Telangana High Court
Kakatilaxminarayana vs Nirmala Mathadevalayam on 21 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
A.S.No.260 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023
in O.S.No.12 of 2021 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned
judgment') passed by the learned Agent to Government,
Bhadradri Kotthagudem (hereinafter will be referred as 'trial
Court'), the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal to set aside
the impugned judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the
appellants to file the present appeal are that, the plaintiff Nos.1
to 4 filed suit for declaration, recovery of possession and
perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of suit
schedule property. The averments of the plaint in brief are as
under:
a) The Plaintiffs are sons of late Kakati Peeralah S/o. late
Veeraiah belonging to schedule caste community and residents
of Vengannapalem village & panchayat of Julurupadu Mandal,
Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The plaintiffs are
grandchildren of late kakati Veeraiah, who was the absolute
MGP, J
as_260_2023
owner and pattadar of the agriculture land bearing Sy.No.253 to
an extent of Ac.11-00 guntas situated at Gundepudi village in
Gundepudi panchayat now at present within the jurisdiction of
Vengannapalem Panchayat. The lands are situated in Agency
Area, as such, they are governed by Agency Laws and
Regulation 1/70 Act. The lands are VETTI CHAKIRI LANDS i.e.
the lands were donated to KAKATI VEERAIAH as he rendered
services to the Government as servants. The lands are donated
to him in the year 1955-58 and since 1955 Kakati Veeraiah was
in possession and enjoyment of the property, his name was
entered in KASRA PAHANI and PAHANIES as PATTADAR AND
POSSESSOR. The Vettichakiri Lands are INAM lands and they
are prohibited from alienation. Moreover, the Regulation 1/70
Act came into force from March, 1970, as per which all kinds of
transactions in between non tribes are void ab initio. Kakati
Veeralah and his wife died long back. Kakati Veeraiah blessed
with 3 children namely, 1) Kakati Peeraiah, 2) Kakati Mysaiah,
3) Kakati Ramaseti. Kakati Veeraiah partitioned his property
among his children. Accordingly, Kakąti Veeraiah's son Kakati
Peeralah got Ac.4-00 guntas of the land in Sy.No.253/A
situated at Vengannapalem revenue village, Julurupadu
Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem i.e., suit schedule property.
MGP, J
as_260_2023
Kakati Peeralah blessed with 4 children namely, 1) Kakati
Laxminarayana, 2) Kakati Venkateswarlu, 3)Kakati Nagesh, 4)
Kakati Ravi Kumar. That Kakati Peeraiah and his wife Kakati
Nagamma died long back. After death of Kakati Peeraiah and
Nagamma, the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule
property as class-I legal heirs. The plaintiffs are only entitled to
claim the rights over the suit schedule property.
b) The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are concerned with RCM
Church, which is having office at Karunagiri, Naidupeta near
bridge Warangal Bypass Road, Khammam Town and Mandal.
The defendant No.2 is looking after managing of churches
under his jurisdiction and taking care about the defendant
No.1's church at Vengannapalem Village. The plaintiffs and
their father have not sold the suit schedule property to the
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Taking advantage of innocence of the
plaintiffs, the defendants illegally occupied the suit schedule
property based on alleged void documents and denying the title
and rights of the plaintiffs. The defendants are alleging that
they have obtained valid permission with plan from the
defendant No.3 to construct shopping complex in the suit
schedule property. In fact, the defendant No.3 has not sectioned
MGP, J
as_260_2023
any permission or approved any plan for construction of the
alleged shopping complex in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2.
c) It is pertinent to mention that the property situated in
Agency Area, as such, governed by Agency Laws. All kinds of
transaction in between the non tribes is null and void and the
outcome of the void document is void, based on void document
no one can claim any kind of rights. When the defendants were
orally advised to vacate and handover the schedule mentioned
property to the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 denied the
very title of the plaintiffs and refused to deliver physical
possession of the suit schedule property alleging that they have
obtained valid permission with plan from the defendant No.3
and they are praying property tax to the Gramapanchayat as
well as their name was entered in revenue records. The entries
carried out in Gemapanchayat and revenue records are
outcome of the void documents, as such, whatever entries
carried out based on the void documents are void as such, they
do not give any legal sanctity as such, they are liable to be
deleted from revenue and Gramapanchayat records. The
Secretary/Sarpanch, Vengannapalem Gramapanchayat do not
have any rights to consider void documents.
MGP, J
as_260_2023
d) The plaintiffs could not recover the physical possession of
the suit schedule property inspite of their best efforts. Moreover,
these lands are INAM LANDS, which are prohibited from all
kinds of alienations. At present the plaintiffs are suspecting
danger to their life and property. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2
are threatening to alienate the property in favour of the third
parties to create multiplicity of legal proceedings and taking the
law into their hands. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to
seek help from the Hon'ble Court by way of filing of this suit to
declare them as absolute owners of the suit schedule property
consequential recovery of possession of property and deliver the
physical possession of the property and rectify the entries i.e.,
delete the names of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in revenue and
gramapanchayat records and consequentially perpetual
injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from
alienating the property in favour of third parties and also to
direct defendant No.3 to direct defendant No.3 not to entertain
any void documents. Hence, this suit.
4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant Nos.1 and
2 filed written statement and the brief averments of which are
as under:
MGP, J
as_260_2023
a) The land out of Sy.No.253/AA to an extent of Ac.0-10
guntas, of Vengannapalem village, Jullurupadu Mandal, which
was agricultural land converted into non-agricultural land by
the then RDO, Kothagudem, in proceedings No.H/1459/08
dated 14.08.2008, basing on the letter of Tahsildar,
Jullurupadu dated 07.08.2008. In fact the land was purchased
by the Society long back in the year 1977 through registered
document bearing No.1367/1977 dated 04.11.1977 and since
then these defendants are in legal possession and enjoyment of
the same without any sort of interruption from all corners and
the defendants herein who had earlier filed a suit on the file of
Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem vide O.S.No.32/1990 over the
same schedule of property inter-alia claiming ownership against
Kakati Peeraiah, Mysaiah, Lakshmi Narayana, Kakati
Veerababu, Kakati Venkateswarłu i.e., Defendant No.3 & 5 who
are the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 herein were also party to the above
suit and the same suit after complete verification of documents
and physical possession, the said parties entered into
compromise on 29.11.1996 with the following terms and
conditions:-
i) It is agreed that the defendant No.1 & 2, who are the
plaintiffs in the said suit, shall have to pay Rs.30,000/- to each
MGP, J
as_260_2023
of the plaintiffs No.1 and 3 to 5 and the said amount was
received through demand draft by the plaintiffs (who were
defendants in O.S.No.32/1990)
ii) It is agreed that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall have to
hand over 'B' schedule property of an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas
out of schedule property on the southern side of the same to the
plaintiffs to an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas and the said plaintiffs
have to distribute the same equally among themselves to raise
their respective houses.
iii) The plaintiffs have received the said amount and agreed
to remove their existing thatched huts and move to the
Southern side of the suit schedule property i.e., on the allotted
'B' schedule property to raise their respective houses therein
equally.
iv) The plaintiffs undertaken that they shall not file any suit
in any manner against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at any point
of time in respect of the suit schedule property to an extent of
An 3.00 guntas in future and allow the defendant Nos. 1 and 2
to enjoy the same peacefully.
v) The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall have to bear the court fee of
MGP, J
as_260_2023
Rs.336/ upon the market value of Ac. 0-22 guntas, computed
at Rs.3,960/-.
b) Accordingly the suit was disposed of and thereafter the
matter was again presented before the RDO, Kothagudem by
one Bhukya Somla in collusion with the persons interested it
was clear in the order dated 25.08.1999, that the defendant is
in possession and enjoyment, the Dioceasion Society of
Khammam should not be disturbed from the possession over
the said lands.
c) Further, the plaintiff No.4 herein filed a Writ Petition vide
W.P.No.2840/2009 in WPMP No. 3645/2009 against the
revenue officials by suppressing the material facts with unclean
hands, thereupon noticing the attitude and action of the
plaintiff No.4 herein inter-alia claimed that he is in possession
of land, sought for interim orders and obtained status quo vide
orders dated 16.02.2009 against the revenue officials after
knowing the said fact and by misusing the orders of the Court
when the above plaintiff No.4 tried to interfere into the
possession and enjoyment, the defendants herein filed
impleading petitions vide WPMP No.5964 & 9220 of 2009 and
after hearing both the sides this Court was pleased to dismiss
MGP, J
as_260_2023
the Writ petition No.2840/2009 on 22.10.2013, but the
plaintiffs dishonestly, wilfully knowing fully well about the
entire above proceedings that did took place in various courts
and forums filed the present suit with all false and baseless
allegations and averments by misusing the process of law.
d) That there is no cause of action to file the suit and the
alleged cause of action is nothing but self imaginary. The suit is
not maintainable due to the principles of resjudicata and the
defendants are the rightful owners of the suit schedule property
by virtue of their acquisition and in view of the compromise
entered before the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam vide LA.No.
785/1995 in O.S.No.32/1990, the same schedule property was
involved in the said suit, between the same parties as such the
plaintiffs estopped to claim any right or to raise their little finger
over the exclusive property belongs to defendants Nos.1 and 2.
e) The defendant Nos.1 and 2 Society is formed with a
phylosonthrifical and other charitable purpose and they are in
legal possession from the date of their acquisition and make use
of the same for various purposes and constructed a complex,
church and a residential quarter for the Priest and the
remaining land being used for agriculture and other social,
MGP, J
as_260_2023
economical upliftment activities for the poor and needy of the
locality. The suit is not maintainable for lack of limitation.
f) The court fee paid on the suit and its very nature of
framing of the suit is not maintainable and court fee is not
sufficient, as the plaintiffs failed to assess the value covered
under the existing permanent structures over the part of the
suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have to pay the court
fee separately to both the vacant site as well as the existing
structures. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit
with exemplary costs.
5. Based on the pleadings of both the sides, the trial Court
has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the suit proceedings are against the law, as per
'doctrine of Res Judicata"?
2. To what relief?
6. On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.4 was examined and
got marked Ex.A1 i.e., nine photographs. On behalf of
defendants, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. The
trial Court on appreciating the evidence on record, has
dismissed the suit by holding that neither the plaintiffs nor
defendants have established their ownership and title over the
MGP, J
as_260_2023
suit schedule land.
7. Aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree, the
plaintiffs filed the present appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record including the
grounds of appeal.
9. The first and foremost contention is that the petitioners
are Schedule Tribes and that the property is situated in the
Agency Tracts. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended
that the defendants are contesting the suit as well as in the
appeal that they have purchased by way of a registered sale
deed executed by Kakati Peeraiah and Kakati Mysaiah but it is a
blatant lie as there are no registrations in the Agency Tracts
since 1970 onwards as such their claim of registration of their
deed itself is not tenable. It is further contended that the bare
look at the document also do not bare any signature of any
Registrar except some number on the top of the document, but
no stamps of the registration department. It is a minimum
knowledge that if a document is registered it bears a Round
seal, but hear there is a oval shape stamp which shows only a
date in the middle and no signature so that is a stamp of a
MGP, J
as_260_2023
stamp vendor and no registration. Secondly, since all the sales
in the agency tracts are absolutely null and void as the Act of
Parliament. The Agency tracts attract the provisions of Land
Transfer Regulation Act of 1956, which came into force from
03.02.2070 which categorically prohibits all the transactions of
immovable properties in the agency tracts. The proviso under
Section 3 of the said Act reads as under:
"3. Transfer of immovable property by a member of a
Schedule Tribe:-
[(1) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
enactment, rule or law in force in the Agency tracts any transfer
of immovable property situated in the Agency tracts by a person,
whether or not such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe,
shall be absolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in
favour of person, who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a
society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) which is
composed solely of member of the Scheduled Tribes.
(b) Until the contrary is proved, any immovable property
situated in the Agency tracts and in the possession of a person
who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, shall be presumed to
have been acquired by such person or his predecessor in
possession through a transfer made to him by a member of a
Scheduled Tribe."
10. In support of the above said contention, the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision of the High
Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in Tellam
Venkata Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
and another 1, wherein it was observed as under:
"11. Surprisingly, this assertion on the part of the
1 2012 (1) ALT 102 (D.B.)
MGP, J
as_260_2023
Government in trying to justify and extending the enabling
provision to such non-tribals in the scheduled areas could not have
been made to the detriment of those who are sought to be protected
in the area. The move by the Government through the circular is
certainly a way out which they could not have done directly. By
reading the aforesaid provision of the Constitution and also the
provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations,
1959, there is no question of any semblance of right, title and
interest whatsoever in nature in respect of any person other than a
tribal in the scheduled area. In such an event, the creation of any
such enforceable right in a prohibited area, which is amply
protected under the Constitution, is not only illegal, but also ultra
vires the Constitution."
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants
contended that the plaintiffs have not filed any certificate to
establish that they belong to Schedule Tribe. Admittedly, the
plaintiffs have not filed any document to establish that they
belongs to Schedule Tribe in order to claim shelter under the aid
of the principle laid down in the above said decision.
12. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further contended
that the defendants have filed a suit for injunction against these
appellants and there was a compromise therein vide OS No.32
of 1990, which is also a blatant lie as there is absolutely no
compromise, but the suit is withdrawn by them as not pressed
by a docket order dated 02.02.1996, which read as "counsel for
the plaintiff endorsed on the plaint not pressing the suit hence,
MGP, J
as_260_2023
the suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed. Counsel for
D1 and D3 to D5 is not present Sri J. Gopi Krishna Advocate for
plaintiff informed." It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendants failed to file any
documents showing that there is a compromise but only
extracted so called compromise terms in the written statement
and the counter herein, which cannot be accepted. The
Honourable Apex Court in Medi Narayana v. Nagarjuna
Gramena Bank and others 2 that the decrees passed by the civil
courts over the matters of agency are not enforceable. It is
submitted that even there is no such decree nor the alleged
compromise is also a blatant lie.
"9. We have carefully considered the matter and we are
satisfied that the judgments under challenge in this group of civil
appeals do not require any interference."
10.It is however, clarified that those persons who have
decrees, orders or judgments in their favour passed by the civil
court(s) may lay their claim before the agency court(s). In the
event of such claims being laid before the agency court(s), the
same shall be decided by the agency court(s) uninfluenced by any
judgment, decree or order passed by the civil court(s)."
13. The legal principles imply that the Judgments, decrees
and orders passed after 1972 by the civil courts in Scheduled
(2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 362
MGP, J
as_260_2023
areas were null and void, irrespective of whether the litigation is
exclusively between the people of Scheduled Areas or between
people of Scheduled Area and people of non-Scheduled Area.
The said cases/claims have to be freshly adjudicated by Agency
Courts. But as stated supra, the plaintiffs have not filed any
document to establish that they belongs to Schedule Tribe in
order to claim shelter under the aid of the principle laid down in
the above said decision. Further, even as per the plaint
averments, as stated in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, the
plaintiffs belongs to 'schedule caste community'. Thus, even as
per the version of the plaintiffs, they belong to 'schedule caste'
but not 'schedule tribe'
14. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the
defendant that earlier a writ petition filed by the plaintiffs was
also dismissed by this Honourable High Court. It is further
contended by the defendants one Bhukya Somla has filed a
complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer way back in the year
1999 and the same has been decided in their favour. In order to
refute this contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs
submitted that the said writ petition was filed with a prayer
seeking direction to the official respondents not to dispossess
MGP, J
as_260_2023
them but the officials respondents submitted that they were not
interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, as such, the
said writ petition was dismissed by holding that the plaintiffs
have no title, however, a Writ order or an order of a rank of
Revenue Divisional Officer will not be binding on the civil courts
which decides the title by way of trial and the said order do not
take away the rights granted under the Act of parliament. There
is absolutely no doubt that the question of title cannot be
adjudicated under writ jurisdiction or based on an order of a
rank of Revenue Divisional Officer. The suit filed by the
plaintiffs is for declaration, recovery of possession and perpetual
injunction against the defendants. The Honourable Supreme
Court in Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) through LRs and
another v. Shivnath and others 3, wherein it was observed as
under:
"41. In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the
plaintiffs-respondents could succeed only on the strength of their
own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants-
appellants. The burden is on the plaintiffs-respondents to
establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are
entitled for a decree for declaration. The plaintiffs-respondents
have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease which
the plaintiffs-respondents are relying upon nor proved their right
by adducing any other evidence. As noted above, the revenue
3 2019 Laws Suit (SC) 1038
MGP, J
as_260_2023
entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any
event, revenue entries for few Khataunis are not proof of title; but
are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any
right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title.
Observing that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiffs-
respondents are to succeed only on the strength of their own title
irrespective of whether the defendants-appellants have proved
their case or not, in Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co-
operative Housing Society Limited and others (2014) 2 SCC 269,
it was held as under:-
"15. It is trite law that, in a suit for
declaration of title, the burden always lies on the
plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for
granting such a declaration and the weakness, if
any, of the case set up by the defendants would not
be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff."
14. In view of the principle laid down in the above said
decision, it is quite clear that the burden is upon the plaintiff to
establish that he is the owner and possessor of the suit
schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that his
possession over the suit schedule property was encroached
upon by the defendants. The plaintiff has to stand or fall upon
his own legs but cannot depend upon the weakness of the
defendants, more particularly, in a declaratory suit. In the case
on hand, except the oral evidence of PW1 and photographs, the
plaintiff has not filed any other material to establish their case.
Mere filing of photograph does not establish title or possession
MGP, J
as_260_2023
over an immovable property because even on perusal of those
photographs, there is no clarity as to whether it is the suit
schedule property or any other property. The plaintiffs ought to
have filed appropriate documents to establish as to from whom
they are tracing their title over the suit schedule property and
whether they are the legal heirs of original owner of the suit
schedule property.
15. The plaintiffs are alleged to have been claiming their title
over the suit schedule property through Kakati Veeraiah, who
was blessed with four sons and the plaintiffs are alleged to be
the sons of elder son of Kakati Veeraiah viz., Kakati Peeraiah.
But there is no document to show that Kakati Veeraiah was
donated Ac.11.00 guntas by the government and after his death
the said land was devolved upon his four sons. There is also no
document to show that father of the plaintiffs by name Kakati
Peeraiah was allotted Ac.4.00 guntas towards his share. There
is also no documentary evidence to show that the plaintiffs are
the grandchildren of Kakati Veeraiah and that they are the sons
of Kakati Peeraiah. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed
Photostat copies of certain documents in support of their
contentions. The plaintiffs ought to have filed the certified
MGP, J
as_260_2023
copies of those documents for better appreciation as the
contents in certain documents are not legible. Moreover, this is
not the procedure to be adopted for filing documents at the
appellate stage. The plaintiffs ought to have invoked the
provisions order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
submit documents for perusal of this appellate Court by
explaining the reasons for not producing these documents
before the trial court despite their best efforts. But there are
not such efforts put forth by the plaintiffs.
16. It is further submitted that the court below having
observed that the transactions on immovable property in the
Agency tracts are not valid, and also holding that the civil
decrees are not enforceable in the Agency tracts, and also
holding that the names of the fathers of the have been reflecting
in the Dharani portal also, erred in dismissing the suit. It is
pertinent to note that mere entries in the revenue records do not
confer any title in favour of the plaintiffs and those revenue
entries are helpful in payment of land revenue only. Merely
because the defendants claimed to have purchased the suit
schedule property from the grandfather of the plaintiffs in the
year 1977, it cannot be inferred that Kakati Veeraiah is the
MGP, J
as_260_2023
original owner of the suit schedule property. There is no record
to show that Kakati Veeraiah was donated the land by the
government.
17. As seen from the cause of action mentioned in the plaint,
there is no specific month or year, more particularly the date
and time as to when the cause of action arose for the plaintiffs
to file the present suit. Thus, there is ambiguity with regard to
the cause of action. The plaintiffs have not explained as to
when their possession over the suit schedule property was
grabbed by the defendant. It is apparent from the record that
the defendant alleged to have purchased the suit schedule
property from the grandfather of the plaintiffs and also gone to
the extent of constructing church and shopping complex etc. It
appears that the plaintiffs are being unsuccessful before all the
forums. Until and unless the plaintiffs approach the court with
convincing and cogent evidence, they cannot succeed in any
suit, much less in a declaratory suit. On these grounds also
the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that the trial Court though has not
considered all the aspects meticulously, has arrived to an
MGP, J
as_260_2023
appropriate conclusion by assigning the reasons as to why the
relief sought by the plaintiff was not being granted and thereby
there are no merits in the appeal to set aside the impugned
Judgment. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be
dismissed.
19. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 21.06.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o. AS
