Declaration of title = When the Govt. patta was cancelled pending the suit, one has to amend the suit seeking for cancellation of the orders or has to challenge the same in different forum not by way of suit = The suit is based upon Ex.A-1 allotment order of house site to the appellant/plaintiff of an extent of Ac.2-00 cents of land in Survey No.344/1 of Appannapeta, Ganapavaram Mandal. It is not in dispute before this Court that after issuance of Ex.A-1 allotment order dated 24.06.1999, revenue officials conducted an enquiry with regard to the properties of the plaintiff. Since the M.R.O is not competent to cancel Ex.A-1, they submitted the report to the District Collector. Basing on Ex.B-2 report given by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ganapavaram, the Joint Collector of West Godavari District passed Ex.B-3 orders canceling the allotment orders issued in Ex.A-1. When the reasons for cancellation of Ex.A-1 allotment order are not acceptable to the plaintiff, then the remedy of the plaintiff is to challenge the cancellation order Ex.B-3. So long as Ex.B-3 is steering at the plaintiff, he cannot have any right to seek for declaration. Similarly, there is no factual foundation, as to why Ex.B-3 has to be set aside or revoked. No doubt, Ex.B-3 was passed during the pendency of the suit. But at the same time, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to amend the plaint so as to challenge Ex.B-3.

SA 134 / 2013

SASR 4701 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
RONGALA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA  VSTHE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : DURGA PRASAD RAORESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: DECLARATION OF TITLE (IMMOVABLE PROPERTY)DISTRICT:  WEST GODAVARI
published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/sa/sa_134_2013.html
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 

SECOND APPEAL No.134 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 22.11.2012, passed in A.S.No.14 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, whereunder and whereby, the judgment and decree, dated 11.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.357 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, were set aside.

2.       The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants, in O.S.No.357 of 2000.  For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial court

3.       The suit, O.S.No.357 of 2000 is filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the suit schedule property belongs to him and for consequential relief of its possession.

4.       The brief facts that are necessary for filing of the second appeal are that, the first defendant-Mandal Revenue Officer, Ganapavaram is authorised to issue House site allotment orders according to the orders of the third defendant-District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.  
Thereafter, the plaintiff was allotted House site of an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in R.S.No.344/1 under Ex.A-1 order in ROC.A 305/99 on 24.06.1999.  
But the said house site was not delivered to the plaintiff for the reasons best known to defendants 1 to 3.  Hence the suit.

5.       The first defendant filed a written statement stating that on the basis of the recommendations made by the Revenue Inspector, the allotment orders were issued and thereafter during enquiry, it is revealed that the alottee and his father are financially sound and having house and house sites of their own.  Then a report was submitted to the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. Subsequently, the Joint Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru vide order dated 03.03.2001 cancelled the house site allotment orders and therefore the plaintiff has no right to challenge the same.

6.       Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:
1.     Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
2.     Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?
3.     If so, to what relief?

7.       During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were got marked.  On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were got marked.

8.       The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to conclusion that Ex.B-3 cancellation order is not binding on the plaintiff, the allotment order under Ex.A-1 is valid and enforceable and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for and decreed the suit.

9.       On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court have been set aside.  Challenging the same, this second appeal has been filed.

10.     The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that at the behest of the local M.L.A and the Minister, Ex.B-3 cancellation order was issued; that the lower appellate Court has wrongly placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff; that Ex.B-3 cancellation order during the pendency of the suit is not binding and Ex.B-2 report is biased and motivated and hence, he prays to admit the appeal.

11.     In view of the amendment to Section 100 CPC admission of Second Appeal is not routine and the appellants must show the Second Appeal involves a substantial question of law. Substantial question of law has not been defined but it has been stated that it substantially affects the rights of the parties. When the findings are not based upon admissible evidence or when inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or when both the courts below gave a perverse finding, then it can be said that a substantial question of law is involved.

12.     The suit is based upon Ex.A-1 allotment order of house site to the appellant/plaintiff of an extent of Ac.2-00 cents of land in Survey No.344/1 of Appannapeta, Ganapavaram Mandal.  It is not in dispute before this Court that after issuance of Ex.A-1 allotment order dated 24.06.1999, revenue officials conducted an enquiry with regard to the properties of the plaintiff.  Since the M.R.O is not competent to cancel Ex.A-1, they submitted the report to the District Collector.  Basing on Ex.B-2 report given by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ganapavaram, the Joint Collector of West Godavari District passed Ex.B-3 orders canceling the allotment orders issued in Ex.A-1. 

13.     The basis for cancellation was that the plaintiff and his father are affluent persons and they are having their own house sites and houses in the same village.  When the reasons for cancellation of Ex.A-1 allotment order are not acceptable to the plaintiff, then the remedy of the plaintiff is to challenge the cancellation order Ex.B-3.  So long as Ex.B-3 is steering at the plaintiff, he cannot have any right to seek for declaration.  Similarly, there is no factual foundation, as to why Ex.B-3 has to be set aside or revoked.  No doubt, Ex.B-3 was passed during the pendency of the suit.  But at the same time, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to amend the plaint so as to challenge Ex.B-3. 

14.     In the absence of any factual foundation and in the absence of any evidence, the trial Court came to a conclusion that Ex.B-3 is not binding on the plaintiff.  So, such a finding is perverse and that is the reason why, the first appellate Court set aside the same and dismissed the suit. 

15.     The appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to correct conclusion.  The appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse or contrary to law.  When there is no substantial question of law in the second appeal to admit the same, the appeal has to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Therefore, there are no grounds to admit the appeal. 

16.     Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission leaving open to the appellant the remedies available under law.  No costs.  Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Second Appeal shall stand closed. 

______________________

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

MARCH 01, 2013.
sr/pn

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU





                                                               













                                             





















SECOND APPEAL No.134 of 2013



                                                                               

March 01, 2013

sr/pn                                         




                            

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.

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.

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