Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 520 (AP)

Salapu Ramana v. Salapu Sanyasirao

2013-07-05

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
Judgment : The respondent filed O.S.No.226 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, against the petitioners herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of, as many as 21 items of suit schedule property, which are agricultural lands of small bits. He has also filed I.A.No.814 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for injunction against the petitioners. He narrated the manner in which, he is said to have acquired the rights over the property, after the death of his father, and the nature of rights, being exercised by him, vis-à-vis the land. He alleged that the petitioners were interfering with his possession without any basis. The petitioners filed counter, denying the allegations. According to them, the suit schedule property is held by the joint family, and the respondent was not entitled to claim absolute rights over it. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through its order dated 21-07-2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.34 of 2010, in the Court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The C.M.A was dismissed, through order dated 30-12-2010. Hence, this revision. Sri K.V. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit schedule properties are held by the joint family, and no partition has taken place. He contends that the respondent filed the suit, without even referring to the relation of the parties, and has wrongfully claimed exclusive rights over the property. He contends that Form-1-B Register, maintained under the A.P. Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder, constitutes the basis to determine the ownership and possession, and in utter disregard of the same, the respondent managed to get the title deeds, taking advantage of the fact that his father-in-law was the Village Revenue Officer. He submits that even now, the petitioners are in possession of the property. Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the suit schedule property exclusively belongs to his client, and the same is evident from Exs.P-1 and P-2, the pattadar pass books and title deeds. He submits that the latest adangals also support the claim of the respondent and the petitioners miserably failed before both the Courts below, to establish their possession over the property. He submits that the latest adangals also support the claim of the respondent and the petitioners miserably failed before both the Courts below, to establish their possession over the property. In the suit for injunction, filed by him, the respondent has also prayed for the relief of temporary injunction, by filing IA.No.814 of 2009. The parties are related to each other. The respondent, however, pleaded that the property was held by his father, and on his death, it devolved upon him. The relevant issue before the trial Court, at that stage, was, about the prima facie case, as to possession. The respondent filed Exs.P-1 to P-9. Out of which, Exs.P-1 and P-2 are pattadar passbooks and title deeds, respectively, and Exs.P-3 and P-4 are copies of No. 3 adangals, dated 13-10-2009. Exs.P-5 to P-7 are land revenue receipts, Ex.P-8 is the sale deed dated 13-03-2008, and Ex.P-9 is the agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A., dated 18-05-2007. On behalf of the petitioners, Exs.R-1 to R-14 were filed. Except Exs. R-6 to R-9, i.e., 1-B registers in favour of the petitioners 1, 5 and 9, rest of the documents are land revenue receipts and adangals for earlier years. At the interlocutory stage, the trial Court has to depend mostly upon the documentary evidence. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the parties assume significance, in view of the presumption provided for under the Act. It may be true that the entries in 1-B register constitute the basis for issuing a pattadar pass book. However, if the pattadar pass book is issued in respect of a piece of land, ignoring the entries in 1-B register, it would constitute a ground for the aggrieved party, to prefer appeal under Section 5-B of the Act. As long as the pattadar pass book remains, the presumption deserves to be drawn and the Court cannot ignore the same. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have taken into account, Exs.P-1 and P-2, and the entries in the adangals. It is only when the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court are found to be perverse, or not based upon any evidence, that this Court can interfere in a revision. Such a situation does not arise in the instant case. It is only when the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court are found to be perverse, or not based upon any evidence, that this Court can interfere in a revision. Such a situation does not arise in the instant case. If the petitioners file appeal under the Act, and are successful in getting Exs.P-1 and P-2 set aside, they can certainly seek modification of the order under revision. Hence, the C.R.P is dismissed, however, observing that, in case Exs.P-1 and P-2 are set aside by an Appellate Authority under the Act, at the instance of the petitioners, it shall be open to them to file an application under the relevant Rules of Order XXXIX C.P.C., before the trial Court, and the same shall be decided on its own merits. The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.