Patta pass book - partition suit - respondent No.3 – Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, by order dt.20.12.1995, directed to record the name of respondent No.4, who is sister of the appellant -a suit is pending before the Civil Court relating to the property in question. If the petitioner has any right, title or interest in respect of the property, he can proceed in the matter before an appropriate forum.


THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

                                                                                    

WRIT APPEAL NO.71 OF 2013



DATED:21.2.2013

Between:

D. Rajeswar Reddy                                        …  Appellant

And

The Joint Collector
Ranga Reddy District
At Lakdikapool
Hyderabad
and others                                                    … Respondents


































THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.71 OF 2013            


JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

          This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.21.6.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.4465 of 2006.
          The appellant – writ petitioner filed the writ petition for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of respondent No.1 in File No.D5/4488/2005 and to quash the order dt.7.2.2006 passed therein, as illegal and arbitrary.
          The appellant – petitioner claims to be the absolute owner, possessor and pattedar of the land admeasuring Ac.10.30 gts. in Sy. No.53 of Bacharam Village and Ac.2.20 gts. in Sy.No.31 of Dayar Village, hamlet of Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.  When respondent No.3 – Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, by order dt.20.12.1995, directed to record the name of respondent No.4, who is sister of the appellant – writ petitioner, as pattadar, the appellant filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer questioning the said order.  The appeal preferred by the appellant – writ petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dt.19.8.2005.  Questioning the same, the appellant preferred a revision before respondent No.1 – Joint Collector, who by order dt.7.2.2006 dismissed the revision directing the appellant – writ petitioner to approach the civil court and get his rights adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.  Aggrieved by the said order of respondent No.1, the appellant – writ petitioner filed the writ petition.
The Hon’ble Single Judge after considering the matter in question dismissed the writ petition along with connected W.P. No.3846 of 2006, which was filed by sons of step-brother of the appellant – petitioner, by the impugned common order dt.21.6.2011.  His Lordship observed that as the petitioners in W.P. No.3846 of 2006 have already filed a suit for partition, before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, being O.S. No.230 of 1983, in the schedule of which the disputed lands were also included, if they succeed in the said suit, it is always open for them to file appropriate application before the competent authority seeking to carryout the amendments in the Record of Rights.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dt.21.6.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed by the appellant – writ petitioner.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
It appears that a suit is pending before the Civil Court relating to the property in question.  If the petitioner has any right, title or interest in respect of the property, he can proceed in the matter before an appropriate forum.  Except giving such liberty to the petitioner, we do not intend to pass any further order in the matter in question.
The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.  No costs.





________________________
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, CJ





______________________
                                                                   VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
21.2.2013
bnr

         


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.