Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1003 (AP)

K. Anji Reddy v. Asha Jyothi

2012-10-11

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment The petitioner and respondent No.5 purchased an extent of Acs.3.09 guntas of land in Survey Nos.526 and 529 of Rampally Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from Smt. B. Uma Devi, through sale deed, dated 29.09.2007. Alleging that the respondents herein are interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property, the petitioner and respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.342 of 2008 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar for the relief of perpetual injunction. They have also filed I.A.No.782 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a counter alleging that Uma Devi executed agreement of sale in favour of Sri Madhusudhan Reddy and Sri S. Yadagiri Goud in the year 2001 and they in turn executed sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4 on 20.01.2006 and 28.01.2006 in respect of that very land. They have also pleaded that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 20.04.2009. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner and respondent No.5 filed C.M.A.No.586 of 2009 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. The C.M.A. was dismissed on 30.11.2009. Thereupon, the petitioner and respondent No.5 filed C.R.P.No.6204 of 2009 before this Court. The revision was allowed on 30.03.2011, and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration and disposal. On such remand, the lower appellate Court dismissed the C.M.A., through order, dated 19.09.2011. Hence, this revision Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. The suit was filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor and in that suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was filed. The case of the petitioner and respondent No.5 is that they have purchased the land from Uma Devi, the registered owner of the land, through sale deed, dated 29.09.2007, marked as Ex.P1. They have also filed a pahani for the year 2007-2008 in support of their claim that they are in possession of the land. Third party affidavits and other documents marked as Exs.P2 to P53 were also filed. They have also filed a pahani for the year 2007-2008 in support of their claim that they are in possession of the land. Third party affidavits and other documents marked as Exs.P2 to P53 were also filed. Respondent Nos.1 to 4, on the other hand, pleaded that an agreement of sale marked as Ex.R5 was executed by Smt. Uma Devi on 21.05.2001 in favour of Sri Madhusudhan Reddy and Sri S. Yadagiri Goud and those two persons executed sale deeds, dated 20.01.2006 and 28.01.2006, marked as Exs.R2 and R3, in their favour. They too filed certain pahanies up to the year 2003-2004, and other documents, marked as Exs.R1 to R33. The petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 admit that Smt. Uma Devi was the original owner of the land. In respect of the said land, while Ex.P1 was executed by Uma Devi in favour of the petitioners, the sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4 were executed by Sri Madhusudhan Reddy and Sri S. Yadagiri Goud, claiming to be the G.P.A. Holders of Uma Devi. Had Uma Devi admitted the execution of the agreement/G.P.A., marked as Ex.R5, respondent Nos.1 to 4 would certainly be on a higher pedestal, on account of a prior transaction in their favour. However, Uma Devi denied the very execution of Ex.R5. The truth or otherwise of the contentions is to be examined in the trial of the suit. At this stage, what becomes essential is the possession over the suit schedule property. In this regard, the Court has to be guided mainly by the entries in the revenue records. The petitioner on the one hand and respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the other obtained mutation of entries in their favour within a short span of time. While the mutation of entries in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.5 was in December, 2007, the respondents got it in February, 2008. There cannot be mutation of entries in favour of two different persons, in respect of the same property. Obviously for that reason, certain cancellations are said to have taken place and that gave rise to the appeals or revisions under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed third party affidavits in the I.A. It is difficult to depend upon such material. Obviously for that reason, certain cancellations are said to have taken place and that gave rise to the appeals or revisions under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed third party affidavits in the I.A. It is difficult to depend upon such material. It is only the entries made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that would be helpful to the Court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. On their part, the petitioner and respondent No.5 filed Ex.P7, pahani for the year 2007-2008, which shows that the land is in their possession and enjoyment. Though respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed certain pahanies anterior to 2007-2008, none of the pahanies reflect their names. That would certainly be a factor in favour of the petitioners. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have taken into account, the questions pertaining to the title. The fact that the original sale deed and pattadar pass book and title deed standing in the name of Uma Devi were with respondent Nos.1 to 4, was treated as a ground in their favour. Once the original owner, namely Uma Devi, stated that she executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.5, and she did not execute any agreement of sale or G.P.A. in favour of the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 4, a serious doubt exists as to the very basis for the claim of the respondents. Added to that, the Courts below recorded a finding to the effect that respondent Nos.1 to 4 did not establish their possession over the property. However, I.A. and the C.M.A. were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner and respondent No.5 cannot depend upon the weakness of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Whatever may be the permissibility of such an inference in the context of determination of title, the Court has to assess relatively the merits while dealing with the question pertaining to possession. In view of the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.5 filed a pahani reflecting their possession and respondent Nos.1 to 4 failed to file any such pahanies, a prima facie finding can certainly be recorded to the effect that the petitioner and respondent No.5 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In view of the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.5 filed a pahani reflecting their possession and respondent Nos.1 to 4 failed to file any such pahanies, a prima facie finding can certainly be recorded to the effect that the petitioner and respondent No.5 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Though it is pleaded on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 that electricity connection was obtained in the name of their vendors and bills pertaining to digging of bore well are filed, they cannot outweigh the importance that can be added to a pahani. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. As a result, I.A.No.782 of 2008 is allowed and there shall be temporary injunction as prayed for. It is, however, directed that in the event of the suit being dismissed, the petitioner and respondent No.5 shall be under obligation to pay the mesne profits in respect of the land. The trial Court shall take up the suit for hearing and dispose of the same within four months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision also stands disposed of.