Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1315 (AP)

Sikendar v. Syed Bavafakruddin

2023-09-15

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dtd. 18/2/2010 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, in reversing the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.295 of 2008 dtd. 18/2/2010 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. 2. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, in A.S.No.14 of 2011 (for short "the first appellate Court"). 3. Originally, the suit in OS No.295 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff before the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for grant of mandatory injunction and for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended by respondent/plaintiff that his father Dasthagiri Sab along with his two brothers Reddy Sahebpeer Saheb Reddy Sulaiman Saheb filed a suit in O.S No.314 of 1943 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madanapalle for declaration and permanent injunction against Syed Yakub Saheb and his brothers. The said suit was decreed in favour of the father of the plaintiff. It is also held in the said judgment that the suit schedule property is a burial ground belonging to ancestors of the family of the plaintiff. The plaint 'A' schedule property is the property covered by the decree in O.S.No.314 of 1943. The plaint schedule property is situated in Pedda Bazaar Street of Madanapalle Town. Towards the north of the suit schedule property there is a bazaar street. Till date the tombs of the ancestors of the plaintiff are being maintained in the schedule property. The plaintiff had employed a person by name Jaffer Hussain to safeguard the tombs. The said Jaffer Hussain has been doing coconut business abutting the plaint schedule with the permission of the plaintiff. The said Jaffer Hussain became old and he was unable to continue his coconut business. He has handed over the said business to his nephew viz Syed Bavalakruddin, Sayyed Mahaboob Basha i.e., defendants herein. About 4 years ago, they put up two wooden bunks in the plaint 'B' schedule property which is part of the plaint 'A' schedule property facing two northern side and doing coconut and other business claiming adverse interest against him in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property. About 4 years ago, they put up two wooden bunks in the plaint 'B' schedule property which is part of the plaint 'A' schedule property facing two northern side and doing coconut and other business claiming adverse interest against him in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property. It is further stated that, the 1st defendant secured license from the Municipality in his name and the name of Jaffar Hussain in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property claiming title over it against his interest and his family members and that the defendants being trespassers encroached upon the plaint 'B' schedule property. Hence the plaintiff preferred the suit. 4. The defendants have filed written statements contending that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limini and the averments made in the plaint are incorrect. The suit schedule property is a Government poromboke land. The said property was occupied by one Sayyed Saheb, S/o. late Imam Saheb in the year 1950 and he put the wooden bunks. He has been doing coconut, turmeric, kumkum business etc. In the year 1965, he passed away. Later his brother Jaffer Hussain, S/o. Imam Saheb continued the business in the sad premises till 1972. Because Jaffer Hussain has become old man he had handed over the business to the defendants. Since 1972, the defendants have been doing business in the said wooden bunks. The plaintiff has nothing to do with the said property. The plaintiff gave wrong picture to the Court with false representation. It is further stated that the plaintiff has no valid title and possession over the property. The defendants acquired title over the property by adverse possession because they have been doing business since 1972. It is also stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of plaint 'B' schedule property. The defendants made applications to the revenue authorities for issuance of patta. But the said land is in Survey No. 178, Grama Kantam and Peerla Chavidi, patta could not be given in the name of the defendants. The defendants have established their title not only against the plaintiff but against the Government also by adverse possession. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the trial Court framed the following issues as under:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property? 2. The defendants have established their title not only against the plaintiff but against the Government also by adverse possession. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the trial Court framed the following issues as under:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the defendants have unlawfully occupied the B schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as sought for? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of B schedule property? 5. To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. Also Advocate Commissioner who inspected the suit schedule property submitted a report, is marked as Ex.C1. 7. Basing on the material available on record and after going through the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.14 of 2011 before the appellate Court. 8. After going through the evidence adduced by both parties and on considering the submissions of both counsels, the first appellate Court has framed the following points for determination: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property and the defendants are liable to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff? 2. To what relief? 9. Basing on the facts and circumstances and also considering the material available on record, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the trial Court Judgment in O.S.No.295 of 2008. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal came to be filed. 10. This Court vide order, dtd. 19/10/2012, while granting status quo, Admitted the appeal by considering the clause (c ) of Ground No.14 of substantial question of law, reads as under: "Whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.314 of 1943/Ex.A1 and A2, dtd. 14/11/1945 for grant of declaration and permanent Injunction in respect of the very same suit schedule property is binding upon the respondents/defendants under law, when the said decree is became final." 11. 14/11/1945 for grant of declaration and permanent Injunction in respect of the very same suit schedule property is binding upon the respondents/defendants under law, when the said decree is became final." 11. As seen from the proceeding sheet, as the sole appellant died, the legal representative of the deceased sole appellant is brought on record as 2nd appellant vide order dtd. 28/10/2013. 12. Heard Sri V.Venu Gopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri E.Sambasiva Prathap, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the respondents. 13. On hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower appellate court set aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court without assigning any cogent reasons much less valid reasons under law. The first appellate ought to have seen that the subject property is a burial ground belonging to the appellant/plaintiff family and the dead bodies of ancestors of the appellant family were buried in the suit schedule property and constructed tombs and the appellant/plaintiff family members have been offering prayers at the schedule property since time immemorial, and the respondents/defendants were started coconut business on northern side of suit schedule property and subsequently encroached the B schedule property and making temporary constructions at that stage the appellant filed the suit O.S.No.295/2008 for grant of mandatory injunction and for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and the said suit is maintainable under law. 14. Learned Senior counsel mainly contended that the first appellate court ought to have seen that in respect of the very same suit schedule property in O.S No.295 of 2008 the father of appellant has filed suit in O.S No.314 of 1943 on the file of District Munsif, Madanapalle for declaration and permanent injunction and the same was decreed and it became final and the said judgment is binding upon all the parties including respondents/ defendants. He further submits that the first appellate Court ought to have seen that the respondents/defendants admit that on the rear side of the wooden bunk their graves, and the Commissioner also filed a detailed report which was marked as Ex.C1 clearly speaks that the bunks allegedly erected by the respondents have encroached some piece of land of A schedule property on northern side and they made wooden constructions in the suit schedule property. And also ought to have seen that the appellant/ plaintiff proved and established the entire case by producing necessary evidence and discharged his initial burden under law and also as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and the respondent did not file any iota of evidence that he is having rights over the property but the first appellate court erred in saying that the appellant is not entitle the relief basing upon the weakness of the respondent and the reasoning given by the lower appellate court is contrary to law. 15. To support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh, wherein it was held that : The initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff in view of Sec. 101 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under:- "Sec. 101. Burden of proof. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person." In terms of the said provision, the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it. The said rule may not be universal in its application and there may be exception thereto. The learned trial Court and the High Court proceeded on the basis that the defendant was in a dominating position and there had been a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The appellant in his written statement denied and disputed the said averments made in the plaint. Pleading is not evidence, far less proof. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. The defendant-appellant having not admitted or acknowledged the fiduciary relationship between the parties, indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue. The suit will fail if both the parties do not adduce any evidence, in view of Sec. 102 of the Evidence Act. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. The defendant-appellant having not admitted or acknowledged the fiduciary relationship between the parties, indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue. The suit will fail if both the parties do not adduce any evidence, in view of Sec. 102 of the Evidence Act. Thus, ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways : (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Sec. 101 is inflexible. In terms of Sec. 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored to him. However, as held in A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. However, as held in A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title." 16. Learned Senior Counsel has placed another reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Madhavkrishna and another versus Chandra Bhaga and others, (1997) 2 Supreme Court cases 203. wherein it was held that : The doctrine of adverse possession would arise only when the party has set up his own adverse title disclaiming the title of the plaintiff and established that he remained exclusively in possession to the knowledge of the appellant's title hostile to their title and that the appellant had acquiesced to the same. Since there is no plea that he had claimed any hostile title against Mansaram, the owner of the property, the earlier decree operates as res judicata. The present suit was filed within 12 years from date of the demise of Mansaram; hence, it was obvious that no adverse possession has been perfected against the appellant. Moreover, as against Mansaram, the predecessor in title of the appellant, the earlier decree operated as constructive res judicata. The present suit was filed within 12 years from the date of the demise of Mansaram; hence, it was obvious that no adverse possession had been perfected against the appellant. Moreover, as against Mansaram, the predecessor in the title of the appellant, the earlier decree operates as constructive res judicata of the principle of might and ought. The High Court, obviously, was incorrect in its finding that the respondents had perfected their title by adverse possession. 17. Moreover, as against Mansaram, the predecessor in the title of the appellant, the earlier decree operates as constructive res judicata of the principle of might and ought. The High Court, obviously, was incorrect in its finding that the respondents had perfected their title by adverse possession. 17. Learned Senior counsel while relying upon the above citations, submits that in terms of Sec. 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendants to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. He further submits that the appellant and their fore fathers have been using the suit schedule property as burial ground and their rights were already decided in earlier round of litigation in respect of the very same property and competent civil court declaring that the father of the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Therefore, learned counsel contended that the first appellate Court discarded the parameters in deciding the first appeal as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court. Hence requests to set aside the impugned judgment and pass appropriate orders. 18. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the plaintiff has no manner of right or title over the plaint schedule property because it is a gramakantam poramboke, and that the plaintiff is none other than the son-in-law of Jaffar Hussain, S/o Syed Saheb, who occupied in the year 1950. He further submits that the plaintiff has no valid title and possession over the said property. Further, the defendants/respondents have approached the revenue authorities and made inquiries regarding the properties situated in S.No.178, that it is a grama kantam poramboke and also peerala chavidi being used as burial ground and no patta was granted to anybody. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 19. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court observed that the appellant/plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the plaint 'A' schedule property, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property and the defendants are not liable to deliver vacant possession of the same to the appellant/plaintiff. It is relevant to discuss about the examination of witnesses. 20. It is relevant to discuss about the examination of witnesses. 20. PW.1 in his examination stated that in the year 1943, the family members belonged to Syed Yakub Sab and his brothers objected the utilization of the properties as sacred place by his father and his brothers and therefore this father and his brothers filed OS No.314 of 1943 on the file of District Munisif Court, Madanapalle and the said suit was contested by Syed Yakub Sab and his brothers. Except Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3, no other registered document filed on his behalf to show that the property in question originally belonged to his ancestors. 21. It is an admitted fact that the plaint 'B' schedule property is in possession of the defendants. PW.1 stated that the 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S No.498 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Madanapalle for grant of permanent injunction in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property with wrong measurements. Since the suit in OS No.295 of 2008 is not clubbed with the suit on hand, the merits of the present suit alone can be decided and the plaintiff cannot be declared as absolute owner of the property in question on the basis of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, because it is the specific plea taken by the 1st defendant that the property in question is the Government land and paramount owner of the said property is only the Government. PW.1 admitted that neither the defendants nor their forefathers were parties to the suit in OS No.314 of 1943, and that he did not possess any other record pertaining to plaint schedule property except Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. 22. PW.2 is the daughter of R.Dasthagiri Saheb who died in the year 1963, that her marriage was performed in the year 1957 and that the plaint schedule property is burial ground where her grandfather, her grandmother and other family members were buried. She admitted that she does not have any recorded evidence to prove that every year she has been visiting the plaint schedule property and she has been offering prayers therein. She also admitted that the decree in OS No.314 of 1943 is not against the defendants. PW.2 is the third party to the suit. He stated that plaint schedule property is burial ground and it belonged to the plaintiff. 23. DW.1 is the 1st defendant in the suit. She also admitted that the decree in OS No.314 of 1943 is not against the defendants. PW.2 is the third party to the suit. He stated that plaint schedule property is burial ground and it belonged to the plaintiff. 23. DW.1 is the 1st defendant in the suit. He stated that the plaint schedule property is situated in S No.178 and it is grama kantam poramboke and adjacent to it one peerla chavidi was being used as burial ground. In his cross examination he revealed that he is doing coconut business since 192, and that his maternal uncle is Jaffar Saheb and he has not executed any document in his favour allowing him to do coconut business, that Jaffar Hussain is alive, that he conducted coconut business for sometime and later he reacted two bunks and encroached into the land of graveyard, and that the Municipality has not issued door numbers to the bunks. 24. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit schedule property wherein the dead bodies of his ancestors were buried and since decades together his family members have been offering prayers int eh suit schedule property. When the ancestors of the defendants have questioned the rights of the plaintiff's father viz Reddy Dasthagiri Sab, he along with his two brothers had filed OS No.314 of 1943 on the file of District Municif Court, Madanapalle for declaration and injunction. The said suit was contested tooth and nail by the ancestors of the defendants and others. Eventually the suit was decreed observing that the plaintiff's father is the owner of the suit site with the tombs therein and the defendants therein were restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. 25. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, it is observed that, a competent court of law has thoroughly gone through the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff's father and the defendants ancestors and categorically held that the father of the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property along with the tombs. There is no record placed before the trial Court as to whether the said judgment was challenged before the appellate court. Further, in view of the judicial pronouncement under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule property. There is no record placed before the trial Court as to whether the said judgment was challenged before the appellate court. Further, in view of the judicial pronouncement under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule property. During pendency of the said suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and filed his report and it clearly speaks that there are tombs in the suit site and the said area has ben covered by putting iron bars as a fence and as per his opinion, they are nearly 50 years old. 26. It is the contention of the defendants that the suit schedule property is Governmetn poramboke. Except a bald contention the defendants could not produce any authenticated document to show that the suit schedule property was recorded in any revenue records as Governmetn poramboke. The defendants further contended that in view of their long occupation when they demanded the Government and Municipality to issue patta certificate, the same could not be issued contending that it is property situate within the Grama kantam. This admission made by the defendants is sufficient to say that they are not owners of the suit schedule property. They have taken the plea of adverse possession. When the defendants contended that the suit schedule property is a Governmetn porambok the adverse possession can be sought against the Government but not against the plaintiff. Contrary to the contention of the defendants in the earlier suit also the plaintiffs have proved that it is the private burial ground belonging to the plaintiff's family. 27. It is also observed that the defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their contention that they got the property from the real owner by virtue of any particular document. When the defendants are not the owners of that particular land how they came into possession of that property is necessarily to be explained by the defendants. There is no iota of evidence supporting the contention of the defendants that they are the owners and possessors of the said land. On the other hand, DW.1 in his cross examination admitted that the defendants got the bunk through their ancestors. 28. On a perusal of the above discussion, it is observed that, the learned District Munisif in the judgment in OS No.314/1943 dtd. On the other hand, DW.1 in his cross examination admitted that the defendants got the bunk through their ancestors. 28. On a perusal of the above discussion, it is observed that, the learned District Munisif in the judgment in OS No.314/1943 dtd. 14/11/1945 considered E.A1 the copy of decree in OS No.314/1943 on the file of District Muncisif Court, Madanapalle and Ex.A2, the copy of judgment in OS No.314/1993 and Ex.A3 a copy of the commissioner's report filed before the lower courtin the suit, and observed that the property in question was being used as burial ground by the ancestors of the plaintiff and there are 12 tombs in the site and it becomes a scared place of worship to which all Muslims have got the right. 29. It is not sufficient to declare the title of the plaintiff to the property in question, because the source of title of plaintiff's vendor is not at all referred in the judgment in OS No.314/1993. It is further observed that the when the judgment and decree not binding and when no registered document is referred in the judgment, it can be said that the plaintiff cannot acquire title to the property in question by virtue of the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.314/1993 on the file of District Munsif court, Madanapalle dtd. 14/11/1945 and the first appellate Court is competent to examine the correctness of the findings of the District Municif Court, Madanapalle in the judgment in OS No.314 of 1943 dtd. 14/11/1945. 30. The observation of the lower court is that it is the burden on the part of the defendants to establish as to when they have established the bunk in the plaint 'B' schedule property is also not justified because the question of shifting such burden arises only when the plaintiff succeeds in showing his title to the property in question. Though the payment of electricity tariff on which the defendants relied on, does not establish their title, they disclose their business in the plaint 'B' schedule property. Further, though the defendants did not put forward any documentary evidence to show that the property in question is belonging to the Governmetn and the Government is the paramount owner of the property in question, it cannot be said that the plaintiff succeeds in the suit in showing their title to the property in question. 31. Further, though the defendants did not put forward any documentary evidence to show that the property in question is belonging to the Governmetn and the Government is the paramount owner of the property in question, it cannot be said that the plaintiff succeeds in the suit in showing their title to the property in question. 31. Therefore, the finding given by the first appellate Court is proper and correct and warrants no interference by this Court and hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the well-considered judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. Therefore, finding no merit in the instant second appeal and devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. 32. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 33. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.