Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1099 (AP)

V. Sussain Saheb v. VadlaPula Rangaiah

2013-12-03

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2013
Judgment : (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) These two appeals arise out of the common judgment, dated 26.07.1999, rendered by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur in O.P.No.51 of 1991 and O.S.No.20 of 1995. The appellant figured as claimant No.4 in the O.P. and defendant No.1 in the suit. However, the array of the parties in the appeals is identical. The suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 10 (for short ‘the respondents’) against the appellant and three others for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of two items of land, namely Acs.21.18 cents in Survey No.270 and Acs.8.32 cents in Survey No.218/A of Gunthakandla Village, Kurnool District. Acs.2.00 thereof was notified by the Government for the purpose of an irrigation project. They pleaded that the land was originally held by their ancestor, Vadla Seshadri, and through series of succession, it has devolved upon them in bits. They further pleaded that the appellant has no manner of right over the suit schedule property and started making attempts to encroach upon it as well as to lay claim for compensation for the acquired land. The appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. He disputed the very ownership of the respondents vis-à-vis the suit land. Even according to him, the land was held by Seshadri, as inam of Carpenters and since the father of the appellant was also a Carpenter, it has accrued to him and thereafter, to himself. After the appellant filed the written statement, the respondents filed a petition to amend the plaint and the relief of declaration of title was also claimed. The appellant filed additional written statement. In respect of Acs.2.00 of land in Survey No.270, which was notified for acquisition, the appellant on the one hand and the respondents on the other laid their claims. Faced with this situation, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). The same was taken up as O.P.No.51 of 1991. Through a common judgment, 26.07.1999, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed a decree in O.P.No.51 of 1991 holding that the respondents are entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired land. The same was taken up as O.P.No.51 of 1991. Through a common judgment, 26.07.1999, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed a decree in O.P.No.51 of 1991 holding that the respondents are entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired land. Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that except taking a plea that they are the lenial descendants of Vadla Seshadri, the respondents did not substantiate their plea, much less, they have examined anyone, who is connected with the family. He submits that the evidence of P.W.1 was almost wavering and from his evidence, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the respondents are the lenial descendants of late Vadla Seshadri. As regards the documentary evidence, learned counsel submits that the revenue receipts, which were obtained immediately before the suit, were filed and the respondents failed to prove their title by filing any legally acceptable documents. He submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. He further submits that Ex.A5, which is of the year 1941, clinchingly proved that the land has been given to the father of the appellant on account of the fact that he was rendering service to the Village as a Carpenter. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the relationship of the original owner, Vadla Seshadri, with the respondents was meticulously explained in the course of re-examination of P.W.1. He submits that Ex.B3 would clinchingly establish that the original pattas under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act were issued to the respondents and their ancestors, whereas Ex.A5 made a sudden appearance in the evidence, though no mention was made to it in the written statement or additional written statement. He contends that the appellant was not aware of the particulars of Seshadri and his deposition to the effect that he does not know the extent of properties, that fell to the share of himself and his brother or the details of electric connection, would clearly establish that he is totally a stranger to the property. The trial Court clubbed the O.P. filed under Section 30 of the Act and the suit filed by the respondents and conducted a common trial. The trial Court clubbed the O.P. filed under Section 30 of the Act and the suit filed by the respondents and conducted a common trial. The following issues/points were framed in the respective suit and the O.P. Issue: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? Additional Issue: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title of suit schedule property as prayed for? Point: (1) Which of the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation amount payable for acquired land in the O.P.? Since the evidence was recorded in the O.P., the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondents were treated on the plaintiffs’ side and documents were assigned ‘A’ series. On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 and A14 to A18 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.3 to 5 were examined and Exs.A5 to A13 were filed. The result of the proceedings has already been indicated in the preceding paragraph. In view of the extensive submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration before us are: (1) Whether the appellant derived any title to the property through Ex.A5? (2) Whether the respondents have proved their title to the suit schedule property? (3) Whether the appellant established his possession over the suit schedule property? (4) Whether the appellant is entitled to be paid compensation for the acquired land? Point Nos.1 and 2: In a way, point Nos.1 and 2 go together and they are different facets of the same question. The suit, though initially filed for the relief of temporary injunction, was modified to the one of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Naturally, burden to prove the title rested upon the respondents/plaintiffs. They claim title to the property on the basis of succession. Vadla Seshadri, the original owner of the property, is said to be their ancestor, through 5 or 6 generations. Though the statement of relationship with Seshadri was a bit general and non-specific at the initial stage of deposition as P.W.1, he elaborated the same in the re-examination. The chain of succession is as under: “Vadla Seshadri’s son is Gurumurthy. The son of Gurumurthy is Veeresamaiah. The son of Veeresamaiah is Rangaiah. The sons of Rangaiah are Pedda Nemelaiah and Chinna Nemelaiah. The chain of succession is as under: “Vadla Seshadri’s son is Gurumurthy. The son of Gurumurthy is Veeresamaiah. The son of Veeresamaiah is Rangaiah. The sons of Rangaiah are Pedda Nemelaiah and Chinna Nemelaiah. The sons of Pedda Nemelaiah are Rangaiah and Veeresamaiah.” Plaintiff No.2 is said to be the son of Rangaiah, plaintiff No.1 is said to be the son of Veeresamaiah and plaintiff No.3 is the son of Chinna Nemelaiah. Though P.W.1 was subjected to further cross-examination, the appellant did not doubt the genealogy furnished by the witness. Ex.A2 is an extract from register of holdings. The suit schedule property is shown in the name of Vadla Seshadri. Though there is no subsequent record reflecting the title, the respondents have filed an endorsement, dated 30.06.1990, marked as Ex.A3. It is to the effect that the land in Survey Nos.270 and 218/A is an inam land and that ryotwari pattas were also issued in favour of some of the respondents herein. For granting the relief of declaration of title in respect of an item of immovable property, there does not exist any standard pattern. Much would depend upon the nature of the facts pleaded by the plaintiff and the extent of the opposition offered by the defendant. It is almost a relative exercise. It is difficult to hold that the title cannot be declared unless a particular set of facts are pleaded and proved. Generally, the Court has to be satisfied (a) in whom did the undisputed title in respect of the property vest and (b) whether the plaintiffs have established the link between themselves and the undisputed title holder. This link can be through succession, according to the personal law of the parties by operation of law or through the act of parties, such as transfer or settlement. In the instant case, it was through succession. Even if the case of the respondents is treated as a feeble and weak one, the result of that weakness can be felt if only the plea of the opposite party is stronger than that. Therefore, the case made out by the appellant needs to be viewed in this context. In the written statement, no specific plea was raised as to how the appellant derived title to the property. The fact that Vadla Seshadri is the original owner of the property, was admitted. Therefore, the case made out by the appellant needs to be viewed in this context. In the written statement, no specific plea was raised as to how the appellant derived title to the property. The fact that Vadla Seshadri is the original owner of the property, was admitted. The only basis on which the appellant pleaded right to property is that Vadla Seshadri was a Carpenter of the Village and the father of the appellant also being a Carpenter, the land passed on to him. He did not mention any document or specific acts of the parties. It is only in the course of evidence that he relied upon Ex.A5, date 29.03.1941. The appellant himself was not clear about the nature of the document. When serious opposition was offered for the admissibility of the document on the ground that it was not registered, he pleaded that it is only an agreement. However, the recitals of the document are to the effect that the property is handed over and passed on to the father of the appellant. It is not supported by any consideration. It is capable of being treated as a gift deed, in which case, it ought to have been registered and attested. On the other hand, if it is to be treated as an agreement, it did not result in any specific rights nor it is capable of being enforced at this length of time. It is fairly established principle of law that the evidence can be adduced in a suit or other proceedings, only to substantiate the contentions raised in the pleadings, and the evidence cannot be unrelated to the pleadings. It was elicited from the appellant as P.W.3 that he had Ex.A5 in his possession, when the written statement was filed. However, no mention thereof was made in the written statement or additional written statement. If Ex.A5 is accepted de hors its other shortcomings, it would be a case of transfer of property. Such document, unless pleaded in the written statement and mentioned in the list of documents, ought not to have been received in evidence and even if received, it cannot be treated as source of right. The trial Court has discussed the evidence on record at length and arrived at the conclusion that the respondents proved their title to the property. Such document, unless pleaded in the written statement and mentioned in the list of documents, ought not to have been received in evidence and even if received, it cannot be treated as source of right. The trial Court has discussed the evidence on record at length and arrived at the conclusion that the respondents proved their title to the property. As a result, the claim of the ownership made by the appellant, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property stands rejected. We are in agreement with the trial Court in this behalf. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. Point No.3: Without being the owner of the property also, in case the appellant proved his possession of the property, the relief of perpetual injunction could have been denied to the respondents. It may be true that Ex.A1, comprising a bunch of revenue receipts, was obtained by the respondents in the year 1989 and filed before the trial Court. However, Ex.A3 can certainly lend support to the claim of the respondents as regards the possession also. In contrast, the appellant failed to place any material before the trial Court to prove his possession. His evidence in the cross-examination is so feeble that he pleaded ignorance about the properties that fell to his share or his brothers’ share in the partition, or about the possession over the property. The other witnesses examined by him did not throw any light on the controversy. The finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant was not in possession of the property does not warrant interference. Point No.4: This point is almost consequential to the answers given to Point Nos.1 and 2. Once it is held that the appellant did not hold the title to the suit schedule property, there is no way, he could have been paid the compensation for the acquired land. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of.