advocatemmmohan Recent posts

Revenue entries – for collection of revenue – without title No revenue entry get presumption under Sec.6 of A.P.PATTADAR AND PASS BOOK ACT. In my opinion, the said provision provides that every entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. The facts and the findings set out above are sufficient to rebut the presumption, if any, in favour of the plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Act that the entries in the record of rights in their favour are correct. 29. Admittedly, the adangal for the year 1421 Fasli (2011) issued on 08-06-2012 shows the 1st defendant as the pattedar and possessor for entire Ac.22.27 gts. and in the pahani for 1422 Fasli, 2nd defendant is shown as the pattedar and possessor to the extent of Ac.11.13 cts. and 1st defendant is shown to be the pattedar and possessor of Ac.11.13 1/2 cts. So on the date of suit, prima facie they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendants had questioned the grant of pattedar passbooks to the plaintiffs in an appeal before the R.D.O., Adoni but the same was rejected directing them to approach the Civil Court. Therefore the defendants cannot be found fault with for not availing the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 5B of the Act. It is settled law that entries in revenue record are not proof of title [see (Thakur) Nirman Singh and Others Vs. Thakur Lal Rudra Partab Narain Singh and Others4]. Such entries facilitate collection of revenue. That is why there is no conclusive presumption provided in Section 6 of the Act. It is unfortunate that provisions like Section 5A of the Act are being misused by litigants in collusion with revenue authorities, unsettling settled title in favour of the actual owners. This case is a classic illustration of this phenomenon. 32. The conduct of the plaintiffs in suppressing (i) the regd. gift deed dt.12.5.1956 in favour of 1st defendant by Chittam Ramaswamy, (ii) the unregistered relinquishment deed by 1st defendant in favour of Venkanna Setty and (iii) the sale deed allegedly executed by him in favour of Padmavathamma, also disentitle them to grant of the equitable relief of injunction, as they have not come to the court with clean hands. 33. Since the plaintiffs are found not to have prima facie title, even assuming for the sake of argument without conceding that they are in possession of the land, grant of injunction in their favour would amount to granting an injunction against the lawful owner. This is not permissible in law. (See Hanumanthappa v. Muninarayanappa5) 34. For all the above reasons, I am hold that the orders passed by the court below are unsustainable. The court below unfortunately did not consider the matter in the above manner and it gave more importance to the entries in the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs and rejected those produced by the defendants ignoring the principles of law governing transfer of title referred to supra.

2013 P.Veerabhadrappa Setty  ....Appellant  -vs- Polliki Chandrahas.....Respondent in C.M.A.Nos.286 of 2013 AND BATCH    

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO            C.M.A.Nos.286 of 2013 AND BATCH     26-11-2013 P.Veerabhadrappa Setty  ....Appellant       Polliki Chandrahas.....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.S.Anand Counsel for the respondent: Sri K.Sita Ram <GIST: >HEAD NOTE:    ?Cases referred 1 (2010) 1 SCC 689 2 (2009) 6 SCC 194 3 (2009) 12 SCC 101 4 AIR 1926 P.C. 100 5 (1996) 11 SCC 696 The Court made the following :  [order follows] THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO            C.M.A.Nos.286 and 287 of 2013  COMMON JUDGMENT:           As the issues raised in both these appeals are connected, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. C.M.A.No.286 of 2013 is filed challenging the order dt.12-02-2012 in I.A.No.608 of 2012 in O.S.No.22 of 2012 on the file of II Additio…

whether by way of an endorsement on the reverse of the agreement, or under a separate receipt, it has to be stamped as a sale deed as contemplated by Article 47-A Schedule 1-A of Stamp Act.


C.C.C.A. No.57 of 1999


Seelam Mallaiah (died) per LRs.and others. ... Appellants

P.Narasinga Rao (died) per LRs.and others. . Respondents

Counsel for Appellants: Sri T.Viswanadha Sastry

Counsel for Respondents: Sri Meherchand Nori


>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1)      AIR 2015 (NOC) 202 (Bom.)
2)      1996 (3) ALD 919
3)      AIR 2015 Rajasthan 24
4)      (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 402
5)      1995 (1) ALT 511
6)      1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 549  
7)      2003 (2) ALD 640
8)      1999 (6) ALD 160
9)      AIR 2003 SC 4548
10)     MANU/AP/0041/2016  
11)     (2006) 11 SCC 331


C.C.C.A.No.57 of 1999

     The unsuccessful defendant in the Court below preferred the
instant appeal aggrieved by the common judgment dated 16.12.1998 in
O.S.No.630 of 1988 passed by V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, whereby and where under the …

Since the appellant/defendant was creating problems in the plaint schedule property, the respondents/plaintiffs, apprehending that the appellant/defendant may proceed with construction or alienate the property or make alterations, filed three interlocutory applications as noted above, pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.350 of 2014 filed by them for specific performance. As per the commissioner’s report, the plaint schedule property had fallen to the share of the appellant/defendant. In view of the above, it is an admitted fact that the appellant/defendant has not executed the registered sale deed in terms of the agreement to sale dated 11.1.2008. More over the appellant/defendant had received the total sale consideration of Rs.35,56,000/-. For the foregoing discussion and in the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed being devoid of merits.

 Since all these appeals have arisen out of a common order passed by the Court below in three different Interlocutory Applications in O.S.No.350 of 2014, therefore, we have decided to dispose of these three appeals by this common order. Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Smt. A. Padma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. Respondents herein/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.920 of 2014 in O.S.No.350 of 2014 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to grant ad interim injunction directing the appellant herein/defendant not to make any construction in the plaint schedule property until disposal of the main suit.In I.A.No.1522 of 2014 in O.S.No.350 of 2014 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section…

Sections 9 and 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468, 471 and 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC,= seeking permission to record the voice samples of A.1, in directing to submit voice samples of A.1 so as to enable the Investigating Agency to send the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for comparison to determine the voice of A.1. = During the course of investigation, it is revealed that A.1 rang up from his phone to the defacto-complainant Sri R.G. Bhaskar Reddy, District Inspector, Legal Metrology; and one Sri Uppala Nagarjuna, Commercial Tax Officer, O/o. C.T.O., Special Commodities Circle, Saroornagar Division, demanding money on the name of ACB and the said conversation was recorded by them in their respective phones and the same were handed over to the Investigating Officer for further action =whether in the Identification of Prisoners Act or in the Evidence Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It concluded that it would be appropriate to incorporate the provision by amending Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act as follows: (1) If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is expedient to direct any person a) to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, or b) to furnish a specimen of his signature or writing, or c) to furnish a specimen of his voice by uttering the specified words or making the specified sounds. the Magistrate may make an order to that effect, recording his reasons for such an order. (2) The person to whom the order relates a) shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order, and b) shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken by a police officer, or furnish the specimen signature or writing or furnish a specimen of his voice, as the case may be in conformity with the orders of the Magistrate before a police officer. 3) No order directing any person to be photographed shall be made except by a metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class. 4) No order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding. 5) Where a court has taken cognizance of an offence a Magistrate shall not under this section, give to the person accused of the offence any direction which could, under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, be given by such Magistrate. The Report as noted was submitted in 1980. The Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2005 when the Explanation was added to Section 53 and Sections 53A and 311A were inserted into the Code. Voice sample was not included either in the Explanation to Section 53 or Section 311A. Should the Court still insist that voice sample is included in the definition of measurements under the Identification of Prisoners Act and in the Explanation to Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? I would answer in the negative. In light of the above discussion, I respectfully differ from the judgment proposed by my sister Desai J. I would allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the High Court. Let copies of this judgment be sent to the Union Law Minister and the Attorney General and their attention be drawn to the issue involved in the case. In view of the difference of opinion between us, let this case be listed for hearing before a bench of three Judges after obtaining the necessary direction from the Honourable the Chief Justice of India.


CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3208 of  2016    


Mr. Amit Khetawat  Petitioner

State of Telangana  Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner:Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy

Counsel for Respondent: Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao


>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

01.  AIR 1961 SC 1808
02.  2007 CRI.L.J. 1530
03.  1973 SCC (Cri) 399 : 1973 Cri LJ 228
04.  AIR 1980 SC 791
05.  (2003) 6 SCC 195 : 2003 Cri.LJ 3117
06.  2003 CriLJ 5054
07.  2005 CriLJ 2868
08.  (2013) 2 SCC 357 : AIR 2013 SC 1132
09.  (2012) 11 SCC 321
10.  (2015) 1 SCC 365
11.  (2010) 8 SCC 633
12.  (2014) 2 SCC 576
13.  (1993) 3 SCC 418
14.  (2003) 4 SCC 493
15.  (2016) 8 SCC 307 (3JB)
16.  1994 SCC (Crl.) 1376
17.  (1997) 7 SCC 110
18.  (2006) 12 SCC 79
19.  1997 (1) ALT (Crl.) AP 719
20.  (2010) 7 SCC 263


CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3208 of 2016    


        The present Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and
401 …