Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 766 (AP)

Golla Venkanna v. Raheema Bee

2006-07-05

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
ORDER Heard Sri Sat yam Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Sri Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent. 2. Sri Sat yam Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, D.Ws.1 to 4, Exs.A-1 to A-11 and also Ex. B-1 and B-2 and would contend that the learned Judge had not exercised the discretion properly and further had not appreciated the evidence available on record properly, while recording a finding relating to forcible dispossession. 3. On the contrary, Sri Vijaysen Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondent plaintiff had pointed out to the relevant findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge and also certain admissions made by D.W.1 in the witness box and would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be found fault and hence, opportunity may be given to the revision petitioners-defendants to agitate their rights in a regular civil suit to establish their title to such property and to recover possession of the same in accordance with law as specified by Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience). 4. The parties hereinafter, would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants, for the purpose of convenience. It is needless to say that the unsuccessful defendants are the revision petitioners and the respondent in the present C.R.P., is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants and for future mesne profits of Rs.3,000/- per annum, till the date of delivery of the suit land to the plaintiff. The defendants also claimed declaration of their title in respect of suit schedule property, by way of counter claim. 5. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants and for future mesne profits of Rs.3,000/- per annum, till the date of delivery of the suit land to the plaintiff. The defendants also claimed declaration of their title in respect of suit schedule property, by way of counter claim. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner and possessor of the land measuring AC.2.00 in survey No.93 of Kankal village, Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 29-5-1982 and that since the date of the sale, the plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land and her name had been mutated in the R.O.R., as per the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pudur and that she was issued Ryot Pass Book and Title Deed in respect of suit land by the Revenue officials and the sons of the plaintiff had also purchased AC.2.6 guntas in Survey No.93 on the eastern side of the suit land from the same vendor, under registered sale deed and that it was not implemented in ROR and that the defendants forcibly occupied their land in the year 1998 and the plaintiff had raised agricultural crop loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Kankal Branch by depositing title deeds from 1990 to 1-7 -2002 and that the plaintiff got the suit land surveyed by the Mandal Surveyor on 21-6-2002 and she had raised Maize crop on southern portion of the suit land on 2-7-2002 and that the defendants forcibly raised Jowar crop on the southern side of the suit land and thus both the Maize crop and Jowar crop are \ existing and the defendants also forcibly occupied the northern portion of the suit land on 4-7-2002 by dispossessing plaintiff from the entire suit land. 6. Defendants 1 to 5 filed written statement, no doubt, along with a counter claim, praying for declaration of their right over the suit schedule property. Defendants denied the allegations made in the plaint. The defendants also denied the forcible dispossession. 6. Defendants 1 to 5 filed written statement, no doubt, along with a counter claim, praying for declaration of their right over the suit schedule property. Defendants denied the allegations made in the plaint. The defendants also denied the forcible dispossession. The specific stand taken by the defendants is that their father purchased the land measuring AC.7.00 in survey No.93 under a registered sale deed dated 27 -4-1967 through the same vendor in the name of Defendant No.1 and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and the defendants had been in continuous possession of the plaint schedule property as pattedars and owners, and the vendor R. Narayan Reddy, being Mali patel of Kankal village, had taken sale deed for implementation of patta in the name of 0-1, and that instead of doing patta in the name of 0-1, the said Narayana Reddy mischievously got executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff and her sons and that the plaintiff never came to be in possession after her purchase of the suit land and that R. Narayana Reddy entered the name of the plaintiff in pattedar column for Ac.2.00 of land, and pass book and title deeds were issued and as the defendants are uneducated, they did not see the entries in the pahanis till the date of filing of the suit and hence, they are praying for declaration of entries in the pahani column Nos.11 and 9, an null and void. Certain factual details also had been narrated and it was stated that they are entitled to the relief prayed for in the counter claim. The plaintiff resisted the same. 7. On the strength of the respective pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the defendants 1 to 5 forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land on 04-7 -2002? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit land as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.3,000/- p.a. till the delivery of suit land to plaintiff as prayed for? 4. Whether the defendants can maintain a counter claim of declaration of title in plaintiffs suit for possession of property filed u/Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act? 5. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.3,000/- p.a. till the delivery of suit land to plaintiff as prayed for? 4. Whether the defendants can maintain a counter claim of declaration of title in plaintiffs suit for possession of property filed u/Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act? 5. Whether the defendants are entitled for relief of declaration of title for AC.2.00 of land in Sy.No.93 by deleting the name of the plaintiff in the pahani column No.11 and 9 situated at Kankal village, Pudur mandal, Ranga Reddy district as prayed for? 6. To what relief? 8. The learned Judge appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, D.Ws.1 to 4, Exs.A-1 to A-12, Exs.B-1 and\B-2 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession and no doubt, opportunity was given to the plaintiff to file separate application for deciding the quantum of mesne profits. 9. The plaintiff, to prove her possession over the suit schedule property, had relied on Exs.A-1 to A-12. Defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. D.W.1 in the cross-examination deposed that he does not know about the original sale deed and after 7 or 8 years subsequent to the sale transaction, he came to know about the same. This witness also deposed that the Government surveyed the suit schedule property in the entire survey No.93 on 21-6-2002 and that the surveyor issued a notice prior to survey and that he had not submitted his objections to survey after receipt of the notice. D.W.1 also deposed that sons of the plaintiff purchased AC.2.00 of land in Sy. No.93 and that they had thrown them out of the land and that P.W.1 raised the crop in the suit land on 2-7-2002 on the southern side. No doubt, D.W.1 deposed that it was in his absence that the plaintiff had sowed the crop and a finding had been recorded that on 2-7 -2002, P. W.1, in fact, raised the crop. Apart from these admissions made by D.W.1, the evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 also had been appreciated. Apart from this evidence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also had been taken into consideration and Exs.A-1 to A-11 had been dealt with in detail. Certain findings had been recorded in relation to these documents and the oral evidence let in, also had been dealt with at length. 10. Apart from this evidence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also had been taken into consideration and Exs.A-1 to A-11 had been dealt with in detail. Certain findings had been recorded in relation to these documents and the oral evidence let in, also had been dealt with at length. 10. Section 6 of the Act dealing with the suit by person dispossessed of immovable property, reads as hereunder: "6. Suit by person dispossessed of immoveable property: (1) If any person is dispossessed, without his consent of immoveable property otherwise than in due process of law, he or any person through him, may by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in the suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession, or (b) against the government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof." Sub-section (4) referred to supra, clearly specifies that nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title and to recover possession thereof. 11.lt appears a counterclaim was made in the suit filed under Section 6 of the Act. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion, in view of the fact that the scope of the suit under Section 6 of the Act, being very limited. All other findings recorded by the learned Judge in relation to the title to the plaint schedule property, may not come in the way of the revision petitioners-defendants from instituting a regular suit by praying for appropriate relief. It is also made clear that mere fact that they made a counter claim in this suit also is of no I consequence. 12. With the above observations, inasmuch as, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded relating to forcible dispossession cannot be found fault, and in view of the same, since relief was granted relating to restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Act, this Court is not inclined to interfere only to that limited extent of restoration of possession by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. The other findings relating to the question of title or other incidental findings may have to be adjudicated by the parties in a regular suit, as specified by Section 6(4) of the Act aforesaid. 13. Subject to the above observations, C.R.P. shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.