Telangana High Court
Abdul Sattar Died Per Lr And 039.S And 24 ... vs Mohammed Hassnuddin Died Per Lrs 2 To 8 ... on 28 April, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
A.S.No.84 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
The instant is an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908. The challenge is to the judgment and
decree dated 01.05.2020, in O.S.No.1542 of 2013, passed by the
Hon'ble V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Mr. M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Mr. K. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants / plaintiffs; and Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned
counsel, representing Mr. P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for
respondents / defendant Nos.9, 11 and 12.
3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents
herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For convenience,
the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the
Trial Court.
4. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court had dismissed
the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and also for declaration
of the sale deed dated 01.06.1964 as null and void.
5. The facts in nutshell leading to filing of the instant appeal are
that the suit schedule property in the instant case is Survey
No.136 admeasuring Ac.13.07 guntas situated at Narsingi Village,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs had
filed the suit for partition seeking 1/3rd of the share in the suit
schedule property to the plaintiffs and 2/3rd of the share to the
defendants. Along with the said prayer, there was a prayer for
separate possession and allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs made by
metes and bounds by appointing a Commissioner. The further
prayer was for nullifying the revenue records and the entries made
in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property
from 1974-75 till the time the suit was filed. The further prayer
was also to restore the name of Mr. Abdul Razzaq as the pattedar
and possessor of the suit schedule property, thereby deleting the
name of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu. Pending the suit, the plaint was further
amended seeking for quashment of the registered sale deed as on
01.06.1964 between Mr. Abdul Razzaq and Mr. K. Sri Ramulu.
6. The plaintiffs claim was on the basis of they being the legal
heirs of one Smt. Yakoob Bee who was the daughter of late Mr.
Abdul Rehman, the original pattedar and possessor of the suit
schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 to 15 were the legal heirs of
one Mr. Abdul Razzaq who was the son of the aforementioned Mr.
Abdul Rehman. Thus, as per the plaintiffs, they as well as
defendant Nos.1 to 15 are the legal heirs of Smt. Yakoob Bee and
late Mr. Abdul Rehman.
7. According to the plaintiffs, the entire suit schedule property
was in joint possession between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1
to 15 and it was never partitioned. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought
for 1/3rd of the share in the property which was in the name of late
Mr. Abdul Rehman. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of
late Mr. Abdul Rehman, since his son Mr. Abdul Razzaq was the
elder male member in the family, the property stood mutated in
his name. Subsequently, Mr. Abdul Rehman also died leaving
behind defendant Nos.1 to 15 and, Smt. Yakoob Bee, the mother
of the plaintiffs, also died leaving behind the plaintiffs. Since the
suit schedule property was the ancestral property, the sons and
daughters of late Mr. Abdul Rehman also would be entitled for a
share in the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, as
per the Muslim personal law, the daughter would be entitled for
1/3rd of the share in the suit schedule property and the son would
be entitled for 2/3rd of the share in the suit schedule property and,
therefore, the plaintiffs sought for decree of partition accordingly.
8. The revenue record bears the name of Mr. Abdul Rehman in
the Khasra pahanies between 1954-55 and 1960-61 and,
therefore, it was the name of Mr. Abdul Rehman which was
reflected in the revenue records till 1973-74. From 1975-76
onwards, in the revenue records it is the name of Mr. K. Sri
Ramulu which is reflected, all of which, led to the plaintiffs also
seeking for appropriate entries in the revenue entries through the
suit for partition that was filed.
9. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs also sought for amendment in
the suit by adding the relief of declaration of a sale deed bearing
document No.346 of 1964 executed on 01.06.1964 also to be bad
in law. The said document was a registered sale deed executed by
Mr. Abdul Rehman, the father of defendant Nos.1 to 15, in favour
of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu who is the father of defendant Nos.16 to 19.
The defendant Nos.1 to 15, the legal heirs of late Mr. Abdul
Rehman, initially were proceeded ex-parte; however, subsequently
they entered appearance at a belated stage, but did not contest
the case and filed a written statement admitting the claim of the
plaintiffs. The defendant Nos.16 to 19 entered appearance and
disputed the entire claim of the plaintiffs right from the beginning
i.e. questioning the status of the plaintiffs so far as being the legal
heirs of late Smt. Yakoob Bee. So also, the defendant Nos.16 to 19
took the plea that the suit is highly belated and is otherwise not
tenable as there was no evidence whatsoever available with the
plaintiffs to substantiate their claim seeking for entitlement in the
suit schedule property as a legal heir of late
Mr. Abdul Rehman, the original pattedar. The defendant Nos.16 to
19 also took the stand that the plaintiffs being fully aware of the
registered sale deed in the name of Mr. Abdul Rehman w.e.f.
01.06.1964 have not challenged it almost for five (05) decades
and they cannot now challenge the same, and therefore prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
10. Pending the trial, after the pleadings were complete, the
following issues were framed by the Trial Court for deciding the
claim putforth by the respective parties i.e. the plaintiffs and
defendants:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are the successors/Legal
Representatives of the late.Abdul Rehman ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are in the possession of the
property ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and
separate possession ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to
declare the sale deed doc.No.346/1994 dt.01-06-
1064 as null and void?
5. Whether entries in the revenue records in respect of
the suit schedule property are illegal and arbitrary /
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
7. Whether the Court feed paid is correct ?
11. The plaintiffs examined 3 witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 3 and
defendant Nos.16 to 19 examined 3 witnesses i.e. DWs.1 to 3.
Likewise, the plaintiffs marked 56 documents i.e. Ex.A1 to 35 and
so far as the defendant Nos.16 to 19, they exhibited 62 documents
i.e. Ex.B1 to 62 in support of their respective contentions.
12. The plaintiffs while challenging the impugned judgment
contended that the impugned judgment is erroneous, contrary to
law and also without proper appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. It was also
contended that the Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the
evidence of DW.1 who has supported the claim of defendant Nos.1
to 15 and, thus, has reached to an erroneous finding. It was also
contended that the Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the
evidence of DWs.2 and 3 while passing the impugned judgment.
According to the plaintiffs, the finding of the registered sale deed
dated 01.06.1964, in the name of K. Sri Ramulu being a genuine
document, is bad in law inasmuch as the same is hit by Section 47
and 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1950.
13. The further contention of the plaintiffs was alleging
erroneous finding of the fact by the Trial Court in reaching to the
conclusion that the sale deed dated 01.06.1964 being genuine
executed between Mr. Abdul Rehman and Mr. K. Sri Ramulu and,
with a further contention that, the sale deed is a fictitious
document. Therefore, the same is liable to be declared null and
void.
14. Though the defendant Nos.1 to 15 initially were proceeded
ex parte; but later on they entered appearance and still did not
chose to contest the case. Rather, went in not disputing or
admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. This act on the part of
defendant Nos.1 to 15 has rightly compelled the Trial Court to
draw an adverse inference so far as the defendant Nos.1 to 15
being in collusion with the plaintiffs.
15. In the course of appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court
found that Ex.A27 which was a certificate issued on 22.12.1913
certifying the marriage of Smt. Yakoob Bee on 25.10.1926;
however, there was no basis on which the said certificate was
issued after almost eight (08) decades from the actual date of
marriage. Neither is the certificate revealing the actual source on
the basis of which the certificate has been issued. Likewise, the
Trial Court found that Ex.A28 also was one which was issued by
the Wakf Board not having any cogent basis on which the said
certificate Ex.A28 was issued. The reason to disbelieve was that,
the Wakf Board itself was formed in the year 1954, therefore, it
was difficult to have been in possession of records in 1926. So also
Ex.A29, the death certificate is only a mere certificate issued by
the Sarpanch who is otherwise not an authority to maintain the
register pertaining to birth and death. Thus, the Trial Court found
the material document establishing the relationship that Smt.
Yakoob Bee had with the original pattedar late Mr. Abdul Rehman.
In the absence of a cogent document in this regard, it was justified
on the part of the Trial Court to reach to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs have failed in leading evidence to show that they are
legal heirs of Smt. Yakoob Bee and also Smt. Yakoob Bee being
the daughter of late Mr. Abdul Rehman.
16. Further, the Trial Court also found that the sale deed under
challenge was one which was executed on 01.06.1964 and the suit
was filed in the year 2013 i.e. after a span of forty-nine (49)
years. The revenue records also reflects that the mutation
proceedings were also carried out in the name of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu
considering the fact that the age of the plaintiff at the relevant
point was 74 years at the time of execution of the sale deed in the
year 1964 and the time when the purchaser of the property Mr. K.
Sri Ramulu had entered possession of the property, the plaintiff
was around 25 years of age and he was a resident of the same
village further goes to establish the case that in spite of the
plaintiff being fully aware of the sale being made in the year 1964
and not challenging it for the next almost 50 years, establishes the
fact that he was not aggrieved by the sale then made in favour of
Mr. K.Sri Ramulu. After the death of Mr. K.Sri Ramulu, entries
were made in the records bringing on record the names of
defendant Nos.16 to 19, the legal heirs of Mr. K.Sri Ramulu.
Further, from the records, what is also reflected is that PWs.2 and
3 though have been examined in favour of the plaintiffs, but there
was not much which could be elicited by these two witnesses
giving clarity and authenticity in respect of the claim raised by the
plaintiffs or in order to substantiate their contentions put forth in
their plaint.
17. Most of the documents which have been adduced by the
plaintiffs to establish the relationship between Smt. Yakoob Bee
and Mr. Abdul Rehman, were all documents obtained somewhere
around the time when the civil suit was filed for the first time in
the year 2013 and, therefore, the relevancy of these documents
gets diminished unless there isno cogent documentary proof in this
regard.
18. The plaintiffs, on the one hand, have not been able to
establish the fact that they are the legal heirs of Smt. Yakoob Bee
or for that matter the Mr. Abdul Rehman, the original pattedar.
They have also miserably failed to produce cogent material to
show their continuous possessions vis-à-vis possession of the suit
schedule property by defendant Nos.16 to 19. On the contrary, the
defendants have been able to show the sale deed that was
executed on 01.06.1964 where the name of purchaser through the
sale deed dated 01.06.1964 was reflected in the revenue records
after the death of Mr. K. Sri Ramulu. The legal heirs of defendant
Nos.16 to 19 names have also been entered in pahanies, all of
which go to show that the Trial Court has gone threadbare into the
real crux of the matter and thrashed all the contentions put forth
while reaching to the said conclusion.
19. Even in the first Appellate Court stage, the plaintiffs have not
been able to improve upon their case with any other strong
material other than that which was considered and trashed by the
Trial Court in the course of passing the impugned judgment under
challenge in the instant appeal.
20. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the
instant appeal preferred by the plaintiffs calling for an interference
to the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. The instant
thus fails, and is accordingly, dismissed.
21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
_____________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
____________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 28.04.2025
GSD
