Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ravipudi Lakshminarayana Another vs Parvathareddy Sreedhar Anand 19 Others on 20 October, 2021
Author: M. Venkata Ramana
Bench: M. Venkata Ramana
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
APPEAL SUIT No.537 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This is a regular first appeal preferred under Section 96 CPC by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.186 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. The respondents were all the defendants. By the decree and judgment dated 02.06.2014, the suit was dismissed without costs.
2. The appellants laid the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property to allot their alleged share of Ac.2.23 cents out of it or in alternative to allot the above extent in a single plot out of Ac.19.41 cents taking into consideration equities and to grant a permanent injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from going on with their mining operations in the plaint schedule property till division of the property by metes and bounds.
3. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as under:
"Prakasam District Registration - Chimakurthy Sub Registration Chimakurthy village - land an extent about Ac.19.41 cents consists as a single plot with the suit three items in S.Nos.933/1, 933/2 and 960 of Chimakurthy Revenue Item No.1: Patta No.148 - S.No.933/1 - out of Ac.6.27 cents East : S.No.980/1 belongs to Devarakonda Peda Kotaiah S.No.980/2 land South : Item No.2 land covered in S.No.933/2 West : S.No.977 land belongs to Guddanti Venkata Ramana etc North : Item No.3 land to some extent and S.No.587 land to some extent In which plaintiffs' share Ac.0.65½ cents MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 2 Item No.2: Patta No.141 - S.No.933/2 - out of Ac.9-63 cents East : Lands in S.No.981, 982 South : Lands of Guddanti Gopala Krishna etc. West :Land of Pallala Subba Rao, Kadiyam Peda Venkateswarlu China Venkateswarlu North : Item No.1 In which plaintiff's share is Ac.1.21 cents Item No.3: Patta No.647 - S.No.960 out of Ac.3.51 cents bounded by East : Lands of S.Gangaiah etc. South : Land in Item No.1 of Guddanti Venkata Ramanlu West : Land in S.No.977 of Guttanti Venkata Ramanlu North : Land of Vemula Kanakaiah to some extent and others In which plaintiffs' share is Ac.0.36 ½ cents Total extent of plaintiffs' share in three items is Ac.2.23 cents."
It shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the suit lands' for convenience.
4. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, Sri Vemuri Jayaramaiah, Sri Divi Venkatacharyulu, Sri Uppalapati Venkataswamy, Sri ParisettiBrahmaiah and Sri Mastan Khan jointly purchased an extent of Ac.3.51½ cents in Survey No.960, Ac.9.63 cents in Survey No.933/2 and Ac.6.27 cents in Survey No.933/1 of Chimakurthy village under registered sale deeds dated 22.04.1946, 27.03.1946 and 23.04.1946 respectively. They were in possession and enjoyment of these entire lands, that constituted a single plot of Ac.19.41 cents.
5. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao was a primary school teacher at Chimakurthy. The material on record is that he was in possession and enjoyment of other lands at Chimakurthy including in Sy.No.580/2 and the respondents 1 to 3 stated that he also owned certain extents in Sy.No.937/1 of the same village apart from house property. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao had four sons, viz. respondents 5, 9, 10 MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 3 and Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao apart from two daughters Smt.Chundi Rajamma and Smt.Saradamba. The respondents 6 and 7 are the sons of Sri Kondapi Krishna Rao and whereas the respondents 17 and 18 are his daughters. The respondents 19 and 20 are the wife and daughter respectively of respondent No.9. The respondents 11 and 12 are the sons of respondent No.10.
6. Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao, one of the sons of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao died in the year 1978 leaving behind his wife Smt.Kameswaramma, respondent No.8 - his son and two daughters, viz. Smt.Varalakshmi and Smt.Latha Devi. A geneology of this family is given hereunder for ready reference.
Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao (KVSR) (DIED IN 1949) (Wife Predeceased) | | | | | | | | | | | | Late Kondapi Late Kondapi Kondapi Late Kondapi Chundi Sara-
Krishna Rao Srinivasa Rao
Vasudeva Rao Ramachandra Rajamma damba
(D-5) (Son) (D-9)(Son) (D-10)(Son) Rao(KRR) (Daughter)(Daughter)
Died in 1978
| Kondapi | |
| Padmavathamma | |
| (D-19) (Wife) | |
| | | Kameswaramma
| | | (Wife)
| | Kondapi Venkate- |
| Chundi Padma- shwar Rao (D-11) |
| vathi(D-20) (Son) |
| (Daughter) Kondapi Srinivasa |
|-- Kondapi Rao (D-12) (Son) |
| Subba Rao(D-6)(Son) -----------------------------------------------------------
|-- Kondapi | | |
| Prasada Rao(D-7)(Son) Kondapi Krishna Varalakshmi Latha Devi
|-- Ippagunta Padma (D-17) Mohan Rao (Daughter) (Daughter)
(Daughter) (Son)(D-8)
|-- Kondapi Anuradha
(D-18) (Daughter)
7. One of the purchasers of these lands Sri Patan Masthan Khan was also a teacher. Respondent No.13 is his son and the respondents 14 as well as 15 are his daughters. Smt.Mumtaz Begum was his MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 4 another daughter, who died about 14 years prior to the institution of the suit. Sri Shaik Karimullah is the son of Smt.Mumtaz Begum and her husband is Sri Shaik Pentu Saheb. Smt.Shaik Parveen is their daughter. Geneology of the family of Sri Patan Mastan Khan is given hereunder for ready reference.
PATAN MASTAN KHAN (MK)(Died 1970)
WIFE (Died in 1988)
| | | |
Ibrahim Khan Patan Jaharabi Patan Khadarabi Late Mumtaz
(D-13)(Son) (D-14)(Daughter) (D-15)(Daughter) Begum
(Daughter)
|
---------------------------------
| |
Sk.Karimulla Sk.Parveen
(Son) (Daughter)
8. The 16th respondent filed O.S.No.464 of 1995 for partition against the respondents 1 to 4 and legal representatives of Sri late Uppalapati Venkata Swamy on the file of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, claiming allotment of Ac.0.41 cts., Ac.0.77 cts., and Ac.0.23½ cents in Sy.Nos.933/1, 933/2 and 960 respectively of Chimakurthy village claiming that he had purchased the same from the daughters of late Sri Uppalapati Venkata Swamy under a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1995. The suit was decreed. A.S.No.23 of 1999 was preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 against the decree and judgment therein on the file of the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Prakasam, at Ongole. It was dismissed on 31.03.2001. S.A.No.543 of 2001 preferred by them to this Court was also dismissed on 04.09.2001. SLP preferred by them before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India was also dismissed.
9. O.S.No.16 of 2003 is pending on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole, for the relief of specific MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 5 performance of contract against the respondents 1, 2 and 16 filed by M/s. Pokarna Granites Limited.
10. The above all are admitted and undisputed facts.
11. The contention of the appellants is that they purchased the suit lands under three different sale deeds for valuable consideration from the daughters of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao on 29.03.2003, from the wife and daughters of Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao on 31.03.2003 and Sri Shaik Karimullah and Smt.Shaik Parveen on 06.05.2003 and thus they have right, title and interest to an extent of Ac.2.27 cents. Basing on these sales in their favour contending that their vendors had right and interest in the share of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao out of total extent of Ac.19.41 cents in these three survey numbers as well as on account of Sri Masthan Rao, they laid the suit for partition. They further claimed that the mining activity being carried on in this extent by the third respondent and through the fourth respondent under a secret arrangement and that they be restrained by way of permanent injunction till the allotment of their share by metes and bounds.
12. They also contended that the outcome in O.S.No.464 of 1995 up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, also favoured them in this regard since their claim is similarly based for a joint share out of total extent of Ac.19.41 cents purchased by Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and his four friends in the year 1946.
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 6
13. The respondents 1 to 4 are contested the claim of the appellants. Whereas, the other respondents remained ex parte in the suit.
14. Initially the appellants did not request for issuance of notices to these respondents, who remained ex parte in the trial Court stating that they are not necessary parties. In the course of hearing in this appeal, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 that the appeal as filed cannot be maintained in terms of Order XLI Rule 14 CPC, after amendment of CPC in the year 1976. In response to it, on behalf of the appellants, I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed requesting to direct notice to these respondents also in this appeal. After hearing both the parties, by an order dated 07.04.2021 I.A.No.1 of 2021 was allowed directing notice to these respondents. However, they remained ex parte in this appeal also, who did not choose to participate, inspite of service of notices.
15. Specific defence of respondents 1 and 2 resisting the claim of the appellants is that the entire extent of Ac.19.41 cents in Sy.Nos.933/1, 933/2 and 960 of Chimakurthy village is a rocky dry land, not fit for cultivation and therefore, the right holders of this land including the family of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, intended to sell away their shares. Therefore, according to these respondents, they sold their share in these lands for valuable consideration to the first respondent on 02.11.1991, which is to the knowledge of the alleged vendors of the appellants, who were also benefited by the above sale transactions and that they ratified the same. Their further contention is that the share of late Sri Patan Masthan Khan in MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 7 these lands was sold accordingly on 23.10.1991 to the first respondent, which was also to the knowledge of the alleged vendors of these appellants, who had ratified the above sale.
16. The respondents 1 and 2 further contended that the alleged vendors of the appellants are bound by the afore stated sales. They further contended that the sale deeds under which the appellants have been claiming were obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, which are fabricated. They further contended that they are not bonafide transactions brought out with an evil intention of unlawful enrichment to inflict wrongful loss to the respondents 1 to 3 at the instance of M/s.Pokarna Granites. They further stated that these alleged sale transactions in favour of the appellants are all sham and nominal.
17. The respondents 1 and 2 further contended that Sri Shaik Karimullah and Smt.Shaik Parveen, executed a ratification deed dated 22.03.2003, confirming the transaction covered by the sale deed dated 23.10.1991, under which a part of the suit land was sold by the brother and sisters of their mother. Sri Shaik Pentu Saheb, husband of Smt.Mumtaz Begum as per the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 also executed a similar ratification deed on 23.10.1991 confirming the sale in their favour under the sale deed dated 23.10.1991.
18. The respondents 1 and 2 questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the claim is barred by time, that all the properties of the joint family are not sought to be divided and thus, the suit for partial partition is not maintainable.
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 8
19. The respondents 1 and 2 further contended that Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao died on 24.03.1949 and therefore, Hindu Succession Act 1956 has no application to this case.
20. The respondents 1 and 2 also referred to mining activity undertaken by them, upon an investment of about Rs.20.00 crores, in this entire extent since the third respondent is an export oriented unit of granite and further contended that these developments were all known to the appellants, who never raised any protest at any time and therefore, they are estopped from questioning the rights of the respondents 1 to 3 over these lands, who had also acquiesced to the rights of the respondents 1 to 3 to these extents. Referring to the permission granted by the Government of A.P. as mining lease, they further contended that the enjoyment of these lands by them in their own right is protected under law and that they are bonafide purchasers. They further contended that the mining lease was granted to the entire extent in Sy.Nos.933/1, 933/2 and 960 and that no part of this extent is kept idle. They further contended that all the persons, whose rights are involved are not impleaded as parties to this suit; and that the suit is filed without seeking cancellation of the sale deeds under which the first respondent had purchased, cannot be maintained. They further contended that since daughters of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and other legal heirs of Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao did not have share in the suit lands, the appellants cannot claim any right or interest to these lands as the purchasers.
21. On the pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues and additional issues for trial:
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 9
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in schedule property as claimed by them?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a permanent injunction restraining D1 to D4 from quarrying therein?
3. To what relief?
Additional Issues:
1. Whether the suit land is a rocky dry land highly inexpedient for cultivation as contended by D1 to D3?
2. Whether the vendors of the plaintiffs ratified the sales in favour of the first defendant as contended by the defendants 1 to 3?
3. Whether the claim of the plaintiffs vendor was barred by limitation as contended by the defendants 1 to 3?
4. Whether the 4th defendant is entitled to do mining operations in the suit land?
5. Whether the plaintiffs vendors have acquiesced the rights of the defendants 1 to 3 in the schedule property?
6. Whether the sale transactions contracted by the plaintiff are void and tainted with unlawful object of undue enrichment?
7. Whether the suit is bad for partial partition?
8. Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 are bonafide purchasers of the schedule property?
22. The appellants 1 and 2 examined themselves as P.W.2 and P.W.1 respectively while relying on deposition of P.W.3 at the trial apart from Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 in support of their contention. Father of the first respondent, who claimed being the director of the third respondent company examined himself as D.W.1 while relying on Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 in support of their contention.
23. On the material and evidence, learned trial Judge did not favour the claim of the appellants for partition and ultimately dismissed the suit. On additional issue No.1, learned trial Judge held that the entire extent of the land in dispute is a rocky and dry land, unfit for cultivation. On additional issues 2 and 8, learned trial Judge held that the sales in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 were ratified MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 10 under the registered deeds and that the respondents 1 and 2 are bonafide purchasers of these properties. On issue No.3, learned trial Judge however held that the suit is within time. On additional issue No.4 learned trial Judge held that the mining activity carried by the fourth respondent with the permission of the third respondent cannot be questioned by the appellants. On additional issue No.5, learned trial Judge held that the vendors of the appellants acquiesced to the rights of the respondents 1 to 3 in the suit lands while further holding on additional issue No.7 that a suit for partial partition is maintainable. On additional issue No.6, learned trial Judge observed that the appellants failed to clear the doubts and suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and that these sale deeds were obtained playing mischief and fraud with an unlawful object and for undue enrichment. Thus, these sale deeds are held void, that cannot be enforced.
24. The main discussion as seen from the impugned judgment of the trial Court is in relation to issue No.1 as to whether the appellants stood entitled to seek partition and which is held against them. Similarly, on account of the finding so recorded on all these issues, learned trial Judge did not favour to grant permanent injunction in favour of the appellants against the respondents. As a result, the suit was dismissed.
25. Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri P.Roy Reddy and Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri C.V.Surya Narayana, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 as MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 11 well as Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the 4th respondent addressed arguments.
26. The predominant consideration in this appeal is in respect of right of alleged female coparceners to seek partition of their undivided interest out of the total extent of Ac.19.41 cents in three suit survey numbers, viz., 960, 933/2 and 933/1. Therefore, the point to determine now is to the above effect and if at the instance of these alleged female coparceners relief of partition with reference to the suit lands be granted. Therefore, the following points arise for determination in this appeal.
1. Whether the alleged female co-sharers of undivided interest as claimed are entitled to seek division of the properties and if, purchasers from them are entitled for relief of partition of the suit lands out of total extent of Ac.19.41 cents?
2. Whether the appellants are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the third and fourth respondents from carrying on mining activity in the suit lands till the properties divided?
3. To what relief?
27. POINT NO.1: Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and his four friends, stated above, purchased different extents comprising Ac.19.41 cents in Chimakurthy village under the originals of Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 sale deeds. An extent of Ac.3.51 cents in Sy.No.960 was purchased on 22.04.1946 under the original of Ex.A10. Another extent of Ac.9.63 cents in Sy.No.933/2 was purchased by them on 27.03.1946 under the original of Ex.A8. Similarly, they purchased Ac.6.27 cents in Sy.No.933/1 under the original of Ex.A9 registered sale deed dated 23.04.1946. Sri Parisetti Brahmaiah had right only in MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 12 Sy.No.960 and 933/1 covered by the sales under Ex.A9 and Ex.A10. He had no right and interest in Sy.No.933/2. Sri Vemuri Jayaramaiah had purchased share of Sri Parisetti Brahmaiah in Sy.No.960 and 933/1 on 09.05.1951 under a registered sale deed.
28. During their lifetime, these holders of this entire extent undisputedly were enjoying the same of their undivided interest and as such each one of them was entitled to an undivided right and interest to an extent of Ac.3.55½ cents.
29. The sales covered by Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 are admitted.
30. The first defendant purchased an extent of Ac.3.55½ cents comprising Ac.1.4½ cents in Sy.No.933/1, Ac.1.92½ cents in Sy.No.933/1 and Ac.0.58½ cents in Sy.No.960 of Chimakurthy village from three surviving sons of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and their respective sons, who are respondents 5 to 7 and respondents 9 to 12 as well as respondent No.8, who is the surviving son of Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao, who in turn happened to be the deceased son of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subbarao. Ex.B3 is the registered sale deed dated 24.10.1991 under which the first respondent purchased another extent of Ac.3.55 cents in the above survey numbers representing the undivided right and interest of Sri Uppalapati Venkataswamy - the original purchaser, through his son Sri Uppalapati Yallamanda, Sri Surabhmanyam and Smt.Subbamma W/o.Sri Venkataswamy.
31. Ex.B2 is another sale deed dated 23.10.1991 under which, on behalf of the first respondent, who was then minor, his father Sri Parvathareddy Sridhar Anand purchased another undivided right and MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 13 interest in the same survey numbers from then surviving legal heirs of Sri Patan Masthan Khan, viz. Sri Ibrahim Khan, Smt.Khader Bi and Smt.Jakeera Bi. These sales are also admitted.
32. Mining or quarrying operations for excavation of granite mineral from these lands is also admitted.
33. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, D.W.1 deposed that quarry lease was initially granted for Ac.14.55 cents by the Government of A.P. under its order dated 17.11.1993 and that the balance, out of the purchased land was earmarked for dumping the waste material arising out of these quarrying operations. Thereafter, he deposed that further lease was granted for 20 years through Director of Mines and Geology, Government of A.P. on 19.04.2003 covering the remaining land and thus, he stated that this entire extent is covered by mining operations for which the third respondent had spent nearly Rs.20.00 crores. At the trial, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, Ex.B8 to Ex.B12 were produced, in support of their claim of obtaining lease from the Government for quarrying granite in this land.
34. The suit lands including the entire extent of Ac.19.41 cents in these three survey numbers are surrounded by the quarries belonging to different entities. The second appellant as P.W.1 admitted in cross-examination for the respondents 1 to 3 that this mining activity at Chimakurthy has taken pace since about the year 1980. The 4th respondent was a licencee from the third respondent for quarrying granite, under an arrangement in between them. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that the terms of this arrangement was also MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 14 over and that it has nothing to do with the suit lands. It is not indeed denied by the appellants.
35. The entire claim of the appellants is based on purchase of an alleged undivided right and interest in the name of appellants 1 and 2 under Ex.A1 executed by the daughters of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, viz. Smt.Saradamba and Smt.Atchamma on 29.03.2003, in all Ac.1.17 ½ cents in these three survey numbers and another extent of Ac.0.33 cents therein from the legal heirs of Sri Kondapi Ramchandra Rao, viz. Smt.Kameswaramma his wife, Smt.Varalakshmi and Smt.Latha Devi under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 31.03.2003. Thus, they claimed that they purchased Ac.1.52 cents together under these two sale deeds. The appellants further claimed that they purchased Ac.0.71 cents in these three survey numbers as per Ex.A3 from Sri Shaik Karimullah and Smt.Parveen, son and daughter of Smt. late Mumtaz Begum, deceased daughter of Sri Patan Masthan Khan.
36. The claim of the respondents 1 and 2 is in respect of entire extent of Ac.19.48 cts., covered by these three survey numbers. D.W.1 deposed that the first respondent has purchased Ac.15.84½ cents in these survey numbers under the sale deeds Ex.B2 to Ex.B4 apart from another sale deed dated 28.10.1991. It is also in the evidence of D.W.1 that the second respondent has purchased Ac.3.55½ cents from Sri Sidda Nageswara Rao and his daughter represented by him, under the sale deed dated 25.01.1993, which in turn he had purchased from Sri Divi Venkatacharyulu.
37. Their vendors as alleged by the appellants are not parties to Ex.B2 and Ex.B4 sale deeds. Therefore, according to the appellants, MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 15 their vendors under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 have transferred and conveyed an undivided interest to them in respect of the suit lands.
38. The respondents 1 and 2, while disputing the claim of the appellants on this score mainly relied on the date of death of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and to contend that his two surviving daughters had no right or interest to sell under Ex.A1 sale deed as his legal heirs under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
39. In support of their contention, they produced at the trial Ex.B13 letter of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Guntur, dated 30.09.2003. The contents of this letter are that as per the records available in Zilla Parishad Office, Guntur, i.e. the Service Register of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, he was born on 16.02.1899, joined as a teacher on 16.06.1927 and died on 24.03.1949. This letter further states that Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, S/o.Krishnaiah was a teacher in Upper Primary School, at Chimakurthy and died. P.W.1 - the second appellant admitted that Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, was a teacher in Primary School. Extract of Service Register, which is Ex.B14 is enclosed to Ex.B13. It reflects an entry to the effect that Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao died on 24.03.1949 with the signature of the concerned authority bearing date 04.05.1949.
40. The appellants are seriously questioning these entries. They contended Ex.B13 and Ex.B14 are fabricated documents by the respondents 1 to 3 to suit their contention.
41. Ex.B13 and Ex.B14 were obtained by the third respondent from C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Guntur on an application. Thus, they are MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 16 produced as the authenticated copies from a public authority in the course of trial on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. They stand in the position of public documents and that they are admissible in evidence. In order to question these documents, the course for the appellants at the trial was to send for the original records, i.e., the Service Register in the name of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, stated to be in the custody of office of Zilla Parishad, Guntur. It is manifest that they did not call for these original records from the above office. The reason for their omission in this context is unexplained. Therefore, when authenticity is attached to Ex.B13 and Ex.B14, these entries should necessarily be considered and accepted. They cannot be rejected from consideration. Thus, they established that Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao died on 24.03.1949. It was before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
42. It is admitted that the wife of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao predeceased him. Therefore, at the death of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, the succession if any, opened in relation to coparcenary property, only in favour of male progeny under Mithakshara law. His daughters, who are the executants of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 had no right or interest by the date of death of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao in the property of coparcenery of himself and others. Therefore, they could not have executed Ex.A1 sale deed conveying Ac.1.18 cents to the appellants nor could convey any right and interest in the suit lands.
43. Even in the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellants, as rightly pointed out for the respondents 1 to 3, there is no reference or mention of Ex.A1 and its effect in conveying and MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 17 transferring the alleged interest, which the daughters of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao had to the appellants. Therefore, the sale covered by Ex.A1 has no legal validity since the vendors did not have any right or interest to convey the same to the appellants. Hence, the claim of the appellants basing on Ex.A1 in relation to a part of the suit lands cannot stand. It has to be necessarily rejected.
44. In respect of the sale covered by Ex.A2, though in the plaint the appellants intended to invoke Section 29-A of Hindu Succession Act as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the final arguments, they gave up this contention in respect of the alleged co- parcenery right derived by Smt.Latha Devi, one of the daughters of Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao. The contention of the appellants is that the marriage of Smt.Latha Devi was celebrated about 14 years prior to the institution of the suit and that it was after A.P.Amendment of Hindu Succession Act came into force on 22.05.1986. From the evidence of the second appellant as P.W.1, it is clear that the appellants did not have any material to support such claim.
45. The contention of the respondents 1 to 3 is that a regular sale deed was executed under Ex.B4 on 02.11.1991, the proceeds of which were used for beneficial enjoyment of the entire family, which was then looked after by Sri Kondapi Krishna Rao (respondent No.1) and hence, this transaction covered by Ex.A2 is not legally valid.
46. The respondents 1 to 3 further relied on Ex.B7 rectification deed executed by Smt.Kondapi Anuradha (respondent No.18) MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 18 Smt.Padma (respondent No.20) and Smt.Mangamma, W/o.Sri Prasada Rao.
47. The executants of Ex.A2 are not parties to Ex.B7. Nonetheless, the attempt of the respondents appears to make out a circumstance whereby some of the legal representatives of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao's family have acknowledged their claim that the proceeds from the sale covered by Ex.B4 were intended for the benefit of the family and to support their contention that left over legal heirs of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, if any, cannot make out a claim against them. There is no specific reference or mention of Ex.A2 sale in Ex.B7.
48. In respect of the purchase of the property under Ex.A3 sale deed, relating to that part of the original extent by Sri Patan Masthan Khan, the respondents 1 to 3 also relied on Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 similar deeds of rectification. Ex.B5 dated 22.03.2003 was executed by Sri Shaik Karimullah and Smt.Parveen, children of Smt.Mumtaz Begum and Ex.B6 dated 22.03.2003 was executed by Sri Shaik Pentu Saheb, husband of Smt.Mumtaz Begum acknowledging the sale under Ex.B2 dated 25.11.1991 by other legal heirs of Sri Masthan Khan, viz. Sri Patan Masthan Khan and sisters Smt.Khader Bi and Smt.Zaheera Bi. There is no specific mention or reference to the sale of land under Ex.A3 sale deed in Ex.B5 and Ex.B6.
49. The appellants have seriously disputed the nature of Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 to the extent of calling them, fabricated documents.
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 19
50. One of the circumstances relied on by the appellants in this context is the date these documents bear relating to execution and the date when they were registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Ex.B5 as per its contents was executed on 22.03.2003 and was registered on 19.05.2003. Ex.B6 was executed on 22.02.2003. It was registered on 30.05.2003. A part of the date in Ex.B6 originally mentioned as 30th May in Telugu is scored out and 22nd February in Telugu is substituted. This is an instance, according to the appellants to question the nature of this document. It should be borne in mind that Sri Pentu Saheb is not one of the executants of Ex.A3 in favour of the appellants. Being husband of Smt.Mumtaz Begum though remarried later, in Mohammaddan Law, he had right to her property, at her death. Thus, a legal heir of Smt.Mumtaz Begum, who had right and interest in the properties covered by Ex.A3 supported the respondents 1 to 3. D.W.1 in cross-examination stated that all these rectification deeds were executed subsequent to the sales in favour of the appellants.
51. On behalf of these parties, strenuous contentions are advanced as to effect of date of execution appearing therein and the date of registration of the documents.
52. Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants brought to the notice of this Court the dates of purchase of the stamp papers at Ongole, the serial numbers they bear and also the fact that they were presented for registration at Sub-Registrar's Officer, at Chimakurthy.
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 20
53. As seen from Ex.B5, the stamp papers bear serial number 6476 and 6477 with date 21.03.2003 and which were purchased from the stamp vendor at Ongole. The registration of these documents was affected at Sub-Registrar's Office, Chimakurthy. The stamp papers relating to Ex.B6 bear serial numbers 3475 and 3476 with date 21.03.2003 and remaining sheets are in green papers. Ex.B6 was also registered at Chimakurthy.
54. In view of these circumstances, Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel contended that the date of these documents cannot be treated being the dates on which they were executed nor Section 47 of Indian Registration Act can be applied to them. Effect of Section 61 of Indian Registration Act is also brought to the notice of this Court by learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy in this context as to when a registration of a document is deemed complete. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on RAM SARAN LALL AND OTHERS v. MST DOMINI KUER AND OTHERS1. In para-6 of this ruling with reference to a sale in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and effect of Section 61 of the Indian Registration Act, it is stated:
"Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that sale of tangible immovable property of the value of rupees 100 and upwards, which the house with which we are concerned is, can be made only by a registered instrument. Section 3 of this Act defines "
registered" as registered under the law for the time being in force regulating the registration of documents. This, in the present case, means the Registration Act of 1908. It is not in dispute that the registration under the Registration Act is not complete till the document to be registered has been, copied out in the records of 1 AIR 1961 SC 1747 MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 21 the Registration Office as provided in Section 61 of that Act. ................
55. Further, with reference to application of Section 47 of Indian Registration Act, in para - 8 of this ruling, it is stated as under:
"Section 47 of the Registration Act does not, however, say when a sale would be deemed to be complete. It only permits a document when registered, to operate from a certain date which may be earlier than the date when it was registered. The object of this section is to decide which of two or more registered instruments in respect of the same property is to have A effect. The section applies to a document only after it has been registered. It has nothing to do with the completion of the registration and therefore nothing to do with the completion of a sale, when the instrument is one of sale. A sale which is admittedly not completed until the registration of the instrument of sale is completed, cannot be said to have been completed earlier because by virtue of Section 47 the instrument by which it is effected, after it has been registered, commences to operate from an earlier date."
56. Further reliance is placed by Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in this respect on a division bench ruling of this Court in DIVVI SURYANARAYANA MURTHY v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER2. In this ruling, the effect of Section 230-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 then in vogue vis-à-vis a sale transaction is considered. Effect of Section 47 of Indian Registration Act, relying on the observations of Ram Sharan Lall, referred to above, is also considered in this ruling as well as Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. In para - 7 of this ruling, it is stated thus:
"6. A perusal of the sections noted above especially in view of the definitions of the expressions "instrument of transfer" and "transfer"
under Section 269A of the Act, would leave us in no doubt that the 2 (1979) 117 ITR 278 MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 22 legislature intended that on the completion of the instrument of transfer by registration under the Indian Registration Act, the competent authority would be entitled to acquire the property if the conditions mentioned in Section 269F of the Act have been satisfied. As pointed out earlier, under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100 or more could only be completed by registration under the Indian Registration Act. The expressions "instrument of transfer" and "transfer" in Section 269A of the Act read in conjunction with the relevant provisions noted above would clearly show that a sale by means of an instrument of transfer could only be completed by registration of the instrument and not otherwise. The above interpretation of ours receives support from the proviso to Section 269D which provides that no such proceedings should be initiated in respect of any immovable property after the expiration of a period of nine months from the end of the month in which the instrument of transfer in respect of such property is registered under the Registration Act, 1908. Proceedings under Section 269C could only be initiated after the instrument of transfer is registered under the Registration Act and the limitation for initiation of such proceedings is provided in the proviso to Section 269D. It could, therefore, be safely concluded that transfer of immovable property would be completed only when the instrument of transfer is registered under the Registration Act, in which case only, proceedings under Section 269C would be initiated and, under the proviso to Section 269D, such initiation should take place within nine months from the end of the month in which the transfer in respect of such property is registered under the Registration Act. When such is the position, it cannot be said that Section 47 of the Registration Act is applicable to the case. When having regard to the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 269A and 269F of the Act a sale is completed only by the registration of the instrument of transfer under the Registration Act, it is not possible to invoke the provisions of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act; more so, when the Supreme Court has held in Ram Saran's case, , that the completion of sale takes effect on the date of its registration. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mahavir Metal Works P. Ltd. v. Union of India (1974) 95 ITR 197.
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 23
57. Learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, relied further on HIRALAL AGRAWAL v. RAMPADARATH SINGH AND OTHERS3, where the effect of Section 61 of Indian Registration Act is considered as well as application of Section 16 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land).
58. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 explained the purport of these three rulings, to cover the situations where the question is in relation to a sale transaction, completed in terms of Sections 54 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 61 of Indian Registration Act.
59. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel also relied on Section 47 of Indian Registration Act contending that in effect, the date of the execution appearing in the document shall be date of such document and registration of this document did not have any consequence. In support of his contention, reliance is placed by Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 NANDA BALLABH GURURANI v. SMT.MAQBOOL BEGUM4. In para-6 of this ruling in this context, it is stated as under:
"...............
in view of the provision I contained in Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, it clearly transpires that once the deed is registered, it would operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration"....................3
AIR 1969 SC 244 4 (1980) 3 SCC 346 MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 24
60. Further reliance is also placed by Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on THAKUR KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) v. ARVIND KUMAR5. In para-3 of this ruling, it is stated:
"Section 47 of the Registration Act provides that a registered document shall operate from the time it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration. It is well established that a document so long it is not registered is not valid yet once it is registered it takes effect from the date of its execution.(See Ram Saran Lall v. Mst Domini Kuer, and Nanda Ballaiah Gururani V. Smt.Maqbool Begum(referred above)"
61. It is necessary now to consider Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act. It reads as under:
"47. Time from which registered document operates: A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration."
62. Section 61 of the Registration Act relating to endorsements and certificate on the documents produced for the registration reads as under:
"61. Endorsements and certificate to be copied and document returned.--
(1) The endorsements and certificate referred to and mentioned in sections 59 and 60 shall thereupon be copied into the margin of the Register-book, and the copy of the map or plan (if any) mentioned in section 21 shall be filed in Book No.1.
(2) The registration of the document shall thereupon be deemed complete, and the document shall then be returned to the person who presented the same for registration, or to such other person (if any) as he has nominated in writing in that behalf on the receipt mentioned in section 52."5
(1994) 6 SCC 591 MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 25
63. In terms of Section 61(2), after meeting the requirements of Clause-1, the registration of the document presented shall be deemed completed.
64. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act relates to sale as a transfer of ownership relating to immovable property. It reads as under:
"54. "Sale" Defined - Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made: Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument."
65. What is registered under the Transfer of Property Act in interpretation clause in Section 3 of this Act is stated as under:
"Registered - "Registered" means registered in any part of the territories to which this Act extends under the law for the time being in force regulating the registration of documents."
66. When sale of a immovable property takes place, value of which is Rs.100/- or more, in terms of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act it should be by means of registered instruments. In view of meaning assigned to 'registered' under Section 3 of this Act, it shall be in terms of the provisions of the Registration Act. A sale transaction relating to immovable property of Rs.100/- and upwards is compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. In Ram Saran Lall, these questions were considered clearly pointing out relevant arears of operation and application of Section 47 and Section 61 of the Registration Act vis-à-vis, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 26
67. As rightly contended by Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in these circumstances, Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 being registered documents shall operate from the date they bear i.e. 22.03.2003 and 22.02.2003 respectively. The stamp papers used for these registered documents, as pointed out by Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants to have such serial numbers and that they were purchased at Ongole cannot affect their nature. These documents were registered by the Registering Authority in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act and are not affected by Section 49 of the said Act.
68. These are not the instances of sale or transfer of property in terms of either Section 54 or Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act. They merely acknowledged and confirmed the earlier transactions of sale by which the first respondent had purchased Ac.3.55 ½ cents of land covered by suit Sy.Nos.960, 933/2 and 933/1 and out of Ac.19.41 cents, covered by Ex.B2. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants castigating Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 should be rejected. They are prior to the sale under Ex.A3. None was examined at the trial to prove Ex.B5 to Ex.B7, on behalf of the respondents 1to 3.
69. Before entering the transaction under Ex.A1 and Ex.A3, apparently the appellants did not apply due diligence to know the right, title and interest of their vendors, in respect of the suit lands. The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is reflecting that they enquired about these lands only after entering Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 transactions upon securing the sale deeds under which the respondents 1 and 2 MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 27 were claiming entire extent in the suit survey numbers. The testimony of P.W.1 is a clear manifestation in this respect. He stated in cross-examination that he did not try to verify in detail the family affairs of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and his successors even after these sale transactions. He further stated that he had no necessity for such purpose. He further stated that by the date of these sales all the legal heirs of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao were living separately. He also stated that he did not know, who used to manage the family affairs after the death of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao. According to D.W.1, Sri Kondapi Krishna Mohan, S/o.Ramachandra Rao was working as Village Administrative Officer, at Kandukur and that he was looking after other family members.
70. Similarly, P.W.1 stated that he did not know the family background of Sri Patan Masthan Khan. He further deposed that they did not go through the title deeds of their vendors or revenue records prior to obtaining Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 sale deeds. He further stated that they did not apply for pattadar passbooks and title deeds for these lands. He went to the extent of stating that he did not have personal knowledge of the contents of Ex.A3. He also stated that he did not have any documentary proof relating to possession and enjoyment of the suit lands either jointly or independently. He confirmed that they did not independently ascertain bonafide title of their vendors prior to Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 transactions. He claimed that they relied on opinion of their advocate, who appeared in the trial Court on their behalf in this matter.
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 28
71. The first appellant was examined as P.W.2 only to cover up the deficiency found from the evidence of P.W.1. Particularly with reference to due diligence required before entering the sale transactions under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, he appeared to have had come forward to depose. For this reason, the very first question in cross- examination to P.W.2 was in respect of his attempt to fill up the latches and to strengthen their case after cross-examination of P.W.1. However, P.W.2 denied this suggestion.
72. P.W.2 also stated in cross-examination that they came to know about their vendors only after obtaining the sale deeds. He further stated that he did not remember from whom they verified about the title held by their vendors to the suit lands.
73. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the manner of securing Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 from their vendors, getting them registered at Ongole than at Chimakurthy, presenting these documents through a power- of-attorney holder, viz. Nallamothu Venkateswarlu are pointed out as the suspicious circumstances surrounding their execution.
74. The specific defence of the respondents 1 to 3 against Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 is that they are sham, nominal and fabricated documents and without consideration. In these circumstances, when the claim of the appellants is that they purchased undivided right and interest in the entire extent of the suit survey numbers from those legal heirs of the original purchasers, viz. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and Sri Masthan Khan, the legal burden initially is on the appellants to establish and to prove these transactions under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.
MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 29 Neither their executants were examined at the trial nor anyone concerned to these transactions, viz. the attestors were examined.
75. Their examination is required in order to establish that as the legal heirs of the original purchasers they did have right and interest to the suit lands and that they did not derive any benefit out of sales in favour of the first respondent. Mere production of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 at the trial or relying on the nature of the defence in calling these documents as described above, as if there is clear admission of execution of these documents on the part of the appellants is improper. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, an instance of failing to examine Smt.Latha Devi one of the daughters of Sri Ramachandra Rao is specifically pointed out.
76. The appellants cannot contend that the respondents 1 to 3 should have examined the executants of Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 nor that they are proved. On the other hand, if their vendors had been examined on their behalf, definitely their evidence would have brought out the truth, in these transactions, including about the sales in favour of the first respondent, if, for the benefit of the entire family. There is denial of the sales covered by Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and their effect, from the respondents 1 to 3, though it is not denied that vendors thereunder are the legal heirs of the respective original owners. Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 did not establish Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 sales in favour of the appellants.
77. In the given facts and circumstances of this case when the claim is set forth by the purchasers from the legal heirs of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and Sri Masthan Khan for partition and division of MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 30 the lands covered by Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 out of total extent covered by suit survey numbers, it is all the more necessary and an indispensable necessity of inviolable nature to have had examined their vendors. It is a serious lacuna and deficiency in the case set up by the appellants, fatally affecting their claim and going to the root of the matter.
78. In these circumstances, the inference to draw is that there is no legal and acceptable proof adduced by the appellants at the trial of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 sale deeds. Contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the sales covered by Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 should be accepted in respect of Ac.0.34 cents and Ac.0.71 cents, in this backdrop, should be rejected.
79. In respect of Ex.A2 sale, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy relied on effect of Section 6 and Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The basis for such contention is the vendors under Ex.A2 succeeding to that part of the estate relating to Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao. This contention also cannot stand for the reasons assigned supra.
80. The contention of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the respondents 5 to 15 colluded with the appellants and at the instance of M/s.Pokarna Granites, a false claim is made against them by way of this litigation.
81. The second appellant was General Manager of M/s.Pokarna Granites admittedly for about 14½ years. Material on record makes out that he was pursuing O.S.No.16 of 2003 on the file of the Court of MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 31 learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole, on behalf of M/s.Pokarna Granites, which was obviously interested in earlier litigation in O.S.No.464 of 1995. There is however admission of P.W.1 that the respondents 1 to 3 compromised with the plaintiff therein, who is the 16th respondent herein in final decree proceedings in I.A.No.2361 of 2001 in O.S.No.464 of 1995 on the file of the Court of learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.
82. Having regard to these circumstances, fomenting and fanning the litigation by M/s.Pokarna Granites in this manner cannot be ruled out.
83. It is also to be noted that when the sale transactions under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were of March and May 2003, the appellants had chosen to institute the suit on 07.08.2002. Thus, it is manifest that these sale deeds were procured only for the purpose of bringing out this claim against the respondents 1 to 3.
85. Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants also contended that in view of earlier litigation in O.S.No.464 of 1995, where the claim of the 16th respondent was accepted throughout, the judgments therein have relevancy in terms of Section 13 of Indian Evidence Act and that the appellants are entitled to rely on such material particularly when the respondents 1 to 3 were parties to such proceedings. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS v. K.M.KRISHNAIAH6 . This proposition of law cannot be disputed nor it is disputed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Facts in given case 6 (1998) 3 SCC 331 MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 32 should also be borne in mind and parity cannot be drawn in between the outcome in the above litigation to which the respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.16 were parties and this matter on hand. The effect of the compromise as referred to above in final decree proceedings, is a pointer in this context. What was ruled in the earlier litigation, basing on facts and material cannot be the foundation for the claim of the appellants in the present matter, where they miserably failed to adduce appropriate evidence to support their case.
86. Reliance is also placed by Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in VINEETHA SHARMA v. RAKESHA SHARMA7. Contentions are advanced by learned Senior Counsel basing on this ruling that the female coparceners are entitled for their share in undivided properties particularly in view of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act as per the amendment brought out in the year 2005. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that any sales prior to 20.12.2004 are not affected by Section 6(1) of Hindu Succession Act as is brought out by the amendment of the year 2005. Since the case of the appellants for partition and division of the suit lands from and out of total extent of Ac.19.44 cents is not acceptable and partiable nature of this extent is not established by the appellants, this ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court did not offer assistance to their contention.
87. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the entire material, it is held that the appellants failed to make out that they are entitled 7 2020(9) SCC PAGE 1 MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 33 to seek partition of the suit lands in the manner they suggested, out of the total extent of Ac.19.44 cents in Sy.Nos.960, 933/1 and 933/2 of Chimakurthy village. Nor it is an instance, where there is proof that the alleged vendors of the appellants were the female coparceners having subsisting right and interest in the alleged undivided share of original purchasers, viz. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and Sri Masthan Khan. Hence, the claim of the appellants deserves to be rejected. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 and against the appellants.
88. POINT No.2: In view of the findings on point No.1, since the appellants failed to make out their claim for partition against the respondents 1 to 3, they cannot have a right to injunct them from carrying on mining operations from the entire extent covered by suit survey numbers. The material on record did not establish that the appellants stood as co-owners or co-sharers in relation to these lands vis-à-vis the respondents 1 and 2, nor is there any proof that the mining activity undertaken by then through their corporate entity, viz the third respondent is detrimental to their interest, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. Nor it is established that there was any invasion of alleged rights of the appellants on account of this activity by the respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for permanent injunction as requested against the respondents 1 to 3. Thus, this point is held against the appellants and in favour of the respondents 1 to 3.
89. POINT No.3: Having regarding to the material on record and evidence, there are no reasons to interfere with the ultimate MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 34 conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the suit. This appeal, therefore should fail confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court.
90. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, in O.S.No.186 of 2003 dated 02.06.2014. No costs. Interim orders if any, stand vacated. All pending petitions, stand closed.
___________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J Dt: 20.10.2021 Rns MVR,J A.S.No.537 of 2014 35 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA APPEAL SUIT No.537 OF 2014 Date:20.10.2021 Rns