MERE ENTRY AS GUNTA IS NOT A GOVERNMENT LAND = Ex.A.3 Settlement deed, which is executed on 01.09.1995, has not been denied or disputed. Ex.A.2 letter would go to show that an advance compensation was deposited payable to the principal land holder, who is no other than the father of the plaintiff. A pattadar passbook was also issued, wherein the plaintiff was shown as owner of the land in R.S.No.175/7. 12. Contrary to the evidence of plaintiff, the defendant produced Ex.B.1 document, which shows that the land in Survey No.175/7 admeasuring Ac.0.69 cents is shown as gunta. The trial court observed that the survey number was corrected as 175/7. On the other hand, the evidence of DW2, who is the President of Gram Panchayat, would go to show that the suit schedule property is a poramboke land and that all residents of Chinchinada village are using the said land as burial ground for the last five years. Admittedly, the first defendant was maintaining a register to show that the suit property was being used as a burial ground, but they have not produced any document to prove the same. 13. So, from the documents filed by the plaintiff, it is established beyond preponderance of probability that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents of land. There is no acceptable evidence to show that the land in question belongs to the Government. Therefore, considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed, as no substantial question of law involved in the case.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD

 

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

 

SECOND APPEAL No. 28 of 2013


 

Between :

 

The Executive Authority, Grampanchayat,
Chinchinada, rep. by its Executive Officer,
Chinchinada, Elamanchili (M),
West Godavari District and another.                                                                                                                              ... APPELLANTS

              A N D

Rudraraju Gur Raju                                             …RESPONDENT
                             
                                                                                   


























This Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 

SECOND APPEAL No.28 of 2013

 

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 17.08.2005, passed in A.S.No.56 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, whereunder and whereby, the judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2002 passed in O.S.No.53 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, were confirmed.
2.       The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff.  For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter will be referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial court.
3.       The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title in the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents in R.S.No.175/7 of Chinchinada village and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 
4.       It is stated in the plaint that the plaint schedule property is the property of the grandfather of plaintiff and the property was partitioned during the lifetime of the father of plaintiff – Rudraraju Satyanarayana Raju.  The said Satyanarayana Raju executed a Will bequeathing the plaint schedule property to one Surya Kumari out of love and affection.  Again, the said Surya Kumari executed Settlement deed dated 01.09.1995 in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A.3.  Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property.  When the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, the suit was filed.
5.       The defendants filed Written Statement stating that the plaint schedule property is the Government land classified as gunta and it is not a cultivable land.  The alleged Settlement deed is a void document and that the predecessors-in-title have no ownership right. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the suit. 
6.       Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled by the lower court for trial:
1.       Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and injunction as prayed for?
2.       To what relief?

7.       To substantiate the case of plaintiff, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked.  On behalf of defendants, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.
8.       The trial court after considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also Ex.A.3, came to conclusion that the plaintiff is having  title to the property and the land revenue certificates Exs.A.4 to A.10 coupled with Ex.A.11 adangal proved the possession of the plaintiff, and accordingly decreed the suit.  On appeal, the said findings were confirmed.  Challenging the same, the present second appeal is filed.
9.       The learned counsel for appellants raised the following substantial questions of law:
a)     Since the plaint schedule property is part of Zamindari estate and by virtue of the Estates Abolition Act, nobody can claim any right through the Zamindar.
b)     Whether the finding of the Court in a suit, in which the defendant is not a party, is not binding
c)      Whether the plaintiffs are not having a valid title deed?     

10.     Under the amended Section 100 C.P.C., a party aggrieved by a decree passed by first appellate Court has no absolute right of appeal.  He can neither challenge the decree on a question of fact nor on a question of law.  A second appeal lies only where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.  
The entire case of the plaintiff is basing upon Ex.A.3, which is a Settlement deed, executed by sister of the plaintiff, to show the possession of plaintiff.  Exs.A.3 to A.10, which are the land revenue receipts issued by the Government in the name of Rudraraju Gur Raju, who is no other than the plaintiff and also a Certified Copy of the fair adangal, would clearly go to show that the plaintiff is in the possession of the property.
11.     Ex.A.3 Settlement deed, which is executed on 01.09.1995, has not been denied or disputed.  
Ex.A.2 letter would go to show that an advance compensation was deposited payable to the principal land holder, who is no other than the father of the plaintiff.  
A pattadar passbook was also issued, wherein the plaintiff was shown as owner of the land in R.S.No.175/7. 
12.     Contrary to the evidence of plaintiff, the defendant produced 
Ex.B.1 document, which shows that the land in Survey No.175/7 admeasuring Ac.0.69 cents is shown as gunta.  
The trial court observed that the survey number was corrected as 175/7.  On the other hand, the evidence of DW2, who is the President of Gram Panchayat, would go to show that the suit schedule property is a poramboke land and 
that all residents of Chinchinada village are using the said land as burial ground for the last five years.  
Admittedly, the first defendant was maintaining a register to show that the suit property was being used as a burial ground, 
but they have not produced any document to prove the same.
13.     So, from the documents filed by the plaintiff, it is established beyond preponderance of probability that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents of land.  There is no acceptable evidence to show that the land in question belongs to the Government.  Therefore, considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court.  Hence, the Second Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed, as no substantial question of law involved in the case.  
14.     Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed.  No costs.  Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Second Appeal shall stand closed. 

_______________

K.C.BHANU, J

FEBRUARY 4, 2013.
Anr/SR









THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU


























SECOND APPEAL No. 28 of 2013















04.02.2013





Anr/SR

                         

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.