by the petitioners as to why they kept quiet for 25 years before filing the appeal. The Joint Collector has appreciated all the points in proper perspective and has rightly allowed the revision filed by the unofficial respondents and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Joint Collector. The petitioners having suffered interim injunction orders and the same having been confirmed in C.M.A., now cannot contend that their mother is in possession of the subject lands.

Lastly, it is stated by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that even though the

court has passed the status quo orders, the then Tahsildar has changed the entries in the revenue records in favour of the petitioners and on the basis of the said change of entries in the revenue records, the petitioners have sold away the subject lands by a registered sale deed. When the matter came up for admission on 04.08.2020, this Court while ordering notice before admission has passed the following order:-

"In the meanwhile, status quo, obtaining as on today, with regard to the entries in the revenue records shall be maintained by the official respondents." Having regard to the above submission, the District Collector, Wanaparthy is directed to enquire into the said matter, and take necessary action against the then concerned Tahsildar if it is found that the entries are changed during the subsistence of the order of status quo granted by this Court. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks and a report, in this regard, shall be filed before the Registry of this Court.

For the forgoing reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 4 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, any change made in the revenue entries shall be restored to the original position as existed prior to the passing of the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 03.02.2013."

18. We are in agreement with the views expressed by

the learned Single Judge. Appellant has not questioned the

sale deeds relied upon by respondent Nos.6 and 7 before

the competent civil court. In the absence of any such

challenge, such sale deeds cannot be questioned merely on

the ground that her husband's name was Sayanna but in

the sale deeds he was referred to as Hanumanthu. Learned

Single Judge has rightly held that merely by taking such a

stand, appellant cannot deny execution of the registered

sale deeds. Learned Single Judge further noted that the

appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer was filed after

long lapse of 25 years from the date of execution of the