Telangana High Court
M. Chandraiah vs D. Vinod Kumar on 8 June, 2022
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.327 of 2006
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2006 passed in O.S.No.33 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The suit O.S.No.33 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the title and also for recovery of vacant possession from the defendants and for future mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/- per annum from the date of suit till the delivery of possession.
3. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W1 and the attestors of the sale deeds were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Ex.A1 to A6 on his behalf. The first defendant himself examined as D.W1 and he also examined witnesses to Exs.B1 and B2 as D.Ws.2 and 3 and filed Exs.B1 to B23 on his behalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property within three months from the date of judgment and also directed the plaintiff to file a separate 2 petition for ascertainment of the future mesne profits. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants in the suit preferred this appeal.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the trial Court drawn adverse presumption against the defendants for not examining Ameena Bee as a witness. In fact, it is for the plaintiff to examine her to establish his case. He would further contend that the finding of the trial Court with regard to adverse inference is contrary to the well establish principles as to acquisition of title by adverse possession. He would also contend that the trial Court observed D.W1 has not stated in the evidence regarding the term 'adverse possession' but he is a rustic witness and in fact he was in long possession and that itself clearly shows that he acquired title by adverse possession, but it was wrongly interpreted by the trial Court that from the year 1954-55 khasra phani the possession of the defendants was established, but the trial Court misinterpreted 3 the same and stated that the possession of the appellants is permissive in nature. He would also contend that Ex.B1 sale deed is an out and out sale and it was confirmed in another document in the year 1988 and it is not an agreement of sale. The trial Court held that both the documents are forged and created. Though the trial Court accepted the documentary evidence, the khasra phani for the year 1954-55 and the phanies under Exs.B6 to B22 relating to the years 1955-2003 would show that the defendants are possessors of the property except for few years. He would also aver that the trial Court failed to appreciate the rytu passbook Ex.B4 issued to the defendants in the year 1979, but relied on the entries in the pahanies for the years 1968-69 in which R.Jangaiah was mentioned in the possessor column. The name of Mudigonda Kistaiah, the predecessor in title, was struck off and Jangaiah's name was added in the pahani for the year 1973-74 and the name of Kavita Jangaiah was mentioned as possessor in Column No.17 and the name of Venkaiah was shown in the pahani for the year 1974-75 as possessors. Even by the year 1966-67, the defendants or their predecessor-in-interest completed adverse possession more than 12 years from 1954-55 as per khasra pahani. But the trial Court relied upon the 4 pahanies filed by the plaintiff under Exs.A3 and A4, though they are in continuous possession it was not appreciated properly and he also stated under Ex.B15 Column No.15 is blank and whereas in Ex.A3 filed by the plaintiff for same year some entries are made in Column No.15. The certified copies were issued to the defendants on 19.09.2002. Copies of Ex.A3 issued to the plaintiff on 01.04.2003 and there are alterations of the entries after issuing copies to the defendants. In Ex.B16 Column No.15 is blank but in Ex.A4 same entries were made in Ex.A15. Ex.A4 was issued after Ex.B16 was issued. But the trial Court without appreciating the same held that the possession of the defendants is in permissive in nature though they perfected their title by adverse possession and hence requested the Court to set aside the judgment and decree.
7. B.Vinod Kumar-plaintiff filed suit against Mudigonda Chandraiah and Mudigonda Narahari-defendants for declaration of possession. He would state that he is the owner of the agricultural land in Sy.No.145 admeasuring Ac.9.27 guntas situated at Himayathnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and he purchased the same from Ameena Bee and Abdul Jilane under registered sale deed dated 19.08.2002. Abdul Jilane is the son of Ameena Bee. The sale deed was 5 implemented by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad, vide proceedings dated 16.09.2002. The plaintiff would further state that originally Abdul Khader, husband of Ameena Bee, was the owner and possessor of the suit land and after his death they succeeded heirs and successors and it was implemented in the revenue records in the name of Ameena Bee and she incurred debts for family necessities and medical expenses and thus she sold the land for Rs.12,10,000/- and also executed registered sale deed in his favour. Vendors of the plaintiff got cultivated the suit land on Batai and Koul basis through various persons like Mudigonda Kistaiah, Kavali Jangaiah and the defendants on crop share basis. The defendants are in possession of the suit land as Bataidars of the vendor of the plaintiff and after the purchase by the plaintiff, they became the Bataidars of the plaintiff. The defendants paid batai up to 1999-2000 Fasli Year and later not paid batai to the vendor of the plaintiff in spite of demands though plaintiff demanded them, they have not paid batai to him. Defendants taking advantage of the entries in the pahanies as possessors changed their mind developed evil intention to claim the suit property for themselves and accordingly they approached the revenue authorities for grant of pattas in their name. Noticing the evil intention of the 6 defendants, the plaintiff demanded them for vacant possession of the suit land on 25.01.2002 but the defendants did not respond the same. The possession of the defendants is permissive as bataidars and they have no right to claim title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff again demanded the defendants for delivery of possession of the suit land on 22.03.2003 and when they refused to hand over possession and denied his title, he filed suit for declaration and for vacant possession.
8. In the written statement filed by the defendants they denied the ownership of the plaintiff and also stated that they have challenged the mutation proceedings dated 16.09.2002 by filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, in File No.C2896/2002. They would further state that Ameena Bee was only the owner of the suit land and her name was entered in the revenue records right from prior to 1954-55 itself. She also sold the suit land in favour of Mudigonda Kistaiah, who is father of defendants herein, under a sale document dated 21.02.1951 for a total consideration of Rs.600/- and delivered possession to them and as such the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff will not create any right and Ameena Bee has no subsisting right to execute the same. As per 7 khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and chessala pahani for the year 1954-55, the father of the defendants purchased the suit land in the capacity of a bona fide purchaser and he is in possession of the suit land and they are not bataidars and that it is a story created by the plaintiff to knock away the property and to overcome the limitation period and the fact that they paid batai till 1999-2000 is false. They would further state that the plaintiff never demanded them for vacating the possession of the suit land. Ameena Bee sold the land in favour of Mudigonda Kistaiah for a total consideration of Rs.600/- and received Rs.250/- and executed sale document. From then onwards Mudigonda Kistaiah was in possession of the suit land till his death and after his death the defendants succeeded him and they approached Ameena Bee number of times and requested for execution of the sale deed, but she refused on one or other pretext and as such a panchayat was held in the village and Ameena Bee demanded enhancement of the sale consideration to Rs.10,000/- and as per the advice of the elders they agreed to pay the entire enhanced sale consideration and after receiving the same she promised to execute the registered sale deed in their favour and the same was reduced into writing. Within three or four months after executing the agreement Ameena Bee 8 left the village and shifted her residence to somewhere. As they could not ascertain her address, they could not get the registered sale deed executed in their favour. Father of the defendants purchased the land on 21.02.1951 and he was shown as purchaser in khasra pahani and chessala pahani and rytu pass book was also issued in his favour in the year 1979. The defendants are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land and they are enjoying the possession from 1951 onwards and it is clearly evident from the pahani patrika filed by him. Even otherwise they perfected title by adverse possession as the father of the defendants and after his death these defendants are in continuous possession of the suit land. The plaintiff is having support of anti-social elements as the registered sale deed is not executed in their favour taking undue advantage he brought into existence the alleged registered sale deed and created the story of batai. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and requested to dismiss the same.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants herein would mainly rely upon Exs.B1 and B2 and argued that the defendants are the bona fide purchasers of the property way back in the year 1951 and they are still in possession of the same but in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on 19.08.2002 in 9 Clause 2 it was wrongly mentioned that vendor delivered possession to them. Learned counsel for the appellants herein would argue that Ex.B1 is an out and out sale deed and Ex.B2 is the confirmation of Ex.B1. As Exs.B1 and B2 are crucial documents, I feel it reasonable to extract the same for the sake of convince.
I, Ameena Bee W/o. Abdul Kareem pattador R/o.
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad (West), write to the effect that my owned and possessed patta land bearing survey No.145 admeasuring (9) acres (27) guntas dry (dobba chalka), situated at village Himayathnagar, Hyderabad Taluq (West), the same land is in my exclusive possession and enjoyment and that the said land is sold for the consideration of Rs.600/- (six hundred only), half of which amount comes to Rs.300/- (rupees three hundred only) in favour of Sri Modigonda Kishtiah S/o. Modi Yenkanna, R/o.Himayathnagar and has handed over the sold land into his possession. From this date all the pattadari rights have been transferred and the vendee has in possession with all the pattadari rights and that the vendee will be responsible for the payment of the Government Lagan. That an amount of Rs.250/- (rupees two hundred fifty only) were received in the presence of the witnesses from the Vendi Sri Modigonda Kishtiah, and the balance amount of O.S. Rs.350/- (Rupees three hundred and fifty only) will be received and get the sale deed registered and transfer of patta; all the expenses thereof will be borne by the vendee. Hence all the rights have been transferred in favour of the vendee. In future there remains no sort of concern to me or to my heirs and legal representatives, and in case if any one raise any objection the same will be 10 treated as null and void. Hence these few sentences have been written as the Sale Deed so as to remain as a Document and be used when required.
Dated: 21st February, 1951 Written by : Shaik Ahmed.
Sd/- Witness - Kataka Jattaji T.I. Witness - Deepu Shiviah AGREEMENT I, Smt. Ameena Bee W/o. Abdul Kareem, aged about 68 years, Occ: household, r/o. Himayathnagar village, R.R. District, executes this agreement in favour of (1) Madigonda Chandraiah (2) Madigonda Narahari who are sons of late Mudigonda Kistaiah, both residents of Himayathnagar village as follows:-
That being the Pattadar of the land bearing Sy.No.445 admeasuring Ac.9-27 guntas situated at Himayathnagar village, Ranga Reddy District. I already sold the same land in favour of father of the above persons by name Mudigonda Kistaiah aunder a Sale decoument dated 21.02.1951 for a total consideration of Rs.600/- and received Rs.250/- as advance and delivered possession to him. That the registeration could not be done and subsequently Mudigonda Kistaiah died leaving behind two sons as stated above. That as per the settlement made by the village elders, the sale consideration is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and I received the entire amount today. That I hereby undertakes to execute a regular registered Sale Deed in favour of the above persons as and when they desires to get the same and they are enjoying the possession since 1951 from the date of their father's purchase without any interruption. This 11 Agreement is executed on 21.08.1988 with my free will and consent without any fraud, etc., Witnesses:
1. Sd/-
2. LTI of Doma Veraiah (RTI of Ameena Bee) (Smt. Ameena Bee)
10. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly argue that possession was handed over to the defendants on 21.02.1951 itself. The said land was sold for Rs.600/- in favour of Mudigonda Kistaiah and that pattadar rights were transferred in his favour. The amount of Rs.250/- was received by the vendor-Ameena Bee in the presence of the witnesses and the balance of Rs.350/- will be received later and get the sale deed registered.
11. It is clear that Ex.B1 is only an agreement of sale but not sale deed as contended by the appellants herein. Mudigonda Kistaiah died in the year 1975 and his sons again negotiated with Ameena Bee for sale of the said land in their favour, but she demanded Rs.10,000/- towards enhancement of the sale consideration and the said amount was also paid to her on 21.08.1988 and that she promised that she will execute registered sale deed as and when they are desire to get the same 12 as they are enjoying the possession since 1951 from the date of their father without any interruption. If at all the defendants are the bona fide purchasers, they have not issued any notice to Ameena Bee to execute registered sale deed either for execution of Ex.B1 or even after execution of Ex.B2 and that they have not filed any suit for specific performance. They kept quiet and simply contended due to financial problems they were not in position to bear the stamp duty and registration charges and as such they have not obtained the sale deed and they would further contend that three to four years after execution of Ex.B2, Ameena Bee left the place as they are not aware of her whereabouts, they could not register the sale deed in their favour. The conduct of the defendants in not insisting for execution of the registered sale deed from 1951 to 1988 i.e., for 37 years and even afterwards till the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is abnormal.
12. There are several contradictions in the evidence of the defendants and they were extracted herein for better understanding of the matter.
DW.1 Deposition DW.2 Deposition DW.3 Deposition
My father purchased the One Mudigonda
schedule property in the Kistaiah who is
13
year 1951 the father of the
defendants
purchased the
land nearly in the
year 1953.
My father died in 1975 The father of
defendants died
about 20 years
back by today.
Ameena Bee came to After gap of 5 or 6 Ameena Bee
Himayathnagar Village years after agreed to
nearly 10 years after the execution of transfer the
death of my father. Ex.B1, Ameena patta of the land
Ameena Bee created a Bee demanded for
in the name of
problem and raised Rs.1,000/-
dispute regarding the towards Kistaiah
balance consideration consideration. provided
and she demanded us Rs.10,000/- was
for extra money. given to her.
Ex.B2 agreement was got One Ahmed Pasha Patwari
typed by Shaik Ahmed. prepared the draft prepared the
of Ex.B2 and he draft and he got
got it typed in it typed.
Moinabad.
I purchased the Ex.B2 That Ahmed Pasha Ex.B2 stamp
stamp from the stamp purchased the paper was
vendor Padmarao in stamp paper on purchased by
Chilkur. that day. Patwari.
Ex.B2 stamp
paper was
purchased from
a stamp vendor
in Moinabad.
One Veeraiah and Jottoji Ahmed Pasha I have signed it
were the witnesses to the signed Ex.B2. and then Jottoji Ex.B2. who was selling Dappu Shivaiah tea came and also endorsed his signed.
signature on
Ex.B2.
As Dappu
Shivaiah and
Doma Veeraiah
have not endorsed
their signatures in
my presence, I
14
cannot identify
their signatures.
So far we have not Mudigonda
submitted or filed the Kishtaiah applied
Ex.B1 and B2 to MRO for
documents in any office transfer of patta
or Court. We have not in his name.
filed any application Subsequent to
before any office or that Panchayat I
officer stating that we came to know that
have purchased the land Mudigonda
from Ameena Bee under Kishtaiah applied
agreement of sale and for to the MRO for the
recording our possession transfer of patta.
in the Revenue Records
as purchasers.
Ameena Bee has Ameena Bee
not signed the signed the Ex.B2
Ex.B1 and B2 in document in our
my presence. presence (Chief).
Ex.B2 was
brought to us by
the Patwari for
our signatures.
Ameena Bee
affixed her thumb
impression on the
Ex.B2 at a hotel
in Himayathnagar
Chowrastha
(Cross).
13. The father of the defendants died in the year 1975 and Ex.B2 was executed in the year 1988 i.e., 13 years after his death. The trial Court observed that the address particulars of Ameena Bee were furnished by P.Ws.2 and 3 in their evidence. Even afterwards the defendants did not made any efforts to examine her on their behalf. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon case law reported in UNION OF INDIA 15 V/s. VASAVI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED1 in which it was held that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not and argued that it is for the plaintiff to examine the vendor on his behalf, but he failed to do so. It was also brought in evidence that Ex.B1 stamp was printed on 17.08.1951, but it was executed on 21.02.1951 by Ameena Bee. In all the stamps which were printed during the regime of Nawab of Hyderabad the date of printing will be in the emblem of the stamp paper and Ex.B1 stamp paper was printed and put into circulation nearly six months after execution of the agreement dated 21.02.1951. Learned counsel for the defendants would submit that talks were held on 21.02.1951 and the agreement was written subsequent to 17.08.1951. As 1 (2014) 2 SCC 269 16 the talks were held on 21.02.1951 the said date was mentioned in Ex.B1. The said document was not believed by the trial Court and held that Ex.B1 was created and forged document and it was also held that Ex.B2 is confirmation of Ex.B1 and it is only an acknowledgment of Ex.B1 and it is not an independent agreement of sale. It is only executory contract but not a concluded contract.
14. Though Ex.B1 was dated 21.02.1951, D.W.2 in his evidence stated that it was executed in the year 1953 and also in Ex.B15 panchnama conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector it was stated that Kistaiah was in possession of the property from 1953 and even in the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Ex.B3 it was held that the father of defendants purchased the property in the year 1953. As per Ex.B2, Ameena Bee demanded for enhancement of the sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- but D.W.2 in his evidence stated that she claimed Rs.1,000/- towards enhancement of the sale consideration. Even regarding purchase of the stamp paper there are several variations in the evidence. D.W.1 stated that he purchased Ex.B2 stamp paper from stamp vendor of Chilkur Village. But, perusal of Ex.B2 shows that it was purchased by Narahari. D.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that Ahmed 17 Pasha purchased the stamp paper under Ex.B2 and he prepared the draft and also got it typed in Moinabad. The second defendant in the suit was examined as D.W1 and he stated that the first defendant is his elder brother and Mudigonda Kistaiah is their father. He clearly stated that they have not given any application before any officer stating that they purchased the land from Ameena Bee under agreement of sale and requested for recording their possession in the revenue records as purchaser and that they have not obtained any permission under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act from the Tahsildar for purchasing the land at the time of Ex.B1. D.W.2 Jattoji was aged about 80 years. In fact, he signed on both Exs.B1 and B2 documents. He clearly stated that Ameena Bee has not signed on Exs.B1 and B2 in his presence. In fact, Ameena Bee affixed her thumb impressions on the said documents as she is not a signatory and that D.W.3 stated that a panchayat was held in Himayathnagar Village regarding transfer of patta in the name of Mudigonda Kistaiah. In fact, the panchayat was held only for enhancement of sale consideration but not for transfer of patta and moreover Ex.B2 was executed in the year 1988 and Mudigonda Kistaiah died in year 1975 i.e., 13 years before the execution of Ex.B2. As such, the question of 18 Mudigonda Kistaiah giving an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for transfer of patta does not arise. The trial Court also observed that defendants have not taken any initiation to refer Exs.B1 and B2 and also Ex.A1 to the FSL for comparison of admitted thumb impression of Ameena Bee on Ex.A1 with that of disputed thumb impression on Exs.B1 and B2 and they have not sought for summons from the Court to examine Ameena Bee as a Court witness. As on the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2002, Ameena Bee was aged 80 years and she was staying with her son at Himayathnagar village, Hyderabad.
15. No doubt, defendants were in possession of the property but they failed to establish that they are the bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule property. The trial Court observed that as the defendants pleaded that they perfected their title by adverse possession, it is for them to lead evidence and establish the same. Though, they examined D.W.1, he has not stated anything regarding adverse possession and D.Ws.2 and 3 are attestors and no way concerned with the adverse possession. The plaintiff deposed that the defendants are bataidars or kouldars of Ameena Bee and even as per the pahanis filed before the Court they were shown as kouldars and 19 as such the possession however long it may be can be treated only as a permissive possession and it cannot be said that they perfected title by adverse possession.
16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the case law of this Court reported in MEENUGU MALAIAH V/s. ANANTHULA RAJAIAH2, in which it was held as follows:-
"41. In Mandal Revenue Officer V. Goundal Venkaiah and Anakil V. A.Vedanayagam, the Apex Court reiterated the requirements to constitute an adverse possession and according to it, claim by adverse possession has two elements; (1) the possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and (2) the defendant must continue to remain possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus Possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession and it is now a well settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be show to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He much continue in the said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession, it is trite, for period of more than 12 years without anything more does not ripen into a title.2
2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 318] 20
50. Adverse Possession: A method of acquiring title to land without buying or paying for the traditional sense.
51. The following is required:
(a) actual possession or occupancy of the land that is
(b) hostile to the current owner,
(c) visible, open, and notorious,
(d) exclusive,
(e) constinuous for a statutorily defined number of years, and
(f) maintained under a claim of right as against everyone else.
86. The rationale behind adverse possession rests broadly on the considerations that title to the land should not long be in doubt, the society will benefit from some one making use of land, the owner leaves idle and the persons who come to regard, the occupant as owner may be protected. The maxim that law and equity does not help those who sleep over their rights is invoked in support of prescription of title by adverse possession. In other words, the original title holder who neglected to enforce his rights over the land cannot be permitted to re-enter the land after a long passage of time."
17. The trial Court observed that as per the legal position the burden of proof lies on the party who claims adverse possession and it should be established by specific pleading and supported by evidence. There should be a separate pleading to that effect that possession must be open, continuous and hostile to the real owner of adverse and those facts should be supported by clear evidence and the person who claims adverse possession 21 shall prove that from what date his possession has become adverse to the real owner.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a case law reported in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTATIVE) V/s. AAFLOAT TEXTILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED3 in which it was held that it is the bounden duty of the purchaser to make all such necessary enquiries and to ascertain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to committing in any manner. The learned counsel argued that the principle caveat emptor is applicable to the plaintiff herein and he should make necessary enquiries regarding possession of the defendants before purchasing the property but he failed to do so.
19. He also relied upon PRATAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES V/s. SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES4 in which it was held that as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the public document recorded in the books has presumptive value and argued that Ex.B23 khasra pahani has a presumptive value. (2009) 11 SCC 18 3 4 (2020) 11 SCC 242 22
20. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision reported NAMBURI BASAV SUBRAHMANYAM V/s. ALAPATI HYMAVATHI5 to the effect that the nomenclature of the document is not conclusive. The recitals of Exs.B1 and B2 as a whole is conclusive. Learned counsel for the appellants basing on the above judgment contended that Ex.B1 is sale deed but not an agreement of sale.
21. The defendants in the suit mainly contended that Ameena Bee has no saleable interest to sell the property in favor of plaintiff and as such the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff is not valid and that the plaintiff approached the Court seeking declaration of title and got examined himself as P.W.1 and the attestors as P.Ws.2 and 3. Ameena Bee sold the property to P.W.1 for Rs.12,10,000/- under Ex.A1 registered sale deed. As Ameena Bee was owner, pattadar and title holder to the suit schedule property she had saleable right in the property and accordingly she sold the same to the plaintiff. She was shown as pattadar under Exs.A3 to A6.
22. The plaintiff in the suit filed A.S.M.P.No.2076 of 2011 before this Court seeking to receive the documents as additional (1996) 9 SCC 388 5 23 evidence and mark them as Exs.A7 to A11 in the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it is revealed that after execution of the sale deed on 09.08.2002 he got it mutated in his name vide proceedings of the Thasildar dated 16.09.2002, but the defendants preferred an appeal against the said order and after the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2003 he preferred an appeal against the orders of the Revenue Division Officer, before the Joint Collector and he passed an order dated 19.01.2011 directing the parties to resolve their disputes before the Civil Court. He stated that pass books and title deeds were issued in his favour and filed the same before this Court. These documents were obtained by him after the disposal of the suit on 29.03.2006 and during the pendency of the appeal and filed in this appeal to substantiate his title. Therefore, I feel it reasonable to allow the application and receive the documents.
23. The trial Court while discussing Issue No.3 clearly held that Ex.A4 in Column No.15 it was clearly mentioned as kowldar. It means either lease or batai. One Kavali Jangaiah was also show as cultivator or possessor for the years 1970-71 and bataidar for the year 1972-73 and 1973-74 is shown as kowldar. The plaintiff clearly stated that defendants and their father and one Kavali Jangaiah and Venkaiah are pattadars and 24 kowldars of the property. If at all the defendants are bona fide purchasers the entries in the pahanies will not show as them kowladar or bataidar.
24. The plaintiff in the plaint stated that defendants were paying batai on crop share basis but in the cross-examination P.W.1 stated that they paid in the shape of cash, but the trial Court did not consider the said variation and held that defendants are cultivating the suit schedule property on batai basis. The trial Court discussed all the minute details in the judgment and considered the oral and documentary evidence in detail at length. Perusal of the evidence on record clearly shows that Exs.B1 and B2 are only agreement of sale even as per the contents of documents but not sale deeds as contended by the defendants. The defendants did not make any effort to get the register sale deed in their favour at least after execution of Ex.B2 in the year 1988. Only when the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2002 and when the plaintiff insisted for payment of batai to him, they refused on the ground that they are the bona fide purchasers and as such the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and also for vacant possession. The trial Court clearly held that Ameena Bee was having saleable interest while executing Ex.A1 in favour of the 25 plaintiff and the defendants are bataidars of Ameena Bee and they paid the batai till 1999-2000 and their possession was only permissive possession and as such they cannot perfect their title by adverse possession. As the plaintiff is the absolute owner and title holder of the suit schedule property, he is entitled for the relief of recovery of possession.
25. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed inlimini and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
26. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final judgment.
____________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.
8th JUNE, 2022.
PGS