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 http://judis.nic.in/Judis_Andhra/list_new2.asp?FileName=10574
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
Additional District Judge, Adoni.
3. C.M.A.No.287 of 2013 is filed challenging the order  dt.12-
02-2012 in I.A.No.610 of 2012 in O.S.No.23 of 2012 on the file of II Additional
District Judge, Adoni.
4. The appellants in these appeals are the defendants in the above suits.
5.    An extent of Ac.22.27 cts. in Sy. No.498, situated in the Halaharvi
village and Mandal of Kurnool District was admittedly owned by one Chittam
Ramaswamy.  
6. One Veerabhadrappa Setty (1st defendant in both suits) and Venkanna Setty are
brothers and are sons of one Seenappa Setty.  Padmavathamma is the wife of
Venkanna Setty.  Seenaiah Setty (2nd defendant in both suits) is the son of the
1st defendant.
7. The 1st defendant was treated as his foster son by Chittam Ramaswamy.
8. Under a registered gift deed dt.21-05-1956 being document No.824 of 1956,
Chittam Ramaswamy gifted the above property to 1st defendant.
9. O.S.No.22 of 2012 and O.S.No.23 of 2012 respectively were filed by plaintiffs
before the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool for a perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with their alleged peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the above extents of land. They alleged that the
said gift deed dt.21.5.1956 was not acted upon; on 23-08-1990, that 1st
defendant relinquished his rights over this property in favour of his brother
Venkanna Setty by receiving an amount of Rs.60,000/-; that Venkanna Setty
thereafter relinquished his rights in the land in favour of his wife
Padmavathamma under a revenue transfer affected under Section 5A of the Andhra
Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act')
by paying Rs.1,170/- towards stamp duty and Rs.240/- towards registration
charges;  on her death, Venkanna Setty succeeded to the property;  he sold an
extent of Ac.11.12 cts. out of the above land in favour of  Poliki Chandrahas
(plaintiff in O.S.22/2012) and the balance of Ac.11.15 cts. in favour of his
brother Poliki Umesh (plaintiff in O.S.23/2012) under two registered sale deeds
dt.11-04-2012; that the plaintiffs/respondents herein are in possession and
enjoyment of the respective extents purchased by them; and on 20-09-2012,
defendants tried to trespass into the land and dispossess them.
10. They also filed I.A.No.608 of 2012 and 610 of 2012 respectively in these
suits under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for a temporary injunction restraining
defendants from interfering with their alleged possession and enjoyment of the
plaint schedule properties.
11. In these I.As., the plaintiffs  reiterated their pleadings in the plaint and
contended that the revenue authorities had accepted  the title of Padmavathamma
and later that of Venkanna Setty by issuing pattedar passbook and title deed and
also mutated their names in the revenue records.  In support of the said pleas
in the above I.As, the plaintiffs filed Exs.P-1 to P-18.
12. The defendants filed counter affidavits in the I.As denying the allegations
made by the plaintiffs.  They contended that the regd. gift deed dt.21-05-1956
was acted upon and 1st defendant was put in possession of the land; that he
mortgaged it in favour of Magam Obanna on 14-02-1962 for a loan of Rs.8,000/-;
subsequently it was again mortgaged to H.Narayana Reddy on 14-06-1962 for 
Rs.3,000/-; on 09-06-1976, there was a mortgage in favour of Chintakunta
Cooperative Society for a loan of Rs.6,000/-; that on 23-08-1990, Venkanna Setty
had executed any agreement to purchase the land in favour of 1st defendant for
Rs.60,000/- but did not pay the agreed sale consideration or obtained possession
of the suit land; therefore the defendants continue to be in possession and
enjoyment of the land; that on 27-06-2012,  1st defendant executed the
registered gift deed in favour of his son, the 2nd defendant; and the plaintiffs
have neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience and the defendants are
in possession and enjoyment of the land, no injunction  be granted in their
favour.  In support of their plea, they filed Exs.R-1 to R-13.
13. By separate orders dt.12-02-2012, the Court below allowed the said I.As. and
granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in the respective suits
against the defendants.
14. The Court below held that the revenue entries from 1969 till 2012 in Exs.P-1 to P-18 filed by the plaintiffs indicate that Venkanna Setty is the owner of the property; that an endorsement about sale of property by Venkanna Setty in favour of the plaintiffs was made by the Tahsildar, Halaharvi in the pattedar passbook by rounding of the said extent sold under Ex.A-1; the same Tahsildar could not have issued pattedar pass book in favour of 2nd defendant in April 2012 and revenue title deed in favour of 1st defendant in June 2012 for the same land; that no enquiry appears to have been done before doing so; therefore theirgenuineness is in doubt; that the extent covered by the gift deed dt.12-05-1956 is only Ac.11.13 cts. in Sy. No.498-A and after he had gifted it to 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant could not have been issued a revenue title deed for the same extent; that 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. which could not have been correct as only Ac.11.13 gts. was gifted under the gift deed dt.12-05-1956; that 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 ½ cts.; these two pahanies were prepared by the V.R.O. on 29-09-2012 and counter signed by the Tahsildar on    03-10-2012 and they create suspicion too; the creation of mortgages by respondents to various persons also create doubt; that Ex.P-13, a computer generated copy of adangal for 2012 shows Venkanna Setty as the owner and possessor of the property; therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to temporary injunction.
15. Aggrieved by the same, these C.M.As. have been filed by the defendants in
the suits.
16. Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, for Sri T.S.Anand, learned counsel for the
appellants/defendants and Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs.
17. The counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the orders of the
Court below are unsustainable; that the gift deed   dt.12-05-1956
has not been filed by the plaintiffs to find out the extent of land gifted by
Chittam Ramaswamy to the 1st defendant; there is no basis for the trial Court to
come to the conclusion that only Ac.11.13 cts. was the subject matter of the
said gift; that the relinquishment deed dt.23-08-1990 pleaded by the plaintiffs
has also not been filed and it is not the case of the plaintiffs that it is a
registered document; there cannot be any transfer of title from 1st defendant to
his brother Venkanna Setty under such an unregistered document; that the
unregistered sale deed by which Venkanna Setty allegedly sold the land to his
wife Padmavathamma has also not been filed by the plaintiffs;  that the
proceedings under Section 5A of the Act regularizing such alleged sale by the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Halaharavi are not binding on the defendants as they
have been done behind the back of the defendants; that the entries in the
revenue records filed by the plaintiffs are manipulated in collusion with the
revenue officials; that  defendants had also filed an application before the
R.D.O., Adoni to set aside the pattedar passbooks issued to the plaintiffs, but
by order Ex.R-8 dt.11-12-2012 in reference Rc (e).No.2255/2012, the Revenue
Divisional Officer directed them to get the issue resolved before the Civil
Court as O.S.No.22 of 2012 and 23 of 2012 are pending before the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Adoni.  They contended that plaintiffs do not have
prima facie title and in Exhibits filed by plaintiffs, their possession was
allegedly recorded on the basis of the proceedings under Section 5A of the Act, which are in violation of principles of natural justice, the plaintiffs cannot be taken to be in possession of the plaint schedule property and the impugned orders be set aside.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that
the orders passed by the Court below do not suffer from any infirmity; that
valid reasons have been given by the Court below for granting temporary
injunction in favour of  plaintiffs; that only after proper enquiry, the
transfer by Venkanna Setty in favour of Padmavathamma was regularized under
Section 5A of the Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act');  there
is a remedy of appeal provided under Section 5B of the Act r/w Rule 22A of the
Rules to the R.D.O. within 30 days; that the defendants have not availed of the
same; that under Section 6 of the Act, there is a presumption of correctness of
entries in record of rights as true; the long possession of  plaintiffs is
evidence of their title; and therefore the possession of the plaintiffs as
reflected in the exhibits filed by them be accepted; and the appeals be
dismissed.
19. I have noted the submissions of both sides.
20. It is settled law that for grant of injunction in favour of a plaintiff, he
has to make out a prima facie case, show balance of convenience in his favour and prove that irreparable injury would be caused to him, in case injunction is not granted in his favour. 
In Kashi Math Samsthan v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha
Swamy1, the Supreme court declared : 
"16. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the
party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a
prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his
favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not
granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima
facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience
or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at
all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for
trial, it is not open to the court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he
has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would
suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted."
21. By applying this principle, I will first consider whether the plaintiffs
have established prima facie case in their favour.
22. There is no dispute that the original owner of the property is Chittam
Ramaswamy and that he executed a registered gift deed dt.12-05-1956 in favour of
the 1st defendant.  This deed is not filed by either party.  But plaintiffs
contended that only an extent of Ac.11.13 cts. was gifted under this deed in
favour of  1st   defendant and not the entire extent of Ac.22.27 cts. This
contention of plaintiffs was accepted by the trial Court.  Without the said
registered gift deed being filed by the plaintiffs to prove the extent in
respect of which the gift was made, it was not open to the Court below to accept
this contention.
23. The plaintiffs also pleaded  that there was a relinquishment deed executed
on 23-08-1990 by 1st   defendant in favour of Venkanna Setty by receiving an
amount of Rs.60,000/-.  This deed has also not been filed by plaintiffs.  It is
settled law that there can be no transfer of title/extinguishment of title under
an unregistered and unstamped relinquishment deed in view of the provisions of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908.                                                                                                       In Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup2, the apex court held :
"32. Title to a property must be determined in terms of the statutory provision.
If by reason of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the appellant
herein had derived title to the property along with her brothers and sisters,
she cannot be deprived thereof by reason of an agreement entered into by and
between the original plaintiff and the contesting defendants. If a party
furthermore relinquishes his or her right in a property, the same must be done
by a registered instrument in terms of the provisions of the Registration
Act."(emphasis supplied)
24. As there is no transfer of title from 1st defendant to Venkanna Setty under
the alleged relinquishment deed, the 1st defendant continues to be the owner of
the land.
25. In this view of the matter, Venkanna Setty could not have transferred the
land in favour of his wife Padmavathamma since one cannot transfer what he does
not have. In any event, even this document purporting to transfer title in
favour of Padmavathamma has been suppressed by the plaintiffs.
26. Thus prima facie Padmavathamma had not obtained any title to the land, notwithstanding the proceedings under Section 5A of the ActThe plaintiffs have filed Exs.P-3 and P-4, a notice and certificate issued by the M.R.O.,Halaharvi as to payment of stamp duty and registration fee to the State. Under sub Section (4) of Section 5A, such certificate is not binding on third parties like the defendants but only binds the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him.  The defendants do not come under any of these categories.  Moreover no material is placed before this Court to prove that the
said proceedings under Section 5A of the Act were done after giving notice to
the affected parties such as the defendants.  Therefore the said proceedings,
having been obtained behind the back of the defendants and in violation of
principles of natural justice, have to be treated as null and void.
27. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that the
entries in the revenue records have been made on the basis of the proceedings
under Section 5A of the Act issued by the M.R.O.
28. He relied on Section 6 of the Act and contended that entry in revenue
records in plaintiffs favour have to be presumed to be true. 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.
30. I am also unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the plaintiffs
that the allegedly long possession of the plaintiffs is evidence of their title.
It is settled law that mere long possession would not fructify into title,
unless such possession is adverse to the real owner (Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale  v. Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale3).  In this case, there is no such plea of
acquisition of title by Venkanna Setty by adverse possession as against the
defendants.
31. 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.
35. Therefore the orders dt. 12.2.2013 in IA.No.608/2012 in O.S.22/2013 and in
I.A.610/2012 in O.S .23/2012 of the Court below are contrary to law and are setaside.
36. The C.M.As. are accordingly allowed.  No costs.
37. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________    
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO        


Date:  26-11-2013

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