Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 10 (TS)

Anuradha Green Lands Pvt. Ltd. v. E. Pentaiah

2020-01-06

KUNURU LAKSHMAN, M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2020
ORDER : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. This Application is filed by the appellant in A.S. No. 686 of 2019 to suspend the operation of the judgment and decree dt. 20.08.2019 in O.S. No. 142 of 2012 of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The said suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in this Application for the following relief’s: (i) Puss a judgment and Decree thereby direct the Defendant No. 1 and 2 to Partition the Suit Schedule Property into 2 equal shares and to deliver the 1/2 share to the Plaintiffs jointly by appointing an Advocate Commissioner thereby passing a Preliminary and Final Decree, (ii) Pass a judgment and decree, consequently declaring Three Regd. Sale Deeds vide Doct. Nos. (i) 6242/2000. Dt. 03-08-2000, (ii) 6243/2000. Dt 03-08-7000 and (iii) 2392/2002. Dt: 21-03-2002 as null and void and the same are not binding on the Plaintiffs (iii) Pass a judgment and decree thereby directing the Defendant No. 14 to cancel the entry of the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 and their father and also Defendant No. 13 names in Revenue Records under Proceedings No. ROR 636/1995. Dt: 05-08-1995 and thereby enter the name of the Plaintiffs in the Revenue Records in respect of Survey No. 364/2, situated at Jamvada Village. Shankarpalli Mandal R.R. District (iv) Award Costs of the suit throughout and (v) pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." 3. According to respondents 1 and 2, they are the sons and legal heirs of E. Komaraiah and defendants 1 to 10, who are respondents 3 to 12, are the legal heirs of one N. Narayana; that on 29.08.1975, Komaraiah and Narayana obtained Ownership Certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of Ac. 5.18 guntas in Sy. No. 364/2 of Janwada Village, Shankarpalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that each of them has an half share therein i.e., Ac. 2.29 guntas. They contended that Komaraiah died on 03.06.1987 leaving respondents 1 and 2 as his legal heirs; that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpalli Mandal. 5.18 guntas in Sy. No. 364/2 of Janwada Village, Shankarpalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that each of them has an half share therein i.e., Ac. 2.29 guntas. They contended that Komaraiah died on 03.06.1987 leaving respondents 1 and 2 as his legal heirs; that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarpalli Mandal. Ranga Reddy District (defendant No. 14/respondent No. 15) issued proceedings No. ROR/636/1995 in favour of Narayana without issuing notice to respondents 1 and 2; and on the basis of the same, registered sale deeds were executed by defendants 1 and 2/respondents 3 and 4 in favour of the appellant for an extent of Ac. 2.10 guntas under Document No. 6242/2000, dt. 03.08.2000 along with defendants 3 to 11. It is also contended that on 21.03.2002, another registered sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant for Ac. 0.38 guntas in the same survey number. They also contended that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, confirmed the 38-E Certificate issued to Komaraiah and that on 12.02.2012, respondents 3 and 4 along with the appellant illegally entered into the suit schedule property and made attempts to dispossess respondents 1 and 2. 4. The appellant/defendant No. 13 filed a written statement opposing the suit claim. The appellant claimed ignorance of the grant of 38-E Certificate on 29.08.1975 for Ac. 5.18 guntas in Sy. No. 364/2 in favour of Komaraiah and Narayana. It denied that Komaraiah and Narayana have half share in the said extent of land. It contended that sale deeds executed in its favour on 03.08.2000 and 21.03.2002 are both valid. It contended that it had exercised due diligence and verified all revenue records and purchased the suit schedule property by paying valuable consideration and that there was mutation in favour of Narayana or 05.08.1995 and that the Certificate of Ownership under Section 38-E does not confer any right on respondents 1 and 2 or Komaraiah. 5. By judgment and decree dt. 20.08.2019, a preliminary decree was passed by the Court below as under: "1. The sua of the Plaintiffs is decreed for partition in the suit schedule properly into two equal shares i.e. Ac. 2-29 guntas each and one such share is allotted to the plaintiffs. 2. The registered sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No. 13 vide documents No. 6242/2000 dated 03-08-2000 and 6243/2000 dated 03-08-3000 and 2392/2002 dated 21-03-2002 are declared to he null and void. 2-29 guntas each and one such share is allotted to the plaintiffs. 2. The registered sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No. 13 vide documents No. 6242/2000 dated 03-08-2000 and 6243/2000 dated 03-08-3000 and 2392/2002 dated 21-03-2002 are declared to he null and void. 3. The plaintiff' are entitled for rectification of revenue records with regard to the suit schedule property and they are entitled to record their names as pattedars and possessors with regard to the half share in the suit schedule properly, i.e. to an extent of Ac. 2-29 guntas in Sy. No. 364/2. " 6. Assailing the same, the appellant/13th defendant has filed this Appeal. 7. Heard Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Sri L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel for Sri Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 8. This being an Appeal arising out of a suit for partition, the usual order which should be passed in the appeals of this nature is that the passing of final decree would be stayed, and all other proceedings would be permitted to go on. 9. Though it is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the petitioner is in possession of the entire extent of suit schedule land, the same is disputed by respondents 1 and 2 who contend that they are in possession of Ac. 2.29 guntas and they are cultivating the same and there is a panchanama (Ex. A8) which discloses this. 10. Notwithstanding the above pleadings of either party, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted because the Court below did not agree with its contention. It also did not agree with the contention of respondents 1 and 2 since it only passed a preliminary decree and not a final decree which would then determine in which portion either party would be entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. 11. Therefore, we pass the following order in I.A. No. 1 of 2019: "Pending disposal of the Appeal, all other proceedings shall go on except passing of final decree. Neither the appellant in the Appeal/petitioner in this I.A. nor the respondents shall alienate any portion of the suit schedule property." 12. The I.A. is accordingly ordered. No costs.