Telangana High Court
Smt. Laxmamma , Pentamma vs Smt. Susheelamma And 7 Others on 16 October, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
A.S.No. 837 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 29 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 09.08.2011, plaintiff in the suit initially preferred this Appeal. During the pendency of appeal, she died and her legal representatives were brought on record as Appellants 2 to 4 vide order dated 27.09.2022 in 1.A. No. 3 of 2022.
2. For convenient sake, parties are referred to as arrayed in Original Suit.
3. As per the averments of plaint, one Badam Anthi Reddy was owner of agricultural lands (i) Ac. 1-29 guntas in Survey No. 94/AA; (ii) Ac. 0-13 guntas in Survey No. 97/EE;
(m) Ac. 0-27 guntas in Survey No. 98/EE; (iv) Ac.1.12 guntas in Survey No. 204/EE situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District.
It is also averred in the plaint that Badam Anthi Reddy is the owner of agricultural lands of Acs. 2.00 guntas in Survey No. 444 and Acs. 4-00 guntas in Survey No. 445/AA 2 situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District. However, defendants disputed this contention.
Plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 are daughters of Badam Anthi Reddy and after his demise, are the legal heirs to his properties with equal shares. It is averred that the 1st defendant used to cultivate the lands and pay some amounts to plaintiff towards her share of income. She came to know that the 1st defendant got her name entered in revenue records in respect of lands in Survey Nos. 94/Α, 97/Ε, 98/Ε, 204/E and got her son's name ie the 4th defendant n respect of lands in Survey Nos. 444 and 445. Plaintiff also contended that she came to know that the 4th defendant executed sale deed dated 30.05.1996 in respect of Acs. 2-00 guntas in Survey No. 444 and Acs. 4-00 guntas in Survey No. 445 in favour of defendants 5 to 8. Plaintiff averred that she is entitled to one-fourth share in the entire suit schedule property including the property sold to defendants 5 to 8 and prayed for partition and separate possession of the suit properties.
4. The 1st defendant vehemently contested the claim of plaintiff. She admits that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are legal heirs of one Baddam Anthi Reddy. At one breath, she denies the contention that suit schedule property originally belongs to their father Baddam Anthi Reddy and at the other 3 breath, that her husband was illetum son-in-law of her father, they have taken care of Baddam Anthi Reddy and his wife till their last breath; after the death of her father, she has been enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner and exclusive possessor by cultivating them with the help of her son i.e. the 4th defendant. She alternatively contends that plaintiff never asserted her right in respect of suit schedule property for more than 40 years; her rights stood extinguished by lapse of time and the 1st defendant has become absolute owner having been in possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years and thus acquired title by adverse possession.
5. Defendants 2 and 3 supported the version of plaintiff and stated in their written statement that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for one-fourth share each in the suit schedule property. In their written statement and additional written statement, defendants 5 to 8 principally contended that one Gulam Samdhani was the original owner of the land admeasuring Acs. 6-00 guntas in Survey Nos. 444 and 445/AA situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal, Medak District. Badam Anthi Reddy is not the owner or possessor of these lands. They further contended that they purchased these lands by way of registered sale deed Doc. No. 3055 of 1996, dated 30.05.1996 and neither plaintiff nor defendants 1 to 3 4 challenged this registered sale deed and hence, now they cannot lay their hand on it.
6. Basing on the averments of plaint, written statements, rejoinders, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties and separate possession? ii. Whether DI was kept as illitom daughter and her husband by B. Anthi Reddy, as such the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 ceases to be the family members of late Anthi Reddy? iii. Whether the sale deeds executed by D4 (son of D1) in favour of D5 to D8 is valid and binding on plaintiff?
iv. To what relief?
On 23.01.2009 the following additional issue was framed as to 'Whether the first defendant did not perfect the title by way of adverse possession?' Again, on 09.04.2009, the following additional issue was framed:
i. Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of suit property?
(ii) Whether the suit is not properly valued and court fees paid is not sufficient?
(iii) Whether the suit is not barred by period of limitation against D5 To D8?
7. On behalf of plaintiff, she herself came into witness box as PW-1 and marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of defendants, eight witnesses DWs-1 to 8 were examined (D3 as DW-1, D1 as DW-2; D5 as DW-3) and Exs. Bl to B28 were marked.
5
8. On original Issues 1 to 3, the trial Court, after considering the voluminous material on record, oral and documentary evidence and authorities of the Hon'ble Courts cited by both sides, held that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of Baddam Anthi Reddy, who was the owner of agricultural lands in (i) Ac. 1-29 guntas in Survey No. 94/AA;
(ii) Ac. 0-13 guntas in Survey No. 97/EE; (m) Ac. 0-27 guntas in Survey No. 98/EE; (iv) Ac.1.12 guntas in Survey No. 204/EE situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District and the fact that Baddam Anthi Reddy is the owner of lands in Survey Nos. 444 and 445 is not established.
On additional issues framed on 09.04.1999, the trial Court held that since the plea of adverse possession taken by the 1st defendant cannot be taken as possession of one co- sharer and it shall be deemed to be possession of property on behalf of other sharers, unless there has been clear ouster by denying title of other co-sharers and hence the defendant No.1 did not perfect the title by way of adverse possession over the properties. On additional issues framed on 09.04.2009, the lower Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation.
Coming to relief issue, the Court below has granted preliminary decree that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for one-fourth share each in the properties (i) Ac. 1-29 6 gt, in Sy.No. 94/AA, (ii) Ac. 0-13 gts in Sy. No. 97/EE; (ii) Ac. 0- 27 gts, in Sy. No. 98/EE; (iv) Ac. 1- 12 gts, in Sy.No. 204/EE, situated at Tellapur village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District. However, the trial Court dismissed the suit as against the properties in Survey Nos. 444 and 445/AA admeasuring Acs. 2-00 guntas and Acs. 4-00 guntas respectively situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District.
9. Aggrieved by dismissal of suit as against the properties in Survey Nos. 444 and 445/AA admeasuring Acs. 2- 00 gts and Acs. 4-00 guntas respectively, this Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. In nutshell, the contention of plaintiff in the present Appeal is that after completion of evidence, defendants 5 to 8 cooked up a new story by way of filing additional written statement that Survey Nos. belong to Ghulam Samdhani, which was not mentioned in their first written statement, the court failed to take note of Khasra Pahanies Exs. B5 to B11, wherein Baddam Anthi Reddy's name is shown as possessor.
10. The contention of defendants as respondents in this Appeal is that originally one Gulam Samdhani was owner and possessor of the land in Survey Nos. 444 and 445 of Tellapur Village, after him, the properties were recorded in his son 7 Gulam Jilani's name and thereafter, in the name of Syed Moinuddin and Shabuddin and later as per Exs. A7 and A8, the name of the 4th defendant was shown as pattadar and possessor and defendants 5 to 8 have bona fidely purchased the said lands under registered sale deed long back in 1996 and plaintiff never disputed it.
11. Heard Dr. Muddu Vijay, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri M. Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
12. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following issues are framed for consideration in this Appeal:
i) Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit as against the properties in Survey Nos. 444 and 445/AA admeasuring Acs. 2-00 and Acs. 4-00, respectively, situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District?
ii) To what relief?
13. Admittedly, defendants 5 to 8 purchased lands in Survey Nos. 444 and 445/AA admeasuring Acs. 2-00 and Ac. 4-00 respectively situated at Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal of Medak District and plaintiff did not raise any dispute in this regard. The contention of plaintiff is that when she was not paid money during 2005 and 2006, she verified with the revenue records and came to know of this registered sale deed 8 Doc. No. 3055 of 1996 dated 30.05.1996. Even then also, she did not challenge the sale deed and did not seek its cancellation. Thus, the sale deed in question attained finality. She did not show any evidence except entry of Baddam Anthi Reddy's name in one or two pahanies in relation to Survey Nos. 444 and 445. Further, the presumption under Sections 35, 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act 1908 is that the recitals of a registered deed are true and correct unless contrary is established. The judgments relied on behalf of plaintiff - Trinity Infraventures Ltd. V. M.S. Murthy 1 and Iqbal Basith v. N. Subbalakshmi2 are to the effect that the 4th defendant who sold the lands in Survey Nos. 444 and 445 did not come into witness box hence, adverse inference is to be drawn. It is a fact that once the property is sold, the vendor will not have interest in that property. If so desired, plaintiff herself can call the 4th defendant as a witness, but, for the reasons best known to her, she did not choose to do so.
14. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh 3 at Para-7 relied upon by defendants 5 to 8 is to the proposition that prayer for declaration that registered sale deed dated 30.05.1996 executed 1 2023 SCC online SC 738 2 (2021) 2 SCC 718 3 (2010) 12 SCC 112 9 by the 4th respondent in favour of defendants 5 to 8 is must and necessary to seek further relief of recovery of possession. In B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar 4 and Kenchegowda v. Siddegowda @ Motegowda 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that partial partition is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar 6 held that entries in revenue records do not establish title and burden is always upon plaintiff to establish his / her title.
15. In view of the above discussion, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 29 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 09.08.2011. No costs.
16. Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed automatically.
------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 16th October 2024 ksld 4 2022 SCC on line SC 240 5 (1994) 4 SCC 294 6 2023 SCC on line SC 1483