Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 407 (AP)

Vurlagadda Nanjappa v. B. V. Mallanaradhya

2013-06-07

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

body2013
Judgment : Unsuccessful defendants 2 and 3 in both the courts below are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit in the trial Court originally for permanent injunction, which relief was amended subsequently for declaration of title and possession. Originally the suit for permanent injunction was filed in respect of Ac.5.15 cents in S.No.264/4 of Bheemaganipalle village, Punganur Taluk, Chittoor District, which is the suit land. After the amendment, the declaration was sought in respect of Ac.1.90 cents out of the suit S.No. It is the plaintiffs’ case that originally Gururajamma who is mother of the plaintiffs 1,2 and 4 and grand-mother of the 3rd plaintiff perfected her title for the suit land by adverse possession and that during survey and settlement operations, Gururajamma was granted patta by the settlement authorities for the suit land and that Gururajamma died intestate in the year 1971 leaving the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit land without any manner of right whatsoever. The defendants on the other hand contended that they have right and title as well as possession in the extent of Ac.1.90 cents in the suit S.No. on northern side and that Jamindar of Punganur granted patta for Ac.3.27 cents in paimaish Nos.18 and 28 in favour of the first defendant in the year 1944 and in addition to it, the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.00 therein on kanagi tenure and perfected his right and title to the suit land by adverse possession and that there is a demarcating ridge for the land of Ac.1.90 cents in suit survey number. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs’ right and title for the suit property and granting permanent injunction. On appeal by the defendants 2 and 3, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 approached this Court with this second appeal. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the then learned Judge of this Court found that substantial questions of law are raised in Ground Nos.2 to 6, 17 and 21 of the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 approached this Court with this second appeal. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the then learned Judge of this Court found that substantial questions of law are raised in Ground Nos.2 to 6, 17 and 21 of the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. They are as follows : “2: The Courts below committed a grave error in holding that the rough patta, Ex.A2, is a document of title and that the plaintiffs have established their title and that the defendants have no right to challenge the rough patta in a civil Court. 3. The Courts below committed a grave mistake in holding that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to question the correctness or otherwise of a patta granted by the Settlement Authorities under Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act 1948, relying upon a judgement of this Hon’ble Court which is no longer good law in view of the later Supreme Court judgment rendered in State of Tamilnadu V. Ramalinga Samigal. 4. The Courts below failed to note that the Settlement Officer had already entertained an application U/Sec.56 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 as to who are the lawful ryots in respect of the suit schedule land and that the said proceeding is in between the parties to this suit and the same is pending adjudication by the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Chittoor in his S.R.No.20/56(1)/85(Ex.B6). 5. The Courts below failed to consider relevant documentary evidence filed on behalf of the Appellants viz., Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. 6. The lower Appellate Court had not even referred to Ex.B5 and B6 and gave a go bye to the Commissioner’s report and the plan marked as Ex.C1 and C2. 17: The Lower Appellate Court failed to note that the question whether plaintiffs or defendants are entitled to patta for the schedule land is very much pending before the Settlement Officer and unless and until the competent authority, decides the question, it is premature to give a decree for title in ex-estate lands and the suit is not maintainable in law. 21: The Courts below committed a grave error in decreeing the title of the plaintiffs in respect of Ac.1.90 situate on the northern side of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is in Ac.5.15 in S.No.264/4 and that in effect the Court decreed the title for an additional extent of Ac.1.90 to the north of the suit schedule land which is nobody’s case.” Out of the above grounds, ground Nos.5 and 6 relate to purely questions of fact. The Courts below considered not only all relevant documents, but also all the documents filed by both the parties. Exs.B5 and B6 are documents post litem motam which have no bearing in determining rights and contentions of both the parties in the suit. The litigation under Section 56(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (in short ‘the Act’) was started by the appellants after filing of the suit in the trial Court and after decision of the trial Court herein. In any event, Exs.B5 and B6 do not support the defendants’ case and the said proceedings ended against the defendants. Exs.C1 and C2 Commissioner’s proceedings are not helpful in determining title and rights of the parties to the suit land. The Commissioner’s proceedings at best may be useful to note physical features on the land as on the date of Commissioner’s visit. The said proceedings are also not useful to determine as to who was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the date of suit or the Commissioner’s visit or visits. Therefore, ground Nos.5 and 6 do not survive for consideration in this second appeal. For the same reasons, ground No.4 also fails. Ground Nos.17 and 21 are connected to ground Nos.2 and 3. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that the Courts below should not have relied upon Ex.A2 rough patta to find out title of the plaintiffs for the suit land of Ac.5.15 cents in S.No.264/4. He relied upon decision in R. ELUMALAI CHETTY v. R.RATHNAVELU CHETTY (1971(2) AWR 193) of Division Bench of this Court. The appellants’ counsel placed strong reliance on para 18 of the said decision and contended that rough patta is not a document of title. He relied upon decision in R. ELUMALAI CHETTY v. R.RATHNAVELU CHETTY (1971(2) AWR 193) of Division Bench of this Court. The appellants’ counsel placed strong reliance on para 18 of the said decision and contended that rough patta is not a document of title. After going through the provisions and the prescribed forms and the procedure to be followed by the settlement authorities after an estate was notified, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows : “18. From the foregoing paragraphs and the form of rough patta, it is clear that the rough patta is only a notice issued to the registered holder with a view to enable him to make his representations with regard to the proposed revision of rate, taram and other particulars mentioned in the said rough patta. But it does not appear from the aforesaid paragraph that the settlement authorities could decide any matter excepting the matters which have a bearing upon the particulars mentioned in the several columns of the said form. The questions relating to title to or proprietorship of the holding are not within the purview of the authorities who carry out the resettlement operations. The rough patta, it will be seen in a mere notice calling upon the registered holder to prefer his objections with regard to the details mentioned therein. The rough patta cannot therefore, be terms as a document of title or as constituting evidence of title. The issue of rough patta is one of the steps taken in the process of carrying out resettlement operations in respect of a ryotwari area and it has no bearing at all on the question of title to the holding itself. After hearing the objections, no further grant of a regular patta is contemplated by the said instructions. It enables the settlement authorities to carry out the necessary changes in the land register and the rough chitta on the basis of the orders issued after hearing the objections and these accounts are again submitted to the appropriate authority for preparation of the resettlement register for the village concerned.” While holding that the questions relating to title to or proprietorship of the holding are not within the purview of the authorities who carry out settlement operations, it was further observed by this Court that rough patta is only a notice issued to the registered holder to enable him to make his representations. Division Bench of this Court while specifically holding that rough patta cannot be termed as a document of title or as constituting evidence of title, it was further observed that issue of rough patta is one of the steps taken in the process of carrying out resettlement operations in respect of a ryotwari area and has no bearing at all on the question of title to the holding itself. In the case on hand, the Courts below did not declare the plaintiffs’ title to the suit land merely on the basis of Ex.A2 rough patta which was given to mother of the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 by name Gururajamma. Ex.A2 is one of the several documents relied upon by the plaintiffs in their favour. Ex.A2 rough patta was given to Gururajamma in the year 1958 itself. The suit in the trial Court was filed in the year 1975. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that though Division Bench of this Court contemplated conducting of enquiry after issue of rough patta, no such enquiry was conducted in this case. It is neither pleading nor evidence of the defendants to the above effect. In the absence of any such evidence, the presumption of regularity of all the official acts arises under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In any event, the Division Bench further observed that notice issued by way of rough patta to the registered holder was with a view to enable him to make his representations with regard to the proposed revision of rate, taram and other particulars mentioned in the said rough patta. The Division Bench further observed that it does not appear that the settlement authorities could decide any matter excepting the matters which have bearing upon the particulars mentioned in several columns of the said form and that the questions relating to title to or proprietorship of the holding are not within the purview of the authorities who carry out the settlement operations. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to contend that no detailed enquiry was made after issue of Ex.A2 rough patta to Gururajamma. It is not as if any of the defendants or their predecessors put in any application or objections before the settlement authorities to decide their claims for title to the suit property or any part thereof. It is not as if any of the defendants or their predecessors put in any application or objections before the settlement authorities to decide their claims for title to the suit property or any part thereof. Till disposal of the suit in the trial Court, any of the defendants did not raise his little finger in order to make claim to any part of the suit land. Even thereafter, the defendants are stated to have failed in their attempts before the settlement authorities. Division Bench of this Court categorically observed that after hearing the objections, no further grant of a regular patta is contemplated by the instructions and that it enables the settlement authorities to carry out the necessary changes in the land register and the rough patta on the basis of the orders issued after hearing the objections and that these accounts are again submitted to the appropriate authority for preparation of the resettlement register for the village concerned. The plaintiffs in this case apart from filing Ex.A2 rough patta issued in the year 1958, filed Ex.A7 copy of No.10(1) account of the village as well as Ex.A8 copy of fair adangal of the village to show that the suit land of Ac.5.15 cents has been registered in the name of Gururajamma. No.10(1) account as well as settlement fair adangal are prepared in accordance with the resettlement operations conducted under the Act. It is only after issue of Ex.A2 notice styled as rough patta, name of the plaintiffs’ predecessor Gururajamma was carried out as holder/pattadar in the said settlement fair adangal as well as in No.10(1) account. Ex.A2, A7 and A8 read together indicate that in resettlement operations under the Act, Gururajamma’s holding of Ac.5.15 cents of the suit land was confirmed by the settlement authorities and her name came to be mentioned in the settlement accounts as well as in the revenue and village accounts. The said exercise constitutes confirming rights of Gururajamma for the suit land under the Act. Apart from the above documents, the plaintiffs also filed copies of No.2 adangals for faslies 1375 to 1377 by way of Ex.A9 to show their possession of the suit land even after resettlement operation. The said exercise constitutes confirming rights of Gururajamma for the suit land under the Act. Apart from the above documents, the plaintiffs also filed copies of No.2 adangals for faslies 1375 to 1377 by way of Ex.A9 to show their possession of the suit land even after resettlement operation. The plaintiffs also filed Exs.A11 to A16, A19 to A21 and A10 land revenue receipts for the suit land for the period prior to filing of the suit as well as subsequent to the suit. Exs.A17 and A18 are other copies of adangal and No.10(1) account for the suit land. Apart from being in possession of the suit land and having holding/patta for the suit land, Gururajamma also applied for loan as per Ex.A6 loan application from Land Mortgage Bank, Punganur and obtained loan covered by Ex.A1 file on the security of the suit land. Therefore, the Courts below declared right and title of the plaintiffs of the suit land not merely on the basis of Ex.A2 rough patta but also on the basis of full fledged documents of title and possession filed by the plaintiffs. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that Punganur Jamindar granted patta for Ac.3.27 cents in paimaish Nos.18 and 19 of the suit village as per Ex.B1 dated 21.10.1944. The defendants filed Ex.B2 land revenue receipt dated 20.10.1944 and also Ex.B3 notice dated 16.01.1959 issued by survey and settlement authorities and also Ex.B4 copy of Paimaish adangal. There is no dispute that the defendants are given patta for Ac.2.41 cents in S.No.265/6 of the suit village, which land is lying adjacently to the north of the suit land. Inspite of granting patta for Ac.2.41 cents to the defendants, they did not raise even little fingers to claim any more land for them on the basis of Ex.B1 jamindari patta before the settlement authorities during resettlement operations. It is orally contended by the appellants’ counsel that the erstwhile jamindar of Punganur granted patta not only to the first defendant but also to Gururajamma for Ac.3.27 cents and Gururajamma was given Ex.A2 rough patta notice for Ac.5.15 cents. On the other hand, it is also oral contention of the plaintiffs that jamindar of Punganur granted patta to Gururajamma for Ac.5.15 cents and that the said jamindary patta was surrendered to the settlement officer at the time of resettlement operations during the course of enquiry. On the other hand, it is also oral contention of the plaintiffs that jamindar of Punganur granted patta to Gururajamma for Ac.5.15 cents and that the said jamindary patta was surrendered to the settlement officer at the time of resettlement operations during the course of enquiry. This Court does not propose to place any reliance on oral contentions of each of the parties, which are not based by record. This Court finds that predecessor of the plaintiffs by name Gururajamma was holding Ac.5.15 cents of the entire suit land in her own right since prior to resettlement operations and she was given Ex.A2 rough patta for Ac.5.15 cents and subsequently resettlement operations concluded after making necessary enquiry confirming holding of Gururajamma for Ac.5.15 cents and the said confirmation of holding of Gururajamma for the suit land is evidenced by No.10(1) account as well as settlement fair adangal. Therefore, the courts below are legally justified and factually correct in decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit. I find on the substantial questions of law that though Ex.A2 rought patta by itself is not a document of title, subsequent proceedings as evidenced by settlement fair adangal and No.10(1) account of the village indicate that in resettlement operations, the settlement authorities confirmed holding of Gururajamma for the entire suit land of Ac.5.15 cents. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.