Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1215 (AP)

K. M. Rao v. B. Sannapayya

2024-08-28

HARINATH N., R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
ORDER : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Siva Sankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 8. 2. Respondents 1 to 8 had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.41019 of 2018. The contention of respondents 1 to 8 was that they were the owners of Ac.15.42 cents in Sy.No.143 of Kodimi Village, Ananthapuram District, and the Sub-Registrar was refusing to receive and register the document of alienation being presented by them in relation to this land. Respondents 1 to 8 contended that such refusal, in the absence of the land being included in the list of prohibited property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Registration Act. 3. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by judgment dated 14.11.2018, had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Sub-Registrar to receive and register the documents presented by respondents 1 to 8, if they are in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act, and without reference to the entries in adangal if the subject land is not listed under any prohibited properties, under Section 22-A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants herein, who are third parties to the writ petition and who are residents of the village, have filed the present appeal after obtaining leave of this Court. 5. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the land in question does not belong to respondents 1 to 8, and in fact, belongs to the Anjaneyaswamy Temple in the village. He would contend that late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa, who is owner of this land and the person through whom respondents 1 to 8 are claiming title, had gifted the said property to the temple, by way of a registered deed of gift, dated 16.01.1936. The said deed of gift was registered as document No.80/1936, in Book-1, Volume-24, before the Sub-Registrar, Ananthapur. Sri O. Manohar Reddy would also draw the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Ananthapur, dated 15.03.2018. The said deed of gift was registered as document No.80/1936, in Book-1, Volume-24, before the Sub-Registrar, Ananthapur. Sri O. Manohar Reddy would also draw the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Ananthapur, dated 15.03.2018. These proceedings were a revision sought by Sri T.V. Ramudu under the provisions of Section 9 of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, for rectification of the names of the descendents of late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa in the revenue records, to the extent of Ac.15.42 cents in Sy.No.143. The Joint Collector, after going through the record, had held that there was a claim by the endowments department over the said land on the basis of a revenue entry in the adangal for the year 2005 and that the earlier requests of the revision petitioners, before the Tahsildar, Ananthapur, had been rejected on the ground that the 10-1, Chitta of Kodimi Village, records the land in the name of Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple and that mutation in favour of the revision petitioners therein could be done only if required documents could be produced. 6. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, would contend that these two facts are sufficient to show that respondents 1 to 8 have no title over the land and are only seeking to sell away the land, which was already been gifted by their ancestors. 7. Sri P. Siva Sankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 8 would submit that a counter had already been filed in the writ appeal. The learned counsel would submit that the writ appeal is not maintainable as the appellants had no locus sandi in filing the appeal. He submits that the appellants had no claim over the land and that they are only seeking to illegally obtain the said land for their own purposes. He would further submit that he has also placed before this Court, an endorsement said to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Ananthapur, dated 25.06.2015, as well as a proceeding of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ananthapur, dated 03.06.2015, to contend that the Endowment Department has no claim over the land and their claim is based solely on one entry in the revenue adangal for the year 2005. He contends that the deed of gift relied upon by the appellants is not a valid document, and in any event, late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa could not have alienated the said land, as he had a son, who is a minor by then, and as such the alienation is not valid. He further submits that such gift deed would not be valid unless a temple is standing on the land, which is gifted to the temple. 8. In view of the registered deed of gift executed by late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa, in favour of Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, it must be held that there has been a transfer of land through late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa, to the temple. The contention of respondents 1 to 8 is that the alienation is invalid on the ground that the son of late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa is alive and a minor would be no relevance. It may be recorded that the gift was made in the year 1936 and the son of late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa, who may have been a minor at that time, was entitled to dispute the alienation after he had attained majority. No such attempt has been made nor any such document has been placed before this Court. In the circumstances, the alienation of land, by late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa, to the temple is not affected by minority of the son of late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa. 9. The proceedings of the Tahsildar as well as the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner are only to the effect that they are unaware of the source of title and that the claim of the endowment department is on the basis of an entry in the adangal for the year 2005. The fact that the official authorities claim ignorance of the source of title does not take away the effect of the registered deed of gift executed by late Sri Talari Peddanna Gari Sanjeevappa. These documents are of no avail to respondents 1 to 8. 10. The contention of late Sri Siva Sankar that gift to the temple is invalid because the temple is not standing on the land, which is gifted to it, is only being stated to be rejected. 11. These documents are of no avail to respondents 1 to 8. 10. The contention of late Sri Siva Sankar that gift to the temple is invalid because the temple is not standing on the land, which is gifted to it, is only being stated to be rejected. 11. At this stage, Sri Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the respondents, upon being instructed by his client, states that even if the deed of gift is to be accepted as true, the purpose for which the gift has been given is not being fulfilled and as such the gift has been vitiated. He would submit that the gift was made for the purpose of performing pooja in the temple and since no such pooja is carried on, the gift would be invalid. This is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into, because this question is made across the bar without any pleading in the affidavit and without any proof for such an averment. In the circumstances, this Court cannot accept such a contention. 12. The contentions that the appeal is not maintainable and that the appellants have no locus standi, cannot be accepted for the reason that the 1st appellant is described as Poojari of the temple. In any event, it is settled law that God is an eternal minor and any of his devotees, as next best friend, can agitate the rights of endowment institutions. This Court finds that the appellants have locus standi to file the present appeal. 13. Accordingly this writ appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.41019 of 2018 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.