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