Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1034 (AP)

Rampa Apparao v. Gattu Jagan Mohana Rao

2024-08-08

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. Assailing the order dated 29-5-2000 of Agent to Government, East Godavari District, Kakinada, passed in O.S. No. 5 of 1998, whereby the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, the instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the said suit. 2. Heard Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the appellant through virtual mode and Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 5 of 1998 before the Court below sought the relief of declaration of title and so also for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants therefrom and for also consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property after restoring the possession of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is having title in the plaint schedule property. 5. The defendants pleaded before the Court below that they never encroached the road margin and the 1st defendant is a permanent resident of Addateegala village and constructed a thatched house in Survey No. 18 with the permission of Gram Panchayat and thereafter converted into thatched house. The defendants further pleaded that they are living in their site only and they have not encroached any site of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed the suit to harass the defendants for unlawful gain. 6. On hearing both sides, the Court below passed the following order: “Suit is dismissed. Patta is to be cancelled and the land resumed to Government.” 7. The relief sought by the appellant/plaintiff is to declare his title into the plaint schedule property and so also recovery of possession after evicting the defendants thereon and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction. 8. It is trite law that in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weaknesses, if any, of the case set up by the defendant would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff. The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff. In a suit for ejectment based on title, it was incumbent on the part of the Court to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit property. The Court is also bound to enquire or investigate that question on first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit. By ignoring the law, as stated supra, the Court below passed a two-line cryptic order without assigning any reasons and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 9. The learned Agent to Government, East Godavari District, Kakinada, rather than examining that question in depth as to whether the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his title on the suit property, a cryptic two-line order is passed viz. “Suit is dismissed. Patta is to be cancelled and the land resumed to Government.” No reasons were assigned by the Court below for dismissing the suit and no finding was given with regard to the alleged ownership of a party. The Court below also failed to discuss in depth who is the owner of the property. Thus, the order passed by the Court below is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Therefore, interest of justice requires that the matter has to be remanded back to the Court below with a direction to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence on the alleged title of the parties and also to examine who was the owner of the property and appreciate the facts and evidence on record with governing law and dispose of the suit on merits. For this purpose, this Court set up the following points for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff in the suit is having right and title in the plaint schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff in the suit is entitled to the relief of possession of the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 10. For this purpose, this Court set up the following points for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff in the suit is having right and title in the plaint schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff in the suit is entitled to the relief of possession of the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 10. Accordingly, the appeal suit is allowed and the order dated 29-5-2000 passed in O.S. No. 5 of 1998 is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below with a direction to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, if any, on the two points set up supra by this Court and after hearing arguments, pass an order on merits. The entire exercise shall be completed within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. In the circumstances, each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.