Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 410 (AP)

M. Mahalakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-03-06

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2025
ORDER : Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 14.09.2022 passed in case No.D.Dis.D1/365/2022 by respondent no.2 confirming the orders dated 23.12.2020 passed by respondent no.3 in D.Dis.G/4474/2019 as well as the orders dated 23.12.2019 passed in proceedings Roc.73/2019 by respondent no.4. 2. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that the land in an extent of Ac.0-60 cents in Survey No.134/3, Ac.0-28 cents in Survey No.134/4, Ac.0-27 cents in Survey No.134/5, Ac.0-38 cents in Survey No.134/6 and Ac.0-42 cents in Survey No.134/9-total Ac.1-95 cents (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘the subject property’) is the ancestral property of the petitioners and name of husband of petitioner no.1 was entered in revenue records as pattadar and enjoyer and the subject property and pattadar and title deed passbooks were issued in his name. Consequent to death of husband of petitioner no.1, the petitioners being legal heirs came into possession of the property. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from one Madduru Muni Govindaiah and executed registered mortgage deed by conditional sale dated 21.09.2025. Respondent no.5 filed suit in O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur against the petitioners and Madduru Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee for redemption of mortgage and permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed. Appeal preferred against the said orders vide A.S.No.36 of 2016 was also dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. Thereafter, respondent no.5 preferred second appeal vide S.A.No.949 of 2017 on the file of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and later respondent no.5 withdrew the same stating that respondent no.5 and Muni Govindaiah/ Mortgagee compromised the matter. It is the further case of the petitioners that they paid an amount of Rs.8,21,400/- towards principal amount and interest to Mortgagee and got cancellation of Mortgage deed by conditional sale dated 21.09.2005 vide document No.3988/2018, dated 28.8.2018. Thereafter, they made an application in Form 6-A to respondent no.4 for mutation and for issuance of e-passbook. The said application was rejected by respondent no.4 vide proceedings Roc.No.73/2019, dated 23.12.2019. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal before respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of respondent no.5. Thereafter, they made an application in Form 6-A to respondent no.4 for mutation and for issuance of e-passbook. The said application was rejected by respondent no.4 vide proceedings Roc.No.73/2019, dated 23.12.2019. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal before respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of respondent no.5. Respondent no.3 without considering the grounds of appeal and also the judgments passed in O.S.No.54 of 2007 and A.S.No.36 of 2012 and cancellation of mortgage deed-cum-conditional sale, held that there are rival claims between the appellants and respondent no.5 and advised the petitioners to approach civil Court. Assailing the said orders, the petitioners preferred revision under Section 9 of A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘the Act,1971) before respondent no.2-Joint Collector and the said revision was also dismissed vide orders dated 14.09.2022. When the Competent Civil Courts in suit as well as Appeal Suit filed by respondent no.5 held that the agreement of sale and sale deed projected by respondent no.5 are invalid and accordingly dismissed those proceedings holding that respondent no.5 has neither title nor possession over the subject land, the revenue authorities cannot decline the request made by the petitioners for mutation of their names and issuance of pattadar and title deed passbooks. The orders passed by primary, appellate as well as revisional authorities are unsustainable and against to the findings arrived at by the competent civil Court. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The official respondents filed counter-affidavit through respondent no.4-Tahsildar denying the material averments of the writ affidavit further contending that basing on the material available on record and considering the facts that though the petitioners are parties in all the civil proceedings, title over the subject property was not declared in their favour, that the second appeal filed before this Court was settled out of the Court in view of the compromise held between respondent no.5 and Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagor, that the Mortgagee had also given no objection to grant pattadar passbook in favour of respondent no.5 and that the petitioners did not challenge the orders passed in Second Appeal No.949 of 2017; the respondent no.2-Joint Collector dismissed the revision petition. There is no illegality nor procedural impropriety in passing the orders. There are no merits in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. There is no illegality nor procedural impropriety in passing the orders. There are no merits in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The respondent no.5 filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the writ affidavit and further contended that respondent no.5 purchased the subject property under agreement to sell dated 07.02.2005 executed by petitioners, but the petitioners, concealing the factum of execution of agreement to sell, mortgaged the property by execution of deed of mortgage-cum-conditional sale and as they failed to redeem, the conditional sale option came into operation and thus the suit filed by respondent no.5 vide O.S.No.54 of 2007 for redemption of mortgage was dismissed by the trail Court, holding that respondent no.5, who is third party to the said mortgage deed, cannot seek for its redemption. It is the further case of respondent no.5 that, the appellate Court though dismissed the appeal filed by him vide A.S.No.36 of 2012, held that respondent no.5 could establish execution of sale deed by the petitioners in his favour, however the same would not bind Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee and the petitioners lost the right to redeem the properties under the mortgage deed and respondent no.5 being not a party to the mortgage deed cannot seek for its redemption. It is the further case of the respondent no.5 that he preferred Second Appeal and in the second appeal, despite service of notices, the petitioners did not choose to appear since they sold the property and they had no right, possession and title over the said property. The respondent no.5 since purchased the property from the petitioners under sale deed, he discharged the entire mortgage debt due to Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee and got cancelled the mortgage deed. Therefore, the respondent no.5, apart from paying entire sale consideration under registered sale deed to the petitioners, was further burdened to clear off the mortgage debt to the Mortgagor, in view of the fraudulent attitude taken up by the petitioners. In fact, since the petitioners failed to redeem the property, the conditional sale option came into operation and pursuantly, the Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee got his names mutated in the revenue records and obtained pattadar and title deed passbooks in the year 2006 itself, however, the petitioners, who are aware that they lost right, title and possession over the property, did not take any steps. It is the further case of respondent no.5 that, after clearing off the mortgage debt due to the Mortgagor, whose names appear in revenue records, the mortgagee reported no objection and pursuantly the name of respondent no.5 was mutated in revenue records and pattadar and title deed passbooks were issued in his favour. The orders passed by preliminary, appellate as well as revisoinal authorities do not suffer from any flaw or irregularity. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same has to be dismissed. 5. The petitioners filed reply affidavit denying the averments of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.5 and further contended that it is the petitioners that have paid the amount to the Mortgagee for cancellation of the Mortgage deed as is evident from the recitals of the said cancellation deed and thus the contentions contra are false. It is their further case that respondent no.5 by playing fraud obtained their signatures by force and they never executed agreement to sell. After the petitioners got the mortgage deed cancelled, they approached the revenue authorities for mutation of their names in revenue records. Since there is no dispute regarding title to the property, there is no need for the petitioners to approach civil court for proving their title. However, upon erroneous view of the matter, the respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, directed them to approach civil court and without application of mind the respondent no.2-Joint Collector, concurred with the said findings. The writ petition has to be allowed and the order impugned in the writ petition and so also the orders passed by preliminary as well as appellate authorities have to be set aside. 6. Heard Sri P.Gangi Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents. 7. Sri P.Gangi Rami Reddy, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the suit filed by respondent no.5 vide O.S.No.54 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, having held that agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by petitioners in favour of respondent no.5 is antedated and a cloud is cast upon execution of agreement of sale as well as sale deed and further possession of the property was not delivered to respondent no.5. The learned counsel would further contend that the appeal preferred by respondent no.5 against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.54 of 2007 was dismissed holding that respondent no.5 was not a bona fide purchaser for value and that respondent no.5 was not in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the observations made by trial Court as well as Appellate Court in unambiguous terms say that respondent no.5 is not a bona fide purchaser for value of the subject property and that the agreement of sale is antedated and execution of the sale deed is shrouded with suspicion and that respondent no.5 is not in possession of the subject property. However, the primary, appellate as well as revisional authorities, upon misconception of the facts and misconstruing the observations made by the trial as well as appellate Courts rejected the claim made by the petitioners for mutation of their names in revenue records. The learned counsel would further contend that the second appeal filed by respondent No.5 vide S.A.No.49 of 2017 on the file of this Court was withdrawn by respondent no.5 alleging that there was compromise between respondent no.5 and Madduru Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagor. The said compromise is collusive and not recorded by this Court and moreover the petitioners not being parties to the said compromise deed the same does not bind them. Even otherwise, the cancellation deed of mortgage deed executed by Muni Govindaiah categorically mentions that the petitioners have discharged the debt due under the mortgage deed and upon such cancellation, the petitioners/mortgagees under the said document would become absolute owners of the subject property. The learned counsel would further contend that mutation of the name of respondent no.5 in revenue records and issuance of pattadar and title deed passbooks in his favour is in violation of Section 5(3) of the A.P.Rights in Land and pattadar passbooks Act, 1971 (For short, ‘AP ROR Act’) and Rule 19(2) of the Rules, 1989, since the petitioners have not been issued any notice before effecting modifications. The Primary, Appellate and Revisional authorities have not offered any reasons for rejecting the various contentions/grounds raised by the petitioners before dismissing the application/appeal/revision and therefore, there was utter failure on the part of the authorities in discharging their duties, since the mandatory requirement of specifically mentioning the reasons for rejection of the contentions is not mentioned in their orders. The Primary, Appellate and Revisional authorities have not offered any reasons for rejecting the various contentions/grounds raised by the petitioners before dismissing the application/appeal/revision and therefore, there was utter failure on the part of the authorities in discharging their duties, since the mandatory requirement of specifically mentioning the reasons for rejection of the contentions is not mentioned in their orders. The learned counsel would further contend that soonafter payment of mortgage money, the mortgagee cancelled the mortgage deed by conditional sale and thereafter delivered possession of the property to the petitioners and pursuantly the petitioners made application to the authorities for mutation of their names, but the authorities, despite the clear findings given by the trial court as well as appellate court that respondent no.5 is not in possession of the subject property, mutated name of respondent no.5 in revenue records, ignoring the fundamental principle that the person not in possession of the property is not entitled to mutate his name. The learned counsel would further contend that in fact the petitioners have redeemed the mortgage by payment of Rs.13,65,000/- to the mortgagee and consequently possession of the proeprty was delivered to respondent no.5. However, after the petitioners redeemed the property and got the mortgage-conditional sale deed cancelled; respondent no.5 in collusion with the mortgagee filed a letter dated 19.09.2018 before this Court as if respondent no.5 paid mortgage money and withdrawn the second appeal and moreover, the mortgagee stated before the revisional authority as if respondent no.5 and he compromised the matter and possession of the property was delivered to respondent no.5. The said oral assertions of Muni Govindaiah/ mortgagee are contrary to the recitals of the cancellation deed, which shows that the petitioners have paid the mortgage debt and redeemed the property. Therefore, the authorities upon misapprehension of the observations made by the trial as well as Appellate Courts, have dismissed the 6A application/appeal/revision filed by the petitioners. Further, the authorities have not followed the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to the petitioners before mutating the name of respondent no.5 in revenue records. Therefore, the authorities upon misapprehension of the observations made by the trial as well as Appellate Courts, have dismissed the 6A application/appeal/revision filed by the petitioners. Further, the authorities have not followed the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to the petitioners before mutating the name of respondent no.5 in revenue records. Therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside and consequently the orders passed by appellate as well as primary authorities are liable to be quashed and the authorities are to be directed to mutate the names of the petitioners in revenue records and to issue pattadar and title deed passbook in relation to the subject property.Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for respondent no.5, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit, would contend that the suit filed by respondent no.5 against the petitioners and Muni Govindaiah/mortgagee vide O.S.No.54 of 2007 was dismissed on the ground that title to the subject property has to be decided, which cannot be done in a suit filed for redemption of mortgage and since respondent no.5 is not a party to the mortgage deed-conditional sale, he cannot seek for its redemption. The learned counsel would further contend that the appeal preferred by respondent no.5 challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.54 of 2007 was dismissed holding that the respondent no.5 could establish execution of registered sale deed by the petitioners in his favour, the same though binds the petitioners could not bind the mortgagee under mortgage deed and further holding consequent to failure of petitioners in redeeming the mortgage debt, the conditional sale clause of the said mortgage deed got operated and the petitioners had lost their right to redeem and further the respondent no.5 being a third party to the mortgage deed has no right to seek for redemption of mortgage deed. The learned counsel would further contend that in the Second Appeal No.949 of 2017 filed by respondent no.5 before this Court, notices were sent to petitioners, but they did not choose to appear and the respondent no.5 paid the mortgage amount to the mortgagee and got the mortgage deed cancelled and accordingly the second appeal was withdrawn. The learned counsel would further contend that in the Second Appeal No.949 of 2017 filed by respondent no.5 before this Court, notices were sent to petitioners, but they did not choose to appear and the respondent no.5 paid the mortgage amount to the mortgagee and got the mortgage deed cancelled and accordingly the second appeal was withdrawn. Thereafter, the mortgagee delivered possession and consequently he made application to the revenue authorities for mutation of his name and the authorities after considering the submission made by Muni Gonvindaiah/mortgagee that he has no objection; mutated the name of respondent no.5 in revenue records and issued pattadar and title deed passbooks. The learned counsel would further contend that for cancellation of pattadar and title deed passbooks, one must necessarily file revision under Section 9 of the Act, but not by way of a petition before the primary authority/Tahsildar or by way of appeal before the appellate authority/ Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the petitioners instead of filing revision filed a petition before Tahsildar. But, the revenue authorities upon consideration of the observations made by Trial court as well as Appellate Court, rightly dismissed the petition/appeal/revision filed by the petitioners. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Whereas, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit and the contentions raised by learned counsel for respondent no.5, would contend that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the orders by Preliminary, Appellate and Revisional Authorities. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. There is no dispute that the subject property was the ancestral property of the petitioners and the name of husband of petitioner no.1 was mutated in revenue records as possessor and enjoyer of the subject property and pattadar and title deed passbooks were issued in his name and after his demise, the revenue authorities mutated the name of petitioner no.1 in revenue records. It is also not in dispute that petitioners borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from one Muni Govindaiah and for due discharge of the debt borrowed by them, they executed a registered mortgage deed by conditional sale. It is also not in dispute that petitioners borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from one Muni Govindaiah and for due discharge of the debt borrowed by them, they executed a registered mortgage deed by conditional sale. It is also not in dispute that, as per the above mortgage deed by conditional sale, the amount borrowed by the petitioners had to be paid together with interest by 21.09.2006, failing which the mortgage by conditional sale would become an absolute sale. 12. The suit filed by respondent no.5 vide O.S.No.54 of 2007 is for redemption of mortgage and for permanent injunction. 13. As could be seen from the contents of the judgment in O.S.No.54 of 2007 it is evident that the written statement of Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee filed in the suit was not denied by petitioners, who were arrayed as defendant nos.2 to 5 therein; consequent to failure of the petitioners to discharge the mortgage debt, the conditional sale clause got operated and the Mortgagee became absolute owner of the subject property and pursuantly he made an application to Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation based on the statements of petitioners, the name of Muni Govindaiah was mutated in revenue records. 14. Further, as could be seen from the said judgment in O.S.No.54 of 2007, the petitioners in their written statement contended that respondent no.5 obtained sale deed by playing fraud and by obtaining their signatures by force, having knowledge about the transaction between the petitioners and Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee. 15. In nutshell, the contentions advanced by Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee as well as petitioners is that respondent no.5 having knowledge about execution of mortgage deed by conditional sale in favour of mortgagee obtained sale deed from the petitioners by force and by playing fraud on them and further by creating an antedated agreement to sell. 16. 15. In nutshell, the contentions advanced by Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee as well as petitioners is that respondent no.5 having knowledge about execution of mortgage deed by conditional sale in favour of mortgagee obtained sale deed from the petitioners by force and by playing fraud on them and further by creating an antedated agreement to sell. 16. The trial Court held that the suit is only for redemption of mortgage, that the respondent no.5 is not a party to the mortgage deed, redemption of which is sought for in the suit, that the sale deed in favour of respondent no.5 is subsequent to the mortgage deed executed by the petitioners in favour of mortgagee/Muni Govindaiah; that there is a cloud on execution of sale deed and sale agreement executed in favour of respondent no.5 and since the suit is only for redemption and not being a suit for declaration of title, the validity of documents cannot be gone into and accordingly the suit was dismissed. 17. The appellate Court held that respondent no.5 had established with regard to execution of sale deed, however the same would only bind petitioners but not Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee and further as respondent no.5 purchased the subject property having knowledge about execution of mortgage deed by conditional sale by petitioners in favour of Mortgagee, he cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser for value. The Court further held that respondent no.5 has no right to redeem the property under the mortgage, being not a party to the said document. 18. It is also relevant here to note that the appellate Court observed that the petitioners did not enter into witness box to deny their signatures on the sale deed through which the respondent no.5 is claiming title over the subject property. 19. From the tenor of the judgments passed by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, it is evident that the suit as well as appeal filed by respondent no.5 were dismissed for the main reason that he being not a party to the mortgage deed is not entitled to seek for its redemption. The judgment passed by the appellate Court in clear terms says that respondent no.5 could prove execution of sale deed by petitioners in his favour. 20. The judgment passed by the appellate Court in clear terms says that respondent no.5 could prove execution of sale deed by petitioners in his favour. 20. From copy of the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in S.A.No.949 of 2017 filed before this Court shows that pending disposal of the second appeal vide S.A.No.949 of 2017, the appellant as well as first respondent therein viz., the respondent no.5 and Muni Govindaiah entered into a compromise and as per the Memorandum of Understanding, respondent no.5 shall pay an amount of Rs.13,64,000/- to Muni Govindaiah at the time of redemption of mortgage deed and thereupon the respondent no.5 will get absolute title over the subject property and accordingly the said second appeal was permitted to be withdrawn as settled out of court. Further, copy of cash receipt dated 27.08.2018 filed along with counter affidavit by respondent no.5 shows that the said Muni Govindaiah received an amount of Rs.13,65,000/- from the respondent no.5 on 27.08.2018. 21. As already held above, the appellate Court observed that the petitioners did never dispute their signatures on the sale deed propounded by respondent no.5. Further, as per the contents of the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in S.A.No.949 of 2017 filed before this Court, the respondent no.5 and Muni Govindaiah entered into compromise and accordingly the second appeal filed by respondent no.5 was withdrawn. Further, the receipt executed by Muni Govindaiah in favour of respondent no.5 shows that an amount of Rs.13,65,000/- was paid by respondent no.5 to Muni Govindaiah on27.08.2018. 22. From the above, it is evident that as on 22.09.2006 itself the conditional sale condition in the mortgage deed executed by petitioners got operated and the said Muni Govindaiah became absolute owner of the mortgaged property/subject property. It is also evident from the contents of the written statement filed by Mortgagee/Muni Govindaiah, the revenue authorities on the strength of statements of petitioners mutated his name in revenue records in the year 2006 itself. The petitioners did not dispute the said contention raised by Muni Govindaiah and it is their specific stand that respondent no.5 obtained sale deed from them by coercion and fraud. 23. The sale deed propounded by respondent no.5 is dated 22.07.2007 i.e. to say much subsequent to the date when the conditional sale condition got operated. The petitioners did not dispute the said contention raised by Muni Govindaiah and it is their specific stand that respondent no.5 obtained sale deed from them by coercion and fraud. 23. The sale deed propounded by respondent no.5 is dated 22.07.2007 i.e. to say much subsequent to the date when the conditional sale condition got operated. The trial as well as appellate court having noticed the same declined to hold that the respondent no.5 is a bona fide purchaser. However, those observations are only in juxtaposition of mortgage by conditional sale. 24. The revenue authorities have analysed the observations made by the Court in proper perspective in rejecting the 6A application/ appeal/revision filed by petitioners. 25. It is also relevant here to note that, according to the revenue authorities, subsequent to redemption of mortgage debt by respondent no.5, the Mortgagee/Muni Govindaiah submitted to the revenue authorities that he has no objection to mutate the name of respondent no.5 and accordingly name of respondent no.5 was mutated in revenue records and pattadar and title deed passbooks were issued in favour of respondent no.5. 26. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was violation of provisions of Section 5(3) of the AP ROR Act and Rule-19(2) of the Rules, 1989, since mandatory notice as required was not issued to the petitioners before mutating the name of respondent no.5. 27. The above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is unsustainable and is liable to be rejected for the reason that name of Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee was mutated in revenue records in the year 2006 or 2007 itself and that too on the strength of the statements recorded from the petitioners. It is evident from the contentions raised by respondent no.5 and revenue authorities that name of respondent no.5 was mutated on the strength of no objection of Muni Govindaiah, whose name appear in revenue records by then. Thus, there is no violation of any mandatory requirement as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 28. As supra stated, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that sale deed propounded by respondent no.5 was obtained by coercion and fraud. Thus, there is no violation of any mandatory requirement as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 28. As supra stated, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that sale deed propounded by respondent no.5 was obtained by coercion and fraud. It is fairly settled that sale deeds obtained by fraud and coercion are voidable at the option of the vendors, however by filing appropriate proceedings before competent civil Court that too by specifically pleading and proving the said fraud and coercion. Admittedly, the petitioners did not file any suit seeking cancellation of the said sale deed. 29. From the above, it is evident that the revenue authorities have scanned the material available on record and also perused the observations made by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court in proper perspective rightly rejected the claim made by the petitioners advising them to approach competent civil Court to redress their grievance. This Court finds neither illegality nor irregularity that warrants interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition. 30. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.