Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1135 (TS)

State of Telangana v. V. Madan

2025-09-26

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This City Civil Court Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree, dated 02.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff was decreed. 2. Appellants are defendant Nos.1 to 3; respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.4 before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.11 of 2016. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the above declaration suit seeking to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ie. house bearing No.1-3-448/13 to an extent of 120 square yards, situated at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”); to grant mandatory and permanent injunction directing the defendants to remove the board installed by them and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property. 4. It is stated that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property i.e., residential house bearing No.1-3-448/13 to an extent of 120 square yards, situated at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through registered sale deed vide document No.1690 of 2004, dated 16.06.2004 from U.Kasturi Bai W/o. late U.Manohar Rao. It is further stated that the vendor of the plaintiff had acquired the property through a Will Deed bearing document No.173/2, dated 24.10.2002 executed by her husband U.Manohar Rao, S/o. Keshava Rao and the said U.Manohar Rao inherited the property from his father U.Keshava Rao as he being his only son. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that V.Keshava Rao, had purchased the said property from one Narayan Das through registered sale deed dated 12.09.1345 Fasli and the said Narayana Das had purchased the said property from one Narsiga, through registered sale deed in the year 1917. Thus, the chain of transactions are valid legal and continuous since 98 years. 6. It is further stated that on 23.02.2015, defendant No.3-Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Lower Tankbund, Hyderabad, had erected a Board in the open area of plaintiff’s property stating that the suit property belongs to the Government. Thus, the chain of transactions are valid legal and continuous since 98 years. 6. It is further stated that on 23.02.2015, defendant No.3-Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Lower Tankbund, Hyderabad, had erected a Board in the open area of plaintiff’s property stating that the suit property belongs to the Government. Without verifying any records, though the suit property does not belong to the Government and it is a private property having title over the same for the last 100 years, now the defendants came and claimed that the suit property is a Government property and erected the said sign Board at the instance of certain local people, who started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. 7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the Government having kept quiet for so long years now came and make a claim over the suit property. When the plaintiff wanted to construct a house in the suit property, he made an application, dated 09.10.2013, before defendant No.4 seeking permission for construction of a residential house and defendant No.4 refused to grant permission and directed the plaintiff to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector, Hyderabad. It is stated that insisting of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector, Hyderabad, is arbitrary and as such, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 21.12.2015 under Section 80 of C.P.C. to the defendants calling them to restrain from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. On 02.01.2016, defendant No.3 asked the plaintiff to vacate the premises in spite of the plaintiff informing that he has title over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction. 8. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit property admeasuring an extent of 116 square meters in TS No.35, Block-D, Ward No.76 of Bakaram Village of Musheerabad Mandal as per Town Survey Land Record in respect of TS No.35, Column No.10 is recorded as ‘Sarkari’ and column No.20 is recorded as ‘G’ and ‘G’ denotes and classifies that the said land is Government land as per the entries in the revenue records. The said sign board was erected basing on the instructions of the Government. The said sign board was erected basing on the instructions of the Government. The suit land is in possession of the defendants and they have handed over an area of 43.46 square meters to Anganwadi Centre to the Supervisor O/o. Project Director, ICDS, Women and Child Welfare Department under a cover of panchanama, dated 22.03.2011 and A1 Notification, dated 04.04.2013 to that effect was issued informing the General Public about the construction of Anganwadi Centre over the said area and call for any objections for the said allotment of the suit property, which was classified as Government land, granting 15 days time from the date of publication of the notification for making their objections but no objections were received in response to the said notification. It is further contended that no single document is filed by the plaintiff to show that he is in possession of the suit property as such, the contention of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit property and seeking declaration and mandatory injunction is false and that the claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable for the reason that the suit property belongs to the Government, which is now in safe custody of the Supervisor, O/o. Project Director, ICDS, Women and Child Welfare Department, Hyderabad. 9. It is further stated by the defendants that a survey was conducted during 1964 to 1969 under Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) by issuing notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act, notifying all the concerned to participate in the survey. According to the survey, Sy.No.193/3 is correlated to TS No.35, Block-D, Ward No.76 of Bakaram Village, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Once the town survey was conducted, it has become final and a Gazette Notification was issued as required under Section 13 of the Act vide Gazette Notification No.36, dated 12.07.1977 and as such, the entries in the Town Survey Land Record (TSLR) have become final as none of them have questioned the said entries. 10. It is further contended by the defendants that the TSLR will prevail over any other documents and are in conclusive proof. Thus, the suit land is Government land. 10. It is further contended by the defendants that the TSLR will prevail over any other documents and are in conclusive proof. Thus, the suit land is Government land. It is further contended that the plaintiff, by creating all false documents, is trying to encroach upon the Government property and the documents filed by the plaintiff does not confer any right and title to the plaintiff over the suit property as such the plaintiff or his vendor has no right or title over the suit land. It is further contended that, any purchase of the Government land without consent of the Government is null and void, hence, the alleged transaction through the registered sale deed in respect of the suit property is null and void and mere grant of permission from Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad for payment of taxes, water and electricity charges does not confer any right or title to the plaintiff over the Government property. 11. It is further stated that the plaintiff having issued the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. as the mandatory period being 60 days, the plaintiff without waiting till completion of 60 days as per Section 80 of C.P.C. filed the suit prematurely within 17 days from the date of notice and on this ground also the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 12. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the trial Court has framed the following issues:- i) Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Mandatory Injunction as prayed for ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? (iv) Whether the suit is bad for the non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 80 of C.P.C.? (v) Whether the suit property is a Government land? (vi) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? (vii) Whether the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient? (viii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (ix) To what relief? 13. In support of his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendants, the Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. 14. (viii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (ix) To what relief? 13. In support of his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendants, the Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. 14. Considering the pleadings of both the parties mentioned in the plaint, written statement and oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that to establish his title and possession over the suit property, the plaintiff had filed the registered documents pertaining to him and his predecessors-in-title. It is further held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property under valid title as such he is entitled for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions as prayed for. 15. In respect of issue No.4, it is held that considering the emergency in filing of the suit the plaintiff sought for exemption under Section 80 (2) of C.P.C. and the petition, which was filed seeking exemption, was allowed. 16. In respect of issue Nos.6 to 8, the learned trial Judge came to conclusion that the Court Fee, which is paid for the relief of injunction was proper and correct and therefore, the contention of D.W.1 that the Court Fee, which is paid is insufficient is rejected. The learned trial Judge further held that the plaintiff filed the suit immediately when the defendants erected the sign board as such it is found that the plaintiff has cause of action and the suit is within limitation. Having held so, the learned trial Judge finally decreed the suit with costs by declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit property and directed the defendants to remove the board installed by them by way of Mandatory Injunction and the defendants are further restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the suit property. 17. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge, the defendants filed the present appeal on the following among other grounds:- (i) that the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is against the well settled principles of law and against to the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff and the judgments relief upon by the defendants were not considered and decreed the suit erroneously. (ii) that the plaintiff claimed the relief of declaration of title, mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the open land, styling the same to be a residential house, claiming to have been allocated a house bearing No.1-3-448/13 and falsely claiming that the same was purchased under the alleged registered sale deed dated 16.06.2004 vide document No.1690 of 2004. (iii) that the learned trial Judge ought not to have relied upon the Will Deed, dated 24.10.2002 and all the documents which are filed by the plaintiff are created one and no title whatsoever to the plaintiff as suit property is in fact open land situated inside a basti and the same has been illegally attempted to encroach upon by the plaintiff and his predecessors. Even the municipal number is given in respect of the property which is an extent of 120 square yards. (iv) that the extent and boundaries of the suit property and the extent and boundaries in the documents filed by the plaintiff are not tallying. (v) that the learned trial Judge failed to consider the fact that the vendor of the plaintiff and so also her predecessor-in- title never had any right, title or interest over the suit property and therefore, the question of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit does not arise. Infact, the documents filed by the defendant categorically mentioned that the suit property is in encroachment and there is no mention of extent in Exs.A3 and A4 the same are being the primary documents of title, which the plaintiff relied upon as his title documents, hence, viewed from any angle, the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is incorrect and liable to be set aside. (vi) that the learned trial Judge ought not to have consider Exs.A3 and A4, which are the documents only speak about the specific property without any extent and therefore they are being sought to be misinterpreted with an intention to grab the suit property. (vii) that the learned trial Judge incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the defendants and has also categorically erred in holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and that the suit property does not belong to the Government. (vii) that the learned trial Judge incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the defendants and has also categorically erred in holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and that the suit property does not belong to the Government. (viii) that for the first time an extent of 120 square yards was mentioned in the Will Deed, dated 24.10.2002 and without proving the said Will Deed the learned trial Judge had erroneously believed the same and granted declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. (ix) that the learned trial Judge relied upon the Will Deed, which is not proved as none of the witnesses, who attested the Will Deed, were examined and non-examination of any witness and failure to prove said documents disentitle the plaintiff to claim the title over the suit property. (x) that the learned trial Judge failed to consider the documents filed by the defendants i.e., Exs.B1 to B7 and the learned trial Judge appears to have relied heavily upon some tax receipts in respect of non-existing house; there are no electricity or water bills and the learned trial Judge did not consider the said aspect and decreed the suit, as such, it is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 18. Having heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellants and Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff and perused the record. 19. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration before this Court are as under:- (i) Whether the suit property belongs to the Government or it is a private land belonging to the plaintiff? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek relief of declaration of title and the mandatory and permanent injunction as prayed for? (iii) Whether the learned trial Judge has committed any error in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff declaring him as absolute owner of the suit property and also granting mandatory and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff? 20. (iii) Whether the learned trial Judge has committed any error in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff declaring him as absolute owner of the suit property and also granting mandatory and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff? 20. POINT Nos.1 to 3:- Before going into the aspect whether the plaintiff is entitled to any declaration as owner of the suit property, it is pertinent mention here that in a case where a declaration is sought for in respect of the title to the property and where any cloud has been cast upon the title of any land owner, it is for the owner of the said property who claims title over the property has to prove that he has acquired the title and mode of acquisition of the title. 21. In the present case the plaintiff though contended that he has title over the property i.e., house bearing Municipal No.1-3-448/13 admeasuring 120 square yards with a plinth area of 500 square feet of Tin Sheet Roof, situated at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad and the same was acquired by him from Smt.U.Kasturi Bai W/o late U.Manohar Rao vide registered document No.1690 of 2004, dated 16.06.2004 under Ex.A1. The vendor of the plaintiff U.Kasturi Bai had acquired the title under the Will Deed No.173 of 2002 i.e., Ex.A2 which is said to have been executed by U.Manohar Rao, who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff’s vendor. It is also contended that one Narsiga S/o. Buchiga was the original owner of the property and he sold the property in favour of one Narayan Das, S/o. Bhagwandas R/o. Kavadiguda under sale deed 1335 Hijri equal to 1917 A.D. and subsequently Narayana Das, S/o. Bhagwandas had sold the said property in favour of one Keshav Ram S/o. Hariram through registered sale deed under Ex.A4. It is further contended that U.Manohar Rao, who is the son of U.Keshava Rao had inherited the same from him. 22. It is the contention of the appellants before this Court that originally the Government is in possession of the property and the plaintiff is never in possession of the same. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has argued that the documents, which relied upon by the plaintiff, are Exs.A3 and A4 wherein the extent of the land has not been mentioned except the document number and other particulars. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has argued that the documents, which relied upon by the plaintiff, are Exs.A3 and A4 wherein the extent of the land has not been mentioned except the document number and other particulars. It is further contended that the property of Narayan Das was acquired by Keshav Ram under Ex.A4. It is also argued that the extent was not mentioned in link documents and for the first time in the Will Deed, dated 24.10.2002 the extent of 120 square yards was mentioned. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that as per TSLR, which reflects that the said lands are in possession of the Government and even till date the possession is with the Government and no boundaries are tallying in Exs.A1 to A4 and that no findings were recorded on the documents filed by the defendants. 23. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/ plaintiff has submitted that the title link of the plaintiff has substantially proved by placing all the documents under Exs.A2 to A4 i.e. Will Deed, dated 24.10.2002; sale deeds of the year 1917 and sale deed of the year 1345 Fasli, respectively. He further contended that the series of the documents i.e., title deeds would prove that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and is having title and exercising his rights over the suit property. He further contended that the exhibits which are marked on behalf of the plaintiff would clearly establish that he is in possession of the property ie., total area of 120 square yards. 24. On perusal of Ex.A1, which is a sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by Smt.U.Kasturi Bai in respect of land to an extent of 120 square yards. Ex.A2 is said to be the Will Deed through which the said U.Kasturi Bai had acquired the title, was executed by U.Manohar Rao S/o. U.Keshava Rao in favour of his wife, wherein property i.e., house bearing No.1-3-448/13 admeasuring 120 square yards was bequeathed to the vendor of the plaintiff. It is contended that the said property was inherited by U.Manohar Rao, who is the husband of the vendor of the plaintiff from his late father U.Keshava Rao, who purchased the said property vide sale deed No.439, Page No.9, Book No.I, Volume No.II for the year 1345 Fasli, which is marked as Ex.A4. It is contended that the said property was inherited by U.Manohar Rao, who is the husband of the vendor of the plaintiff from his late father U.Keshava Rao, who purchased the said property vide sale deed No.439, Page No.9, Book No.I, Volume No.II for the year 1345 Fasli, which is marked as Ex.A4. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.A2-Will Deed are North: Marwadi’s cremation yard; South: H.No.1-3-448/6 and Lanes; East: 20 feet wide road and West: Marwadi’s cremation yard. 25. On perusal of Ex.A3, which is said to be the sale deed executed by Narsiga S/o. Buchiga in favour of Narayan Das S/o. Bagwan Das, in respect of the compound which was in his possession and enjoyment. The said compound is bounded by East: Vacant Land and Dilapidated House of Neighbour; West: Hindu Graveyard and Vacant Land; North: Hindu Graveyard and South: Vacant Land. 26. It is pertinent to note that the sale deed, which was marked as Ex.A3 was executed by Narayan Das in favour of Keshav Ram S/o. Hari Ram in respect of the property i.e., compound with thatched roofed hut situated at Kavadiguda, which is bounded by East: Vacant land and Dilapidated House of Faizuddin; West: Hindu Graveyard and Vacant Land; North: Hindu Graveyard and South:Vacant Land. 27. The Encumbrance Certificate, dated 16.12.2015, which is placed before the Court shows that the house property which is sold by U.Kasturibai in favour of the plaintiff is that House bearing No.1-3-448/13 bounded by East: 20 feet road, West: Marwadi’s cremation yard; North:Marwadi’s Cremation Yard and South H.No.1-3-448/6. 28. No doubt except the boundaries towards Southern side and Eastern side there is a variation in the boundaries which are mentioned in all the documents. As per the sale deed of the plaintiff and the Will Deed executed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff, on eastern side boundary there is 20 feet wide road and on southern side boundary there is a H.No.1-3-448/6 and Lane, whereas, as per the documents under which Narayan Das had purchased the property, on Eastern side boundary there is a Vacant Land and Dilapidated House of Neighbour and on Southern side there is a Vacant Land. Even the document through which Narayan Das sold the property to Keshav Ram S/o. Hari Ram was one compound with thatched roof hut situated at Kavadiguda and on Eastern side there is a Vacant land and Dilapidated House of Faizuddin and on Southern side there is a vacant land. From the above, it is clear that the boundaries in the sale deed, which was executed by Narsiga in favour of Narayan Das and the sale deed, which was executed by Narayan Das in favour of Keshav Ram are similar and one and the same and whereas the boundaries mentioned in the Will Deed and the sale deed, which is executed by U.Kasturi Bai in favour of the plaintiff are totally different and more particularly on Eastern and Southern boundaries are not tallying and even as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader for the appellants that no extent was mentioned in the sale deeds of Narayana Das and Keshav Ram except stating that one compound with thatched hut. 29. Even it is also seen from the Will Deed, which is executed by the husband of the vendor of the plaintiff, the source of his title was mentioned that he had inherited the said property from his father U.Keshava Rao, who purchased the property through sale deed No.439 Page No.79 of Book-I, Volume No.II, dated 12.9.1345 Fasli. 30. Even if the said sale deeds are taken to be true and correct, the sale deed executed by Narayan Das was in favour of one Keshav Ram S/o. Hari Ram, whereas the husband of the plaintiff’s vendor was U.Manohar Rao, who is son of U.Keshava Rao as such the plaintiff could not place reliance that both U.Keshava Rao and Keshav Ram S/o. Hari Ram are one and the same. Further, there is nothing on record to show that said U.Keshava Rao and Keshav Ram S/o. Hari Ram is one and the same. It is also found that there is a discrepancy in respect of the boundaries and no extent was mentioned in both the sale deeds. 31. Further, there is nothing on record to show that said U.Keshava Rao and Keshav Ram S/o. Hari Ram is one and the same. It is also found that there is a discrepancy in respect of the boundaries and no extent was mentioned in both the sale deeds. 31. Coming to the evidence placed by the defendants i.e., Government in respect of the suit land, as per Ex.B1, dated 22.03.2011, panchanama, which shows that the house bearing No.1-3-448/13 of Kavadiguda, Musheerabad Mandal, an extent of 43.46 square meters was handed over to the Supervisor, ICDS, Musheerabad Sector by the Mandal Revenue Officer for construction of Anganwadi Centre. He also placed Ex.B2-A1 notification, which was made on 04.04.2013, inviting the general public that an area of 43.46 square yards of Government land in Sy.No.189/P area correlated to T.S.No.35, Block-D, Ward No.76 of Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal has been proposed for construction of Anganwadi Centre, Bakaram Village and boundaries of the said land are North: T.S.No.35, South: T.S.No.36, East: Road and West: T.S.No.7 to submit their objections, if any, by giving 15 days time but no objections were received from anybody. 32. No doubt, the Government has placed the documentary evidence by way of Exs.B1 to B4 to show that the suit property pertaining to the Government. Simultaneously the plaintiff though examined P.W.1 as the sole witness on his behalf and relied upon the aforesaid documents, but in view of the variation of the boundaries in the documents, which are filed by the plaintiff and also in the absence of there being any extent of the land mentioned in the link documents and also there is a variation of the name of Keshav Ram S/o. Hari Ram whereas the husband of the plaintiff’s vendor, who executed the Will Deed, who has contended that he had inherited the property from U.Keshava Rao and in the absence of any documents to show that Keshav Ram S/o. Hari Ram and U.Keshava Rao being one and the same. Therefore, there is no link of the title between Keshava Ram S/o. Hari Ram and U.Keshava Rao, who is the father of U.Manohar Rao, who had executed the Will Deed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. 33. Therefore, there is no link of the title between Keshava Ram S/o. Hari Ram and U.Keshava Rao, who is the father of U.Manohar Rao, who had executed the Will Deed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. 33. Apart from that, it is also seen and contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that the lands which are claimed by both the parties are situated in different area, one is in Bakaram Village and other one is in Kavadiguda though both are in same mandal but at a distant place. 34. It is also pertinent to mention that there was a survey conducted in the year 1964-1969 under the provisions of the Act by issuing notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act inviting all the concerned to participate in the survey and the said survey has become final as Gazette Notification was published and no objections were filed in respect of TSLR. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff had created the documents and was trying to encroach upon the Government property basing on the above documents, which shows that the plaintiff has not established any valid title over the suit property but the learned trial Judge, ignoring the said contention of the defendants and also the discrepancies in the entire title deeds with regard to the extent and boundaries of the land had believed those documents and basing on the said documents, had came to an erroneous conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title, relief of mandatory and permanent injunction and decreed the suit without considering the fact that the plaintiff could not establish the title from Keshava Ram S/o. Hari Ram and subsequently from U.Keshava Rao to the vendor of the plaintiff nor the chain of link of the title of the plaintiff was established. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of the plaintiff appears to be unbelievable and as such the findings in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge deserves to be set aside by allowing the appeal. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the points are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent-plaintiff. 35. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the points are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent-plaintiff. 35. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 02.04.2019 passed by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.11 of 2006. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.