Telangana High Court
T.Muttamma vs G.Pentaiah on 15 March, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.657 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree
dated 13.03.2009 in O.S.No.1211 of 2004 passed by the
learned I - Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R District at
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. The suit vide O.S.No.1211 of 2004 was filed by the
appellants against the respondents for declaration of title
and recovery of possession. The trial Court after
considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the
suit. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, plaintiffs in the suit
preferred the present appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein
are refereed as "plaintiffs" and the respondents are
respondents are referred as "defendants" as arrayed in the
trial Court.
4. P.W.1 is examined on behalf of plaintiffs and D.Ws.1
and 2 are examined on behalf of defendants. Exs.A1 to
A12 are marked on behalf of plaintiffs and Exs.B1 to B26
are marked on behalf of defendants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs mainly
contended the decree and judgment of trial Court is
contrary to law and facts of the case and also erred in
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced
on behalf of both the parties. The trial Court failed to
consider that the plaintiffs have established their title over
the property and the respondents/defendants have denied
the title of plaintiffs to the suit land in Suit O.S. No.832 of
2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,
R.R District. Therefore, requests this Court to set aside the
judgment passed by the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondents/defendants
contended that the trial Court had evaluated the
documentary and oral evidence adduced by both parties
and arrived at just and proper conclusion that the
appellants failed to establish their title over the suit
schedule property, as such the suit has been dismissed by
the trial Court.
7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial Judge in O.S.No.1211 of 2004, dated 13.03.2009 is
sustainable in law and on facts"?
9. To answer the point for consideration, it is necessary
to note down the gist of pleadings and evidence of both
parties before the trial Court.
10. The plaintiffs contended that they are the absolute
owners and possessors of plot numbers 198 to 216 (total
19 plots) in survey No.80 admeasuring 2300 sq.yards
situated at Peerzadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R
District (herein after referred as suit schedule property).
The husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2
to 5 namely Teegala Yadaiah had purchased the total land
admeasuring 1 acre in survey No.80 under the registered
sale deed No.2839/68 dated 06.05.1968 of Sub-Registrar,
Hyderabad East. The said Teegala Yadaiah is also known
as Uppari Yadaiah because of his profession. Teegala
Yadaiah died in the year 199 leaving behind the plaintiffs
No.1 to 5 as his legal heirs. Since the plaintiffs could not
manage the property, they have executed registered sale
cum general power of attorney with possession vide
document No.5163/2004 of Sub-Registrar, Uppal dated
04.05.2004 in favour of plaintiffs No.6 to 9. By virtue of the
said document they have been given power to sell the
property and accordingly the plaintiffs No.6 to 9 were put
in possession of the said property.
11. The vendors of Teegala Yadaiah have converted the
said land into residential plots. The suit schedule property
is part and parcel of the said lay out. As matter stood thus,
the defendants No.1 and 2 without any manner of right
tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the
attorney over the suit schedule property on 11.05.2004. In
such circumstances, the attorneys have filed a suit for
perpetual injunction against D1 and D2 on the file of Civil
Vacation Judge, Rangareddy vide O.S.No.50/2004.
Subsequently, the said suit is made over to the regular
court i.e., Principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North)
Rangareddy District and renumbered as O.S.832/2004. In
the said suit the defendants No.1 and 2 have stated that
they sold the property in favour of various third parties in
the year 2002 itself basing on unenforceable documents
like private sale deed, agreement of sale etc. Thus, for the
first time the defendants have denied the title of plaintiffs
over the suit schedule property.
12. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.832/2004 have withdrawn
the suit by reserving their right to file a comprehensive suit
for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is clear
that the defendants No.1 and 2 without any manner of
right or title have transferred the property in favour of
defendants 3 to 11. The defendants 3 to 11 will not get any
title over the property. However, since the defendants 3 to
11 have denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit
schedule property, the plaintiffs are Constrained to file a
suit for declaration and recovery of possession, hence the
suit.
13. Denying the contention of plaintiffs, the 1st defendant
had submitted written statement and the same was
adopted by other defendants. It is contended by the
defendants that the plaintiffs are not the owners and
possessors of the suit schedule property. The contention
that they have purchased the suit schedule property from
the true owners is incorrect. The registered sale deed
No.2839/1968, dated 06.05.1968 is a false and created
document for the purpose of the suit. The alleged sale deed
was never acted upon. The sale deed was obtained without
permission from the Tahsildar as required under Sec.47
and 48 of A.P. (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,
therefore the said sale deed is void in the eye of law. The
said sale deed does not contain the boundaries of the suit
schedule property and the revenue authorities did not
mutate basing on the said sale deed. Teegala Yadaiah was
never in possession of the said land.
14. The defendants No.1 is not aware about the execution
of registered agreement of sale cum GPA by the legal heirs
of Teegala Yadaiah vide document No.5163/2004, dated
04.05.2004. As a matter of fact, the legal heirs of Teegala
Yadaiah were also never in possession of the suit schedule
property, as such agreement of sale cum GPA with delivery
of possession does not arise. The alleged GPA if any is also
created one to grab the land of the defendants. The
plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit.
15. The plaintiffs are no way concerned with the land
admeasuring 2300 Sq.yards in survey No.80. No
succession has been granted in favour of plaintiffs No.1 to
5 after the death of Teegala Yadaiah. This one fact is
sufficient to establish that plaintiffs have no concern with
the suit schedule property. The contention of the plaintiffs
that vendors of Teegala Yadaiah have converted the said
land into residential plots is incorrect.
16. It is pertinent to mention that the defendants No.6 to
9 have filed a suit on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge,
Hyderabad East and North, R.R.District vide
O.S.No.832/2004 wherein they have mentioned that the
plaintiffs No.1 to 5 have converted the land into residential
plots. As a matter of fact, Teegala Yadaiah died in the year
1990 itself and the lay out was prepared in the year 1984.
Therefore, the question of converting one acre of land into
residential plots by the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 does not arise.
This fact itself falsifies entire case of the plaintiffs.
17. The true facts of the case are that O.Narsaiah and
others were the joint owners and possessors of land
bearing Survey No.79 admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas and
Survey No.80 admeasuring Ac.17.13 guntas in total
admeasuring Ac.18.39 guntas situated at Peerzadiguda
Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R. District. The said original
owners have jointly executed a registered GPA in favour of
Singaram Balaiah S/o.Sailu to an extent of Ac.8.10 guntas
in Survey No.79 and 80. Later on 29.10.1981 the original
owners have executed another GPA in favour of Venguri
Venkaiah in respect of survey numbers 79, 80 and 128 to
an extent of Ac.7.15 guntas. The GPA holders have
converted the said land into residential plots in the year
1982 to an extent of Ac.11.15 guntas. They have executed
an unregistered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on
01.02.1998 to an extent of one acre consisting of plot Nos.
198 to 216 in Survey No.80. Since then the defendant
No.1 has been enjoying the suit land as absolute owner
and possessor and the name of defendant No.1 is got
mutated in the revenue records as Pattadar and possessor.
18. The defendant No.1 had sold away the entire plots to
the purchasers under registered agreement of sale cum
GPA and the sale deeds in the year 2002 itself. The
defendants No.2 to 11 are the purchasers from defendant
No.1. They have been in possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property. They have obtained permission from
concerned Gram Panchayat and started construction of a
few houses. At this stage with a malafide intention to
extort money from the defendants, the plaintiffs No.6 to 9
in collusion with plaintiffs No.1 to 5 have created
documents and filed the present suit.
19. The plaintiffs have filed another suit vide
O.S.No.50/2004 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge and
sought injunction. This defendant made appearance and
submitted a detailed counter. The Vacation Civil Judge
had dismissed I.A. No.81/2004 categorically holding that
the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit lands.
The plaintiffs there in did not prefer appeal against the
orders in I.A. No.81/2004 in O.S.No.50/2004. Thus, the
orders in I.A.No.81/2004 have attained finality. At that
stage by creating a GPA on 04.05.2004 litigation has been
created by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.50/2004
have not pressed the suit and filed the present suit without
seeking permission of the Court. Therefore, the present
suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and liable to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
20. Basing on these pleadings, the trial court framed the
following charges:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that
they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule
property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of
possession of suit schedule property as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
21. To establish the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.6 is
examined as P.W.1. Except the plaintiff No.6, no other
witness has been examined by the plaintiff. On closure of
plaintiffs' evidence, defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1
and defendant No.10 is examined as D.W.2. On behalf of
the plaintiffs Exs.A1 to A12 are marked and on behalf of
defendants Exs.B1 to B26 are marked.
22. In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession
the basic principle is that the plaintiff has to fall or stand
on his own legs and he cannot depend on the weaknesses
of the case of the defendant. In the present case the
plaintiffs have contended that the late Teegala Yadaiah,
father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 had purchased the suit
schedule property under the registered sale deed marked
as Ex.A1. Basically the said document is in Urdu
language. No doubt the plaintiffs have filed the translated
copy of the said sale deed. But there is no authenticity of
the said translation. The defendants have categorically
denied the genuinity of the said document. Whenever the
genuinity of the document is disputed by the opposite
party, it becomes an obligation for the plaintiffs who rely
on the said document to prove the contents of such
document. Mere submission of document is not enough.
The contents of the document need to be proved by
examining the relevant witness. No doubt the document
belongs to the year 1968 and by now the executants of the
document may be alive or not. In such case the plaintiffs
should have made endeavour to produce the legal heirs of
the executants to show that their ancestors have had
better title and as such they have sold away the said
property in favour of late Teegala Yadaiah. Non
examination of a relevant witness to prove the contents of
the document goes against the contention of plaintiffs and
it also fortifies the contention of defendants that it is a
fabricated document. At least to prove the translated copy,
the plaintiffs should have summoned the translator to
speak to the contents of the document, otherwise the
covenants made in the document cannot be construed to
be true.
23. The plaintiffs have chosen to examine only one
witness i.e., the plaintiff No.6 who is a GPA holder. He is
not the legal heir of Late Teegala Yadaiah. Being a GPA
holder he may not have better knowledge about flow of title
from the predecessors. Therefore, in his evidence he could
not say elucidatively about the total extent of disputed
Sy.No and the boundaries of suit schedule property which
is part and parcel of huge extent of these survey numbers.
The legal heirs of Teegala Yadaiah would have been a better
witness to reveal the correct facts of the case. Instead of
examining one of the legal heirs of Teegala Yadaiah, the
plaintiffs have chosen to examine a sole witness whose
evidence was not helpful in appreciating the case of
plaintiffs. Particularly, in a comprehensive suit for
declaration and recovery of possession, the plaintiffs are
supposed to examine proper and relevant witness who can
depose about flow of title and say as to how they acquired
title over the property. On these lines the plaintiffs failed.
24. On the earlier occasion one of the plaintiffs i.e.,
plaintiffs No.6 to 9 have filed O.S.No.50/2004 on the file of
V Addl.District Judge cum Vacation Civil Judge,
R.R.District at L.B.Nagar and sought an interim injunction
vide I.A.No.81/2004 in O.S.No.50/2004. On that occasion
Di herein made his appearance and submitted an elaborate
counter in I.A. The learned District Judge while dismissing
the I.A. has categorically observed that the sale deed dated
26.06.1998 is invalid sale deed and cannot be enforced
because it was executed without obtaining permission from
Tahsildar under the provisions of Sec. 47 of A.P. (TA)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. The learned
District Judge has relied on the case law reported in
Bedaru Jhansi and others Vs. G.Laxmamma 1 by LRs
wherein the Hon'ble High Court of AP held that:
"Sale deed executed without obtaining sanction under
Sec.47 of AP (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
1950 is not valid".
25. While deciding the said IA, the learned District Judge
has extensively discussed the documents submitted by the
plaintiffs therein and held that the plaintiffs are not the
owners or possessors of suit schedule property. The said
orders passed in I.A. No.81/2004 have not been challenged
by the plaintiffs No.6 to 9 herein, as a result of which the
said order attained finality. More particularly the
observations of a competent court of law holds good that
the sale deed under Ex.A1 is an invalid document in the
1999 (III) ALD 381
eye of law having been hit under the provisions of AP (TA)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. Not only that
there is a denial from the defendants saying that the sale
deed is a bogus sale deed but there is an observation by a
competent court of law saying that the said sale deed is an
invalid sale deed. When the defendants emphatically deny
the sale deed, it is mandatory for the plaintiffs to prove the
execution of document, contents of document and
conveyance of the property under the said document. In all
those aspects the plaintiffs failed. Therefore, the learned
Trial Judge has rightly held that by virtue of Ex.A1 the title
did not pass to the plaintiffs.
26. In a suit for declaration when the plaintiffs claim that
they acquired title to the suit property having purchased
the same from the real owners, at least the plaintiffs
should have submitted revenue documents to show that
the property originally stands in the name of their vendors.
Needless to say that one who has title only can pass on a
better title to the purchasers. Non submission of any
documentary evidence and non-production of relevant
witness to prove the contents of Ex.A1 goes against the
case of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 contend
that their father Teegala Yadaiah had purchased the suit
scheduled property way back in 1968 obviously his name
would reflect in the revenue records as Pattadar and
Possessor. But, the plaintiffs failed to file any revenue
record like Pattadar Pass Books and pahanies to show the
ownership and possession of Teegala Yadaiah. When the
plaintiffs specifically contend that Smt.Teega Muttemmam,
Teega Bhaskar, Teega Prabhakar, Teega Sudhakar and
Teega Dayakar are the predecessors in the title, at least the
Pattadar Pass Books which stand in the name of those
persons should have been submitted by the plaintiffs to lay
the foundation. Non-submission of Pattadar Pass Books of
predecessors in title and non-submission of Pattadar Pass
Book and creates doubt in the case of the plaintiffs. On
these lines also the findings of the Trial Judge are justified.
27. Rebutting the contentions of plaintiffs, the
defendants have submitted the original title deed of real
owners under Ex.B1 and Pattadar Pass Books under
Ex.B2, C.C of pahanies under Ex.B3 to B8 and land
revenue receipts under Ex.B9 to B18. These documents
filed by the defendants manifestly establish the contention
of the defendants that O.Narsaiah and others were the
joint owners of Sy.No.79 admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas and
Sy.No.80 admeasuring Ac.17.13 guntas. The defendants
have submitted the GPA executed by Vangari China
Pochaiah and 6 others in favour of Vangari Venkaiah
under Ex.B19 in respect of Sy.No.79, 80 and 128 to an
extent of Ac.7.15 guntas. They have also submitted C.C of
GPA executed by Vangari Narsimlu and others in favour of
Singaram Balaiah under Ex.B20 in respect of Ac.8.10
guntas of land in Sy.No.79 and 80. Thus, the defendants
have clearly demonstrated as to how the flow of title has
taken place and as to how the defendant No.1 became the
owner of suit schedule property. In the cross examination
of D.Ws.1 and 2 no such facts have been elicited to
disprove the contents of documents filed by defendants.
For that matter even though the defendants failed to
establish their case with unfettered evidence, the plaintiffs
will not succeed in their case of declaration and possession
depending on weakness in the case of defendants. In
plethora of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Hon'ble High Courts, it is held that it is trite to law that
plaintiff has to stand on his own legs by proving his case.
The court cannot shift onus of proof of title and possession
of the plaintiffs, on the defendants.
28. It is settled law that in a suit for declaration of title
and possession the burden of proof completely rests with
the plaintiff irrespective of the fact that the defendants
could not establish their contentions.
29. On these lines the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
law reported in Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi
Cooperative Housing Society Limited 2 has held as
follows:
"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. The legal
(2014) 2 SCC 269
position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for
declaration of title and possession could succeed only
on the strength of its own title and that could be done
by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus
on it, irrespective of the question whether the
defendants have proved their case or not. Even if the
title set up by the defendants is found against them, in
the absence of establishment of the plaintiff's own title,
the plaintiff must be non-suited."
30. As per the very contention of the plaintiffs, the total
extent of 18 acres 39 guntas was owned by four persons
then how would Vangu Venkaiah got 2 acres 36 guntas of
land is a question for which there is no plausible
explanation from the plaintiffs. Unless there was a
partition or settlement amongst the co-owners, Vangu
Venkaiah cannot become absolute owner in respect of 2
acres 36 guntas of land. The plaintiffs have failed to
establish either by documentary evidence or through oral
evidence that the vendors of Teegala Yadaiah have clear
alienable right over the suit schedule property. Once the
plaintiffs failed to prove the better title of their vendors, the
title deed under which their father allegedly purchased the
property becomes a sham document which cannot be acted
upon.
31. Whenever a property is conveyed under a registered
sale deed the minimum requirement of the sale deed is that
it must contain the boundaries of the land which is sold in
favour of the vendee. When the sale deed executed by
Vangu Venkaiah in favour of Teegala Yadaiah is carefully
perused there are no boundaries of land which has been
sold in favour of Teegala Yadaiah. Thus the identity of the
land purchased by Teegala Yadaiah itself is suspicious. If
Teegala Yadaiah really purchased the suit scheduled
property from Vangu Venkaiah way back in 1968, he could
have got his name mutated in revenue records and
Pattadar Pass Book could have been issued in favour of
Teegala Yadaiah but it is an undisputed fact that Pattadar
Pass Book was issued not in favour of Teegala Yadaiah but
it was issued in favour of defendant No.1 i.e., G.Pentaiah.
In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, not
only title of the vendors of plaintiffs but the title of the
Teegala Yadaiah is supposed to be established. Except the
certified copy of the sale deed the plaintiffs could not
submit any convincing evidence to establish the title of
Teegala Yadaiah in respect of suit schedule property.
32. Whenever plaintiffs seek a relief of recovery of
possession, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to specifically
plead the day on which they have been dispossessed. The
sale deeds under which D3 to D11 have purchased the suit
schedule property is way back in 2002. Through the said
sale deeds the plaintiffs deemed to have been dispossessed.
More so, defendant No.1 has specifically contended that
way back in February 1998 the original owners of survey
No.79, 80 and 128 have executed an unregistered sale
deed in favour of defendant No.1 and put him in
possession of the suit schedule property. Subsequently,
the unregistered sale deed has been regularized and
Pattadar Pass Book was also issued in favour of the
defendant No.1. Therefore, the dispossession of the
plaintiffs would have taken place long back in 1998 itself.
If the year 1998 is accepted as the year of dispossession,
basically the suit for declaration and recovery of possession
in the year 2004 is belated. As can be seen from the
pleadings the plaintiffs have not referred to any of these
transactions of 1998 or 2002 as cause of action and they
have created illusionary cause of action in the year 2004 as
if they have been dispossessed in 2004. The cause of
action is only invented for the purpose of the case and it is
a result of clever drafting. Such suit based on imaginary
cause of action is also not sustainable in the eye of law.
Since the plaintiffs could not vividly show the date, month
and year of dispossession, the relief sought by them for
recovery of possession is also not sustainable and on these
lines the findings of Trial Court is justified.
33. The defendants have taken a specific plea that the
suit is hit under Order 2 Rule 2. The learned Trial Court
ought to have framed an issue and answered it. However,
it is borne by record that on the earlier occasion the
plaintiffs 6 to 9 have filed a suit for perpetual injunction
vide O.S.No.832/2004 and sought interim injunction vide
I.A. No.81/2004. On dismissal of I.A. No.81/2004, the
plaintiffs have not pressed the suit and filed the present
suit. Such practice is not legal. The plaintiffs contended
that they have withdrawn the suit reserving their right to
file another suit. The copy of petition seeking permission is
not filed. If the court permitted for withdrawal, such order
granting permission should have been filed, but the
plaintiff did not file the leave granted by the Court also.
On the other hand they filed the present suit repeating the
same cause of action of earlier suit, hence the principles of
Order 2 Rule 2 also come in the way of plaintiff to proceed
with the suit.
In the case law reported in S.Nazeer Ahmad Vs.,
State Bank of Mysore 3 it is held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court as follows:
"Order 2 Rule 2 is directed to securing an exhaustion of
the relief in respect of a cause of action and not to the
inclusion in one and the same action of different causes
of action, even though they may arise from the same
transaction. The broad principle is that the defendant
cannot be vexed twice over the same cause of action.
Based on the same cause of action there cannot be a
second suit for a wider or larger relief'.
2007) II SCC 75
34. It is settled law that whenever there is dispute with
regard to identity of the land one has to look at the
boundaries as mentioned in the document. It is because
rather than the survey numbers and other identity marks
of the property it is the boundaries of the said property
which play significant role in identifying the land. In the
present case the plaintiffs have relied on the sale deed of
1968 which does not disclose the boundaries of the land
which was sold under the said document. As a result of
which it cannot be said that under Ex.A1 the land sold in
favour of Teegala Yadaiah is the suit schedule property.
Without proper identification of the suit schedule property,
a suit claiming declaration and recovery of possession is
not maintainable. It is relevant to mention here that
whenever a particular piece of land from out of huge land
is sold away, the common practice is to prepare a sketch of
the entire land owned by the vendors and in the said
sketch the particular land sold under the sale deed will be
depicted in a different colour for clear identification of the
property. In the present case the sale deed filed by the
plaintiffs does not contain any sketch of the entire extent of
land or the suit schedule property which is claimed to be
part and parcel of huge extent of land. In view of these
circumstances, the very identity of suit land as claimed by
the plaintiff is doubtful and the pleadings of the plaintiff
are not supported by concrete documentary evidence.
35. No doubt the defendant No.1 contended that he
purchased the suit schedule property under a registered
sale deed from the GPA holders on 01.02.1988. Since it
was an unregistered sale deed it was regularized and the
Pattadar Pass Book was issued in favour of D1 Pentaiah.
After obtaining the Pattadar Pass Book he converted the
suit schedule property into house site plots bearing
numbers 198 to 216. He had executed the registered sale
deed in favour of defendants No.3 to 11. Having obtained
the registered sale deeds, the purchasers of property are in
physical possession and enjoyment of the plots as absolute
owners. It is also not denied that some of the purchasers
commenced construction of houses over the plots
purchased by them. Thus, the defendants No.3 to 11 are in
the possession of suit schedule property since 2002
without any hindrance.
36. During the course of argument in the appeal it is
brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of the
registered sale deeds, the purchasers made payment of
necessary fee to the Government under the Land
Regularization Scheme. Having accepted the regularization,
the Government has fortified the title and possession of the
defendants No.3 to 11. Unless the defendants are in
possession of the suit scheduled property, the Government
would not have accepted the regularization fees. In the
light of the fact that Land Regularization fee has been
collected from D3 to D11, their title and possession over
the property is concreted.
37. Another significant aspect in the present appeal is that
one of the plaintiffs namely K.Shiva Kumar had purchased
plot No.203 admeasuring 160 Sq.yards of land from no
other than Vendee of defendant No.1 namely
Smt.D.Sujatha. During the course of argument, the
certified copy of agreement of sale cum GPA with
possession vide document No.13135/2023 dated
24.07.2023 has been submitted by the defendants. This
fact is not denied by the plaintiff No.8 and the document
itself speaks thus. Thereby it is clear that the plaintiffs
themselves accepted that Di has got absolute right over the
property and he had converted the land into plots and one
of the plots was sold in favour of D.Sujatha and from the
said D.Sujatha the plaintiff No.8 had purchased the said
plot 203, which is part and parcel of the suit schedule
property. This one document is enough to throw away the
case of plaintiffs at one stroke. The plaintiffs contend that
D1 has no right to execute sale deeds in favour of D3 to
D11 and in another breath one of the plaintiffs (plaintiff
No.8) had purchased one plot from the vendee of D1. Thus,
the plaintiffs tried to blow hot and cold and utterly failed to
establish the title of their vendors as well as flow of title in
their favour.
38. The learned Trial Judge has carefully evaluated oral
and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both
parties and arrived at proper conclusion that the plaintiffs
failed to prove issues 1 and 2 as such the suit filed by the
plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
39. After careful perusal of the documentary and oral
evidence adduced before the Trial Court and having heard
the arguments of both counsel, this Court is of the opinion
that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is
justified and needs no interference.
40. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming
the Judgment and decree dated 13.03.2006 in
O.S.No.1211 of 2004 passed by the trial Court. In the
circumstances both parties shall bear their own costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 15.03.2024
CHS
