Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1876 (TS)

Yenkatala Anjaiah v. Yenkatala Ananthaiah

2025-12-19

RENUKA YARA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Renuka Yara, J. Heard Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants on admission. Perused the entire record. 2. The Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.36 of 2024 dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Vikarabad (‘First Appellate Court’), confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.118 of 2016 dated 04.06.2024 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Vikarabad (‘trial Court’), wherein a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession has been decreed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs directing the appellants herein/defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. 3. The brief facts of the dispute between the appellants and the respondents herein are that one Yenkathala Balaiah was a common ancestor of the appellants and the respondents. After the death of said Balaiah, all the properties which stood in his name were mutated in the name of his wife-Yenkathala Bichamma. After the death of Yenkathala Bichamma, the property devolved on her sons by name Yenkathala Bhimaiah and Yenkathala Hanmaiah. The said properties were mutated in the name of the eldest son, Yenkathala Bhimaiah, though both were in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties. According to the respondents, Yenkathala Bhimaiah and his brother Hanmaiah have cultivated the land in Sy.No.121/A, admeasuring Ac.3-12 guntas along with land in other survey numbers situated in Allipur Village, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, upto 1991-1992. Thereafter, the properties were partitioned between Bhimaiah and Hanmaiah orally. The land in Sy.No.121/A to an extent of Ac.3-12 guntas at Allipur Village has fallen to the share of the father of respondents i.e., Bhimaiah. The father of the respondents died in the year 1998, leaving two sons namely Yenkathala Ananthaiah and Yenkathala Ramulu. After the death of Bhimaiah, the sons i.e., the respondents have applied for mutation in revenue records with respect to land bearing Sy.No.134/EE, 181/A, 121/A and 134/AA to an extent of Ac.2-00, Ac.1-06 guntas, Ac.3-12 guntas and Ac.2-00 respectively at Allipur Village, Dharur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. The said mutation proceedings have been effected and thereafter, entries were made in books of record of rights. The respondents were issued with title deed passbook and were receiving amounts under Rythubandu. The respondents obtained bank loans by submitting the original title deed of the suit schedule property as security. The said mutation proceedings have been effected and thereafter, entries were made in books of record of rights. The respondents were issued with title deed passbook and were receiving amounts under Rythubandu. The respondents obtained bank loans by submitting the original title deed of the suit schedule property as security. The father of the appellants i.e., Hanmaiah died leaving behind the appellants as his legal heirs and successors. The appellants have no right over the property belonging to the respondents. It is the respondents who are jointly cultivating the land in Sy.Nos.121/A/2 and 121/A/1 to an extent of Ac.1-21 guntas and Ac.1-21 guntas totaling to Ac.3-12 guntas which is the suit schedule property. Since the respondents were aged and were not having money and muscle power, the appellants dispossessed them on 08.06.2016 leading to filing of the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 4. The case of the appellants is that actual partition between Bhimaiah and Hanmaiah took place about 30 years ago and they are in possession of the respective lands. Bhimaiah being the elder son, all the lands were mutated in his name after the death of their mother Bichamma. Further, Bhimaiah and Hanmaiah have purchased other lands in addition to the suit schedule property. The lands continued to be in the name of Bhimaiah till the year 2002, but the appellants are in actual possession and cultivating said land. The mutation proceedings were obtained and revenue documents marked under Ex.A-1 to A-49 were obtained behind the back of defendants i.e., appellants herein. As per oral partition, the suit schedule property belongs to the appellants and they are in physical possession of the said land for more than 30 years. Therefore, the question of dispossession of the respondents from suit schedule property on 08.06.2016 does not arise and it is concocted only for the purpose of grabbing the suit land. In support of the case of appellants, Ex.B-1 to B-4 are marked i.e., certified copies of pahanies for the years 1971-72, 1975-76, 1981-82 and 1991-92. 5. Therefore, the question of dispossession of the respondents from suit schedule property on 08.06.2016 does not arise and it is concocted only for the purpose of grabbing the suit land. In support of the case of appellants, Ex.B-1 to B-4 are marked i.e., certified copies of pahanies for the years 1971-72, 1975-76, 1981-82 and 1991-92. 5. Upon considering the extensive documentary evidence filed by the respondents in support of their case for declaration of title and recovery of possession under Exs.A-1 to A-49 and Exs.B-1 to B-4 filed by the appellants, the learned trial Court held that relationship between the parties is admitted, that the lands were partitioned between Bhimaiah and Hanmaiah after the death of Bichamma, and that some more properties are acquired and oral partition took place. It is observed that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants i.e., D.W.1 and D.W.2 have admitted the occurrence of name of respondents in the revenue records issuance of old pattadar passbook, new pattadar passbook and that the appellants did not object for issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the respondents. Further, there is admission by the witness D.W.1 that after the death of Bhimaiah the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the respondents. It is held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs/respondents herein are absolute owners from the year 2002 onwards and their names are reflected in the pahanies for the years from 2005-06 to 2013-14 and mee seva pahanies for Fasli 1423 marked under Exs.A-28 to A-43. Further, the title is also evidenced in the pattadar passbooks issued under Exs.A-47 to A-49, whereas the appellants failed to prove their case of the possession by producing material evidence. It is held that once the respondents have discharged their burden of proof with respect to title and possession, the onus of proof shifted to the appellants to show oral partition and their possession over the suit schedule land. However, no evidence is produced to prove the possession of the appellants over the suit lands. It is held that the cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants reveals that the respondents have pattadar passbook and new pattaadar passbook issued after introducing Dharani. No steps were taken to challenge the new pattaadar passbook issued in favour of the respondents. It is held that the cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants reveals that the respondents have pattadar passbook and new pattaadar passbook issued after introducing Dharani. No steps were taken to challenge the new pattaadar passbook issued in favour of the respondents. There is admission about the respondents having ownership over the suit land on account of issuance of title deed and passbook. Therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, declaring them as owners of the land in Sy.No.121/A/ 2 and 121/A/1 admeasuring Ac.1-26 guntas and Ac.1-26 guntas respectively, i.e., total of Ac.3-12 guntas situated at Allipur Village, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (presently Vikarabad District) and directed the appellants to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred A.S.No.36 of 2024 before the First Appellate Court. 6. The First Appellate Court considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the rival parties, made an extensive discussion and came to a conclusion that the respondents have demonstrated their title and possession over the suit lands, whereas the appellants herein did not produce acceptable evidence to demonstrate their title and legal possession of the suit land. It is seen that the First Appellate Court has meticulously considered the cross-examinations of P.W.1, D.W.1 and D.W.2 and analyzed the entitlement of the respondents for the reliefs sought in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , AIR 2014 SC 937 . It is also seen that the First Appellate Court has considered the documentary evidence marked under Exs.A-1 to A-49, going through the appearance of names of the respondents to the exclusion of the names of the appellants. After an extensive discussion, it is held that the respondents have proven their case for declaration of title and delivery of possession, whereas the appellants have failed to prove their case of continued possession of suit lands for three decades. In view of the factual findings, the first appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 7. After an extensive discussion, it is held that the respondents have proven their case for declaration of title and delivery of possession, whereas the appellants have failed to prove their case of continued possession of suit lands for three decades. In view of the factual findings, the first appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings in favour of the respondents by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is preferred by raising the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the entries in the revenue records constitute or create title in immovable property? b) Whether a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession based on entries in revenue records is maintainable without explaining the independent source of title? c) Whether the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the premise that the defendants failed to disprove the case of the plaintiffs is not only contrary to the established principles of law, but amounts to perverse finding by both the Courts? d) Whether the suit for declaration and recovery of possession is barred by limitation as the suit is filed after 14 years from the date of obtaining ROR in 2002? 8. The learned counsel for appellants relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagdish Prasad Patel v. Shivnath , (2019) 6 SCC 82 , wherein it is held as follows: “44. In the suit for declaration of title and possession, the respondent-plaintiffs could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the appellants-defendants. The burden is on the respondent-plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for declaration. The respondent-plaintiffs have neither produced title document i.e. patta- lease which is the respondent-plaintiffs are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence. As noted above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few khataunis are not proof of title, but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title.” 9. As noted above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few khataunis are not proof of title, but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title.” 9. In the backdrop of the above citation, when the case at hand is examined, it is seen that the respondents to prove their possession over suit lands have relied upon the entries in pahanies under Exs.A-1 to A-25, A-27 to A-42, entries in 1-B Namuna (ROR) under Exs.A-43 and A-44, mutation proceedings under Exs.A-26 and A-45. In addition, the respondents have relied upon Exs.A-47, A-48 and A-49, which are title deed passbooks of the respondents under the old and new laws i.e. ROR Act and Dharani passbook. Since Exs.A-47, A-48 and A-49 are produced in proof of title, the appellants cannot contend that the respondents are merely relying upon entries in ROR books in proof of title. Such is not the case. The respondents have produced Exs.A-47 to A-49 in proof of title and have produced Exs.A-1 to A-44 in proof of their possession, which include pahanies right from the year 1977-78 onwards up to the year 2016. 10. Per contra, the appellants have produced certified copies of the pahanies for the years 1971-72, 1975-76, 1981-82 and 1991-92 (Exs.B-1 to B-4). The contention of the appellants about being in possession of the suit schedule lands for 30 years does not find any support in the documentary evidence produced. When the contention of the appellants is that oral partition took place about 30 years ago between their ancestor Hanmaiah and the plaintiffs’ father Bhimaiah, and that they are in possession of the suit lands, the onus of proof would be on them to prove possession if not title. However, the appellants have failed to produce convincing evidence to claim possession over the suit lands for 30 years. 11. When the substantial questions of law are considered, it is seen that the substantial question at Sl.No.(a) about entries in revenue records creating title in immovable property is not a substantial question of the law and neither is a proper question with respect to facts. 11. When the substantial questions of law are considered, it is seen that the substantial question at Sl.No.(a) about entries in revenue records creating title in immovable property is not a substantial question of the law and neither is a proper question with respect to facts. Both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have considered entries in revenue records only for the purpose of considering the possession of the respondents and not as proof of title of the respondents. 12. Coming to the substantial question of law at Sl.No.(b), it is seen that declaration of title is not granted on the basis of entries in revenue records, but on the basis of the title passbooks produced by the respondents under Exs.A-47 to A-49. 13. With respect to the substantial question of law at Sl.No.(c), it is seen that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court did not rely upon the weakness of the appellants in proving their possession, rather, it is held that the respondents have discharged their burden of proof and that the appellants failed to discharge their onus of proof. The suit was not decreed by the trial Court and First Appellate Court on account of failure of the appellants to prove their possession, rather the respondents succeeded in proving both the title and possession upto the year 2016 on account of the voluminous evidence produced under Exs.A-1 to A-49. It is not out of place to mention that the oral evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 in their cross- examination is crystal clear about the title deed passbooks being issued in favour of the respondents and that they did not object for issuance of title deed passbooks in favour of the respondents. The said title passbooks were never challenged and the pahanies convincingly show the possession of the respondents over suit lands. When such categorical admissions are made, no further evidence is required to prove the case of the respondents. 14. The said title passbooks were never challenged and the pahanies convincingly show the possession of the respondents over suit lands. When such categorical admissions are made, no further evidence is required to prove the case of the respondents. 14. Lastly, coming to the substantial question at Sl.No.(d) with respect to the suit being barred by limitation as being filed after 14 years from the date of obtaining ROR in the year 2002, it is a point to be noted that the suit is not filed for declaration of title on account of any event that took place in the year 2002, rather, the suit was filed in the year 2016 on account of illegal dispossession of respondents by the appellants herein. Only when the respondents were illegally dispossessed from the suit land on 08.06.2016, within a period of two months, the suit was filed seeking declaration of title and delivery of possession. 15. It is seen that all the alleged substantial questions of law raised are about factual findings given by both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in favour of the respondents and there is no new point much less substantial question of law left to be adjudicated by this Court in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. Thus, there are no merits in the Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.