Telangana High Court

G. Anand vs G.Suryanarayana Murthy, on 21 March, 2025

          *THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                       + A.S.No.46 OF 2020


% 21--03--2025
# G.Anand
                                                    ... Appellant
vs.
$ G.Suryanarayana Murthy and Others
                                                    ... Respondents


!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G.Umapathi Sastry
^Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Sri Venkat Reddy Thipparthi
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
AIR 1959 SC 31
(1995) 3 SCC 426
(2014) 2 SCC 269
                                   2                           BRMR,J
                                                        AS.No.46_2020




          IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                            HYDERABAD
                              ****
                        A.S.No.46 OF 2020
Between:
G.Anand
                                                ... Appellant
And
G.Suryanarayana Murthy and Others
                                                ... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.03.2025


          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1.    Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
      may be allowed to see the Judgments?      :     No


2.    Whether the copies of judgment may be
      Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?         :     Yes


3.    Whether His Lordship wishes to
      see the fair copy of the Judgment?        :     Yes




                                       _____________________
                                       B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
                                        3                           BRMR,J
                                                             AS.No.46_2020




      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                            A.S.NO.46 OF 2020


J U D G M E N T:

The present appeal has been filed aggrieved by the judgment

and decree in O.S.No.146 of 2013, dated 26.06.2019, on the file of the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the suit filed by the

appellant for declaration, recovery of possession against defendant

No.3 came to be dismissed.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the

defendants in the suit, for convenience sake, the parties are

hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and possessor of

the Plot bearing No.103 in Survey No.7E and 7EE to an extent of 300

square yards situated at Sriram Nagar Colony, Patelguda Village at

Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District, having purchased the same through

registered sale deed bearing document No.6574/1985, dated

06.06.1985. The defendant No.1 is the GPA holder of the original

pattadar, who was an agriculturist and in possession of the property in

Survey No.7E and 7EE. The Pattadars have executed a General Power

of Attorney (GPA) in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy (D1) on

30.05.1985 vide registered document No.152/1985 registered in the

office of SRO, Sangareddy, Medak District. Defendant No.1 has 4 BRMR,J AS.No.46_2020

developed the land in Survey No.7E and 7EE into housing plots along

with the other adjacent lands and named as Sriram Nagar Colony at

Patelguda Village, Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District, sold the plots to

different persons and the plaintiff is one of the purchasers. The plaintiff

is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule

property without interference of any one. When the plaintiff visited the

suit schedule property, he came to know from his neighbouring plot

owners that some unknown person occupied their plots illegally by

removing the stones laid down around the suit schedule property. The

plaintiff received the information from the Tahsildar Office that

defendant No.2 is in possession of Survey Nos.7E and 7EE. Defendant

Nos.2 and 3 have no right in the suit schedule property in any manner

to occupy and to enter their names in the concerned records.

4. Defendant No.1 was set ex parte in the suit.

5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the contesting parties and they

contended that Machkuri Pedda Kistaiah was the absolute owner of

Ac.0.36 guntas in Survey No.7/A. Pratap Reddy and another

purchased the said land for valid consideration. Machkuri Narsing Rao

S/o. Late Narayana was the absolute owner of land in Survey No.7/AA

to an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas. Defendant No.3 has purchased the

same through registered sale deed vide document No.2810/2001.

Survey No.7/E/1 to an extent of Ac.0.18 guntas belongs to Machkuri

Narayana S/o. Ramaiah. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the 5 BRMR,J AS.No.46_2020

same through registered sale deed. Survey No.7/E/2 to an extent of

Ac.0.17 guntas belongs to Machkuri Kistaiah S/o. Ramaiah. Defendant

No.3 has purchased the same through registered sale deed. Survey

No.7/EE to an extent of Ac.0.36 gts., belongs to Machkuri Papaiah S/o.

Venkaiah, Defendant No.3 has purchased the same under registered

sale deed. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in possession of Survey

Nos.7/AA, 7/E/1, 7/E/2 and 7/EE since the date of their purchase.

Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit plot at any point of time.

6. The Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the vacant possession from defendant No.3?

3) To what relief?

7. The plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A3. Defendant No.2 is examined as DW.1 and got marked

Exs.B1 to B28 and Exs.C1 and C2 are marked in his cross-

examination.

8. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record found that

the plaintiff failed to prove his case for declaration, recovery of

possession from defendant No.3 and dismissed the suit.

9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial

Court failed to consider the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and 6 BRMR,J AS.No.46_2020

A2 and also failed to observe that the documents filed by defendant

Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Exs.B1 to B13 are subsequent to Ex.A1, Exs.B14 to

B24 are prior to Ex.A1 and wrongly placed reliance on the documents

filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3.

9.2. It is stated in the cause title of the Appeal that respondent No.1

is not a necessary party in the Appeal.

10. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 and 3 submits that the

plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled for declaration, recovery of

possession from defendant No.3. The learned trial Court has rightly

dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff as he failed to prove the

case.

11. The points for consideration in the appeal are:

1) Whether the plaintiff could able to prove that he is entitled to seek a declaration, recovery of possession from defendant No.3?

2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any illegality or perversity?

Point No.1:

12.1. The case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint is that the original

pattadar is in possession of the property in Survey No.7E and 7EE, has

executed a GPA in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy (D1) on

30.05.1985 vide registered document No.152/1985. Defendant No.1 7 BRMR,J AS.No.46_2020

has developed the land converted them into house plots in Survey

No.7E and 7EE along with the adjacent lands and named the area as

Sriram Nagar Colony at Patelguda Village, Sanga Reddy Taluk, Medak

District. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under

Ex.A1 on 06.06.1985 vide registered sale deed document bearing

No.6574/1985 registered in the office of the SRO, Sangareddy, Medak

District. Plaintiff has laid stones around the suit schedule property in

order to protect the same from the encroachers. When he visited the

suit schedule property, he came to know from his neighbouring plot

owners that some unknown person illegally occupied his plot.

12.2. Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance Certificate and Ex.A3 is the Copy of

Market Value Assistance, dated 18.03.2013 issued by Registering

Officer, Sangareddy. The plaintiff stated in his cross-examination that

one Seeta Ram Reddy S/o. Lakshma Reddy was the pattadar of Survey

No.7/E and 7/EE, he did not file any document to show that the said

Seeta Ram Reddy was the pattadar of the Survey Nos.7/E and 7/EE as

was mentioned in Ex.A1, he do not remember as too how many plots

were made in the said survey numbers. It is not mentioned in the

plaint that Seeta Ram Reddy was the pattadar of Survey Nos.7/E and

7/EE, after 2012 he did not visit the suit plot as the matter is

sub judice. He do not know whether defendant Nos.2 and 3 made any

structures in the suit plot, he did not make his vendor as party

because the suit plot is purchased based on GPA and he did not file 8 BRMR,J AS.No.46_2020

copy of GPA. He do not know whether defendant Nos.2 and 3 sold the

entire land in Survey No.7 by dividing into house sites and the plot

purchasers are in possession, and he is not in a position to identify the

suit plot. Plaintiff further went to say in his cross-examination that he

did not make the plot purchasers as party to the suit and he did not

make the persons who constructed the houses as parties to the suit.

13. Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed, dated 03.10.2002 in

favour of V.Neeraja (defendant No.3) w/o. V.Madhava Reddy

(Defendant No.2) vide document No.6449/2002 which goes to show

that Neeraja has purchased agricultural land in Survey No.7/ఈ,

admeasuring Ac.0.36 gts., from its earlier owner and possessor i.e.,

Machkuri Papaiah S/o. Venkaiah. Ex.B2 is another sale deed executed

by (1) Machkuri Narayana s/o.Veeranna (2) Machkuri Narsinga Rao

s/o.Narayana in favour of V.Neeraja (D3) W/o. Madhava Reddy (D2) in

Survey No.7/ఆ, admeasuring Ac.0.36 gts., through registered sale

deed, dated 17.05.2001 vide document No.2810/2001. Ex.B3 is the

original registered sale deed executed by M.Ramulu and two others in

favour of V.Madhava Reddy (D2) vide document No.14558/2007 dated

12.07.2007, admeasuring Ac.0.9 gts., in Survey No.7/ఇ/1; Ac.0.09

gts., in Survey No.7/ఇ; Ac.0.17 gts., in Survey No.7/ఇ/2, in total

admeasuring Ac.0.35 gts. Ex.B4 is the Ratification Deed dated

07.05.2013 for Ex.B2 document where under four other parties have

joined the sale deed and executed the document.

9 BRMR,J AS.No.46_2020

14. Exs.B14 to B24 are the Pahanies from 1983 till 2012, which

goes to show that the suit schedule survey number is in the name of

Machkoori's family as pattadars and possessors till the names of

defendant Nos.2 and 3 are recorded. The name of the plaintiff's

vendor is not shown nor recorded in the pahanies. The plaintiff's

counsel has cross-examined defendant No.2 at length and has got

marked Exs.C1 and C2 to show that he is a party to the Land Grabbing

Cases (LGC.Nos.103 and 104 of 2013), it is also elicited from the

cross-examination that the Land Grabbing Court has passed an order

not to create any third party interest in respect of schedule plots on

19.11.2013 (Ex.C1 is the certified copy of order in I.A.No.1046 of 2013

in LGC.No.103 of 2013; Ex.C2 is the certified copy of the order in

I.A.No.1047 of 2013 in LGC.No.104 of 2013).

15. As the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and recovery of

possession against defendant No.3, the burden lies on him to prove

the same.

16. The Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs.

Thukalan Paulo Avira 1 observed that :

"20. ... in a suit [for declaration] if the plaintiffs are to succeed they must do so on the strength of their own title."

17. In Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh 2, the Supreme has observed

that:

AIR 1959 SC 31

(1995) 3 SCC 426 10 BRMR,J AS.No.46_2020

" The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff-respondent. ... In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit."

18. In Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing

Society 3, the Supreme Court has observed 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. The legal 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 only 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".

19. The plaintiff has relied on Exs.A1 to A3 documents, he failed to

examine the GPA holder (D1) or the owner of the property, so also he

failed to examine any of the witnesses or produced any document to

show that the vendor of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule

property. In the absence of any evidence or material from the

plaintiff's side, it is hard to believe that defendant No.3 has occupied

(2014) 2 SCC 269 11 BRMR,J AS.No.46_2020

the suit schedule property. Plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled

for a declaration and recovery of possession from defendant No.3.

Hence, point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

20. In view of the reasons in point No.1, I hold that the trial Court

has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff

has failed to prove his case and there is no illegality or perversity in

the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, I am not inclined to

interfere with the same. Hence, point is answered accordingly.