Mere Pattadar pass book and title deed does not confer title on the plaintiff when his father sold the same under a registered sale deed to the defendant and as such the suit for recovery of possession is rightly dismissed;The question of examining one of the attestors in Ex.B1 registered sale deed in order to prove the same will not arise as it is more than 30 years old document.When the plaintiff’s father sold away the suit site of Ac.0.07 cents even during his lifetime, the question of issuing pattadar passbook or title deed by the revenue authorities to the plaintiff for the land including the suit land o f Ac.0.07 cents will never arise.;

Mere Pattadar pass book and title deed does not confer title on the plaintiff when his father sold the same under a registered sale deed to the defendant.
When the plaintiff’s father sold away the suit site of Ac.0.07 cents even during his lifetime, the question of issuing pattadar passbook or title deed by the revenue authorities to the plaintiff for the land including the suit land o f Ac.0.07 cents will never arise. The question of examining one of the attestors in Ex.B1 registered sale deed in order to prove the same will not arise as it is more than 30 years old document. The defendant also filed Exs.B2 to B7 house tax receipts and Ex.B10 another receipt issued by the Panchayat Raj authorities. In the light of the said unquestionable documentary evidence filed by the defendant, the plaintiff was rightly held to be not entitled for the suit land and not entitled to recover the suit land from the defendant. I find no error much less legal error in the decisions of the Courts below. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed.
Both the courts below negatived the plaintiff’s claim holding that he could not prove his title to the suit site and on the other hand the defendant/respondent has proved his title to the suit property by way of Ex.B1 sale deed executed by the plaintiff’s father in favour of the defendant’s father.

SA 915 / 2012

SASR 42239 / 2005
CASE IS:DISPOSED

PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
BOGGAVARAPU VEERA NARAYANA
  VS
BOGGAVARAPU SIVA SANKARA RAO @ SANKARA RAO
PET.ADV. : RAMA RAO GHANTA
RESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: CONCURRENT
DISTRICT:  PRAKASAM
FILING DATE:  26-10-2005
POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSION
DISPOSED ON  28-11-2012 DISMISSED NO COSTS
REG. DATE    :   14-08-2012
LISTING DATE :  28-11-2012
STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):
   
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU    


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
S.A.No.915 of 2012
ORDER: Unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below filed this second appeal.
 He filed the suit for recovery of possession of Ac.0.07 cents of site in Sy.No.250/2 of Idupulapadu village shown as ABCD in Ex.A1 plaint plan. He based his claim on Ex.A2 revenue title deed issued in his favour. Ex.A3 is land revenue receipt standing in the name of the plaintiff. Both the courts below negatived the plaintiff’s claim holding that he could not prove his title to the suit site and on the other hand the defendant/respondent has proved his title to the suit property by way of Ex.B1 sale deed executed by the plaintiff’s father in favour of the defendant’s father.
Ex.A2 title deed is in respect of agricultural lands, i.e., Ac.1.70 cents in Sy.No.250/2 and Ac.1.73 cents in Sy.No.249/3. On the other hand, the defendant filed Ex.B1 registered sale deed dated 10.05.1960 executed by the plaintiff’s father in favour of the defendant’s father for the suit site. In the title deed Ex.A2, the land in Sy.No.250/2 is described as ancestral property of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff’s father sold away the suit site of Ac.0.07 cents even during his lifetime, the question of issuing pattadar passbook or title deed by the revenue authorities to the plaintiff for the land including the suit land o f Ac.0.07 cents will never arise. The question of examining one of the attestors in Ex.B1 registered sale deed in order to prove the same will not arise as it is more than 30 years old document. The defendant also filed Exs.B2 to B7 house tax receipts and Ex.B10 another receipt issued by the Panchayat Raj authorities. In the light of the said unquestionable documentary evidence filed by the defendant, the plaintiff was rightly held to be not entitled for the suit land and not entitled to recover the suit land from the defendant. I find no error much less legal error in the decisions of the Courts below. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. 28 th November 2012 Rns





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