Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
D.Rami Reddy And Others vs The Executive Officer, Tirumala ... on 2 April, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2012 AP 38, (2013) 1 ANDHLD 521
Bench: Goda Raghuram, N.Ravi Shankar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
APPEAL SUIT No.2512 of 2001
02-04-2012
D.Rami Reddy and others
The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and another
Counsel for the Appellants:Sri K.V.Satyanarayana
Counsel for the Respondents:Sri M.Adinarayana Raju Spl. Govt. Pleader
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2000) 7 SCC 543
2. 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 228
3. (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 134
4. 1971 (1) AnWR 27
5. 1963 (2) AnWR 418
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
Appellant, Duggandla Rami Reddy, represented by his power of attorney
holder Duggandla Mohan Reddy, is the plaintiff in O.S.No.42 of 1997 on the file
of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (trial court). He
brought that suit for declaration of his title to the suit land and for recovery
of possession of the same from the defendants. The trial court, after contest,
dismissed that suit by its judgment and decree dated 3rd October 2001.
Aggrieved by the same, he filed this appeal.
2. The first defendant is Sri Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) and the
second defendant is the Tirupati Municipality. The suit land is Acs.3-00
consisting of Ac.1-88 cents described in plaint 'A' schedule and Ac.1-12 cents
described in plaint 'B' schedule with survey numbers in Tirupati Urban Mandal-
Tirupati Town. To appreciate points in this first appeal, the respective cases
of the parties and their contentions should be noted. Henceforth, for
convenience, they are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. According to the plaintiff, his father late Peddamuni Reddy purchased the
suit land for a sum of Rs.90/- under Ex.A.1 unregistered document described as
saswata patta dated 02.04.1911 from its lawful owner Tallapaka
Venkataseshacharyulu and obtained possession of the same on the very same day.
The plaintiff's version is that subsequently his father obtained Ex.A.2 ryotwari
patta dated 30th December 1957 from the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, for the suit
land under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1956 (for short Act), and continued in possession and enjoyment of it.
This Ex.A.2 is, according to plaintiff, preceded by Ex.X.10 decision dated 27th
September 1957 of Tahsildar notifying the suit land as inam land under the Act.
He also says that his father earlier and as well as himself perfected his title
to the suit land even by prescription and his father died in 1959 thereupon he
inherited the suit land.
4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that subsequently it turned out that the
first defendant occupied plaint 'A' schedule land of Ac.1-88 cents on 4th
December 1996 and the second defendant occupied plaint 'B' schedule land of
Ac.1-12 cents without any manner of right and did not handover possession of the
same to him despite repeated requests and a notice and therefore he had been
constrained to bring the suit.
5. Before we set out the pleas of the defendants, we must mention that the
trial court judgment would show that it rejected the plaintiff's case more on
the ground that he failed to establish that the suit land is the same land for
which Ex.A.1 saswatha patta and Ex.A.2 ryotwari patta were issued. Sri
M.Adinarayana Raju, the learned counsel appearing for TTD filed a chart showing
the original extent of the land in Sy.No.9 of Tirupati and its sub-divisions and
their extents and in which sub-division the suit land lies. The said chart is
as follows.
S.No.9
Ac.50-50
|
------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
S.No.9/1 S.No.9/2
Ac.24-23 Ac.29-27
|
-----------------------------
| |
9/1A 9/1B
Ac.2-55 Ac.21-68
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
9/1B/1A 9/1B/1B 9/1B/1C
Ac.2-57 Ac.3-56 Ac.15-34
|
Location on the West Given at the time of formation Located| on Eastern
of Bye Pass road of Bye pass road to D1 TTD side of Bye| pass road
|
------------------------------------
| | |
9/1B/1C1 9/1B/1C2 9/1B/1C3
Ac.0-40 Ac.13-58 Ac.1-36
(Ac.13-64 u/sale (Ac.1-42
U/
u/deed dt.26-8-93 agreement
dt.
Plaint "A" Sch 4-4-97
Plaint
"B" schedule
6. The above chart has been agreed to by Sri K.V.Satyanarayana, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff. Even in Ex.A.2/Ex.X.1 patta the suit land is shown
in Sy.No.9/1B. Thus it is clear that defendants did not dispute the identity of
survey numbers of the suit land though they raised a dispute regarding
boundaries and actual identity and raised various other pleas to contend that
the plaintiff's claim is devoid of merits.
7. Now turning to the case of defendants, their first plea is that the
entire extent in Sy.No.9/1B i.e. Acs.21-68 cents was acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), by the Government in 1937 under Ex.B.1 award and
was made over to the second defendant municipality for public purposes. Their
plea is that by reason of Ex.B.1 award the suit land ceased to be inam land by
the date of commencement of the Act and therefore Ex.A.2 patta is void as the
Tahsildar will have no jurisdiction to grant it as the Act has no application to
it. Their version is that the Tahsildar acted with total lack of jurisdiction
in granting Ex.A.2 patta and consequently it is a nullity.
8. The further plea of the first defendant is that the land in question in
Sy.No.9 of which the suit land is a part was a grant made for singing hymns for
the deity of TTD Temple and it was not a personal grant to members of the
Tallapaka family and consequently the transferor under Ex.A.1 had no right or
power to execute the same and therefore it cannot give any valid title to the
plaintiff's father. Defendants further pleaded that they were persons
interested in the land and the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, did not give any notices
to them before granting Ex.A.2 patta and therefore it is not, on that ground
also, binding on them. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants in this
appeal also argued that plaintiff's father was not an Inamdar and as the
Tahsildar treated the Tirupati village as ryotwari village, plaintiff's father
was not entitled to any patta and on that ground also Ex.A.2 patta is null and
void.
9. They then pleaded that the revenue record relied upon by the plaintiff
does not confer any title upon him to the suit land and that Exs.A.1 and A.2 and
the revenue record are also got up documents. Lastly they pleaded that the
plaintiff or his father were never in possession of the suit land and therefore
the question of their perfecting title to it by prescription does not arise at
all.
10. The main contention and argument of Sri K.V.Satyanarayana is that once the
Tahsildar has exercised his jurisdiction and granted Ex.A.2 ryotwari patta in
favour of the plaintiff's father that becomes final under Section 3(7) of the
Act and the trial court or this court cannot go into its validity and the suit
ought to be decreed. In support of this contention he relied upon various
decisions. We will refer to them to the extent necessary. He also argued that
Ex.A.1 saswatha patta and Exs.X.1 to X.14 documents and the revenue record
support plaintiff's case in all respects including possession and he must also
be held to have acquired title by prescription and the trial court erroneously
ignored the same.
11. On the other hand, the arguments of Sri M.Adinarayana Raju and the
learned Special Government Pleader are based on the pleas of the defendants
which are set out in paras-7, 8 and 9 above. They also relied upon certain
decisions and we will mention them to the extent necessary.
12. Before we go into the points raised in this appeal, it may be noted that
the details of the evidence let in by both sides in support of their respective
cases have been given in the appendix of evidence at the foot of the trial court
judgment. The plaintiff summoned certain documents from the office of the
Tahsildar, Chandragiri, in support of his case and they have been marked as
Exs.X.1 to X.15.
Point No.1:
13. On the above contentions and arguments the first point that would arise
is whether the suit land was acquired by the Government under Ex.B.1 award and
if so whether Ex.X.10 decision of the Tahsildar and Ex.A.2 ryotwari patta are
void and not binding on the defendants. This question was not framed as an
issue by the trial court and not answered. However, as this is a pure question
of law pertaining to jurisdiction we are considering this aspect as both sides
have argued it.
14. A Gazette copy of the Section 4(1) notification of the LA Act published
in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 6th October 1936 of the erstwhile Madras
State marked as Ex.B.22 would show that a part of the land in Sy.No.9/1 i.e.
Sy.No.9/1B (along with a part in Sy.No.9/2) was acquired under the LA Act for a
public purpose i.e. sewerage purposes in Tirupati municipality and subsequently
Ex.B.1 award was passed. Exs.B.1 and B.22 were marked in the evidence of D.W.2
K.Tulasiram, the then Supervisor of the Town Planning Department of second
defendant. Ex.B.1 award which is of 1937 pertains to Sy.No.9/1B consisting of
Acs.21-68 cents which is admittedly part of Sy.No.9/1 according to the chart
furnished by Sri Adinarayana Raju and not disputed by Sri K.V.Satyanarayana. It
is the admitted case of both sides that plaint 'A' schedule land is in
Sy.No.9/1B/1C2 and plaint 'B' schedule land is in Sy.No.9/1B/1C3 and both are
admittedly part of Sy.No.9/1B. In Ex.B.22 notification and also in Ex.B.1 award,
the land is described as inam land. Thus it follows that the suit land was also
acquired under Ex.B.1 award.
15. P.W.1 Rami Reddy, the plaintiff in his cross-
examination was asked about the above acquisition under the LA Act. He stated
that he does not know about the same. In other words, plaintiff was not in a
position to dispute the above acquisition. Sri K.V.Satyanarayana also could not
bring to our notice any circumstance in the evidence to hold that the suit land
was not part of the land acquired under Ex.B.1 award. In fact, in the course of
arguments we specifically asked him about the above acquisition pleaded by
defendants and he fairly stated that he is not in a position to dispute the
same. Accordingly the case of defendants that the suit land was acquired along
with other land in Sy.No.9/1B under Ex.B.1 award of 1937 as matters stand has to
be accepted. We should also mention here that the name of the plaintiff's
father is not found in Ex.B.1 award as an occupant and this will have a bearing
on the plaintiff's claim regarding possession of the suit land and we will
advert to it under point No.3.
16. The Act came into force on 26th September 1956. In view of Ex.B.1 award
which is of 1937 it follows that the suit land did not exist as an inam for the
Tahsildar, Chandragiri, to exercise jurisdiction under the Act to grant patta as
the land in question already stood vested in the Government by reason of Ex.B.1
award even in 1937 itself and was not available as inam on the date of the
commencement of the Act. Section 1(2) of the Act says that the Act applies only
to inam lands as described in Section 2(c) thereof. Then Section 2(c) defines
inam land. Thus for the application of the Act there must be inam land in
existence as on the date of its commencement either in a ryotwari village; in a
zamindari village; or in an inam village. Under the LA Act it is settled
position that once acquisition is made and the award passed the land stands
vested in the Government free from all encumbrances and the rights of the owners
of such land or the occupants of the same can only be to claim compensation and
they have no other right in it.
17. It should be noted that Ex.B.22-Section 4(1) notification under the LA Act
and Ex.B.1 award are public documents and their veracity, especially as
plaintiff and his counsel were not in a position to dispute the same, cannot be
doubted. It is clear that the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, ignored the above
acquisition of the suit land by the Government. In view of this acquisition,
the suit land was not available as inam for applying the Act which came into
force in 1956. It can therefore be said that the Tahsildar in granting Ex.A.2
patta has acted with total lack of inherent jurisdiction under the Act as it has
no application to the land. This itself shows that the Ex.A.2 patta cannot be
treated as a valid document and it has to be treated as a void document just
like a civil court decree granted against a dead person or in respect of a
non-existing property.
18. Here Section 44 of the Evidence Act, 1872, becomes relevant. Section 44
falls under that group of sections in the Evidence Act which deals with
relevancy of judgments of courts of justice and it reads as follows.
"44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be
proved.-- Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment,
order or decree which is relevant under section 40, 41 or 42 and which has been
proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver
it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion."
19. From the language of Section 44 it is clear that a judgment which was
given by a court not competent to deliver it or where it was obtained by fraud
or collusion is not relevant in any subsequent proceedings. In Gram Panchayat
of Village Naulakha vs. Ujagar Singh1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon
Section 44 has laid down the proposition that where a judgment is found to be
fraudulent or collusive, it can be challenged in a later suit or proceedings by
the party against whom it is relied upon and it is not necessary for that party
to file an independent suit for a declaration for setting aside the same on that
ground.
20. The above proposition going by Section 44 of the Evidence Act can be
equally applied to the judgment of a court which had no inherent jurisdiction
and was in that sense not competent to deliver that judgment. The same
proposition can be equally applied to the decision of an administrative
authority also under an Act over a subject matter to which the said Act itself
has no application. Sri K.V.Satyanarayana however relied upon Section 3(7) and
Section 14 of the Act and contended that in view of the said provisions, Ex.X.10
decision of the Tahsildar notifying the land as inam land and Ex.A.2 patta
granted by him cannot be questioned.
21. It is true that Section 3(7) of the Act says that every decision of the
revenue court and subject to that decision, every decision of the Tahsildar
under Section 3 of the Act shall be binding on all persons and institutions
claiming an interest in any inam land covered by the Act notwithstanding that
such persons or institutions have not filed any application or statement or
adduced any evidence or appeared or participated in the proceedings before the
Tahsildar or the revenue court. It is also true that Section 14 of the Act
which deals with bar of jurisdiction of civil courts says that no suit or other
proceedings shall be instituted in any civil court to set aside or modify any
decision of the Tahsildar, the revenue court or the Collector under this Act
except where such decision is obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion
of parties.
22. Sri Satyanarayana's contention is that in view of the above provisions,
defendants cannot be permitted to question the validity of Ex.X.10 decision of
the Tahsildar and granting of Ex.A.2 patta in favour of the plaintiff. He also
relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the
exercise of jurisdiction by an authority or a special tribunal under an Act and
when such decisions can be treated as void and when they can be treated as
irregular. He says that grant of Ex.A.2 patta can be said to be an irregular
exercise of jurisdiction which can be corrected only in statutory remedies under
the Act and cannot be said to be void. Of the many decisions cited by Sri
Satyanarayana, two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are relevant to the
point as they are directly given on the position under the present Act. The
first is Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat vs. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu2.
The second is Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vs. Thallappaka Ananthacharyulu3.
23. Regarding finality of decisions/orders passed by the Tahsildar and other
authorities under the Act this is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in
para 23 of the
judgment in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat's case (2
supra).
"23. The jurisdiction of a tribunal created under statute may depend upon the
fulfilment of some condition precedent or upon existence of some particular
fact. Such a fact is collateral to the actual matter which the Tribunal has to
try and the determination whether it existed or not is logically temporary prior
to the determination of the actual question which the tribunal has to consider.
At the inception of an enquiry by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, when a
challenge is made to its jurisdiction, the tribunal has to consider as the
collateral fact whether it would act or not and for that purpose to arrive at
some decision as to whether it has jurisdiction or not. There may be tribunal
which by virtue of the law constituting it has the power to determine finally,
even the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of its jurisdiction
depends; but subject to that, the tribunal cannot by a wrong decision with
regard to collateral fact, give itself a jurisdiction which it would not
otherwise have had. Except such tribunals of limited jurisdiction, when the
statute not only empowers to enquire into jurisdictional facts but also the
rights and controversy finally it is entitled to enter on the enquiry and reach
a decision rightly or wrongly. If it has jurisdiction to do right, it has
jurisdiction to do wrong. It may be irregular or illegal which could be
corrected in appeal or revision subject to that the order would become final.
The questions to be asked, therefore, are whether the tribunal has jurisdiction
under Inam Act to decide for itself finally; whether the institution or the
inamdar or the tenant is entitled to ryotwari patta under Sections 3, 4 and 7
and whether the tribunal is of a limited jurisdiction and its decision on the
issue of patta is a collateral fact."
24. The legal position stated in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat's case (2
supra) was considered in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams's case (3 supra).
However in para 3 of the judgment in the latter case it was held "thus as per
the law laid down by this Court in Andhra Pradesh the civil court would have
jurisdiction only in cases of misrepresentation, fraud or collusion of parties".
These are the grounds on which a suit can be filed under Section 14 of the Act
challenging a patta or proceedings under the Act.
25. From the legal position stated in the Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat's
case (2 supra), it can be concluded that despite Section 3(7) and Section 14 of
the Act, if the Tahsildar acting under the Act has decided jurisdictional facts
wrongly and applied the Act to a land to which it has no application, he assumes
a jurisdiction which he would not otherwise have. This proposition has not been
varied in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams's case (3 supra) and the said judgment
reads that the above view regarding the effect of wrongly deciding
jurisdictional facts has also received approval. The facts in the present case
would show that the Tahsildar granted Ex.A.2 patta for the suit land though it
ceased to be inam and became Government land in 1937 itself by reason of Ex.B.1
award. It can thus be said that Ex.A.2 patta is void.
26. It is true that Section 14 of the Act says that a civil court can have
jurisdiction only when the proceedings under the Act are vitiated by fraud,
misrepresentation or collusion. However, when the Act itself has no application
to the land in question, in our opinion, that can also be an additional ground
to treat a patta granted under it as void notwithstanding the above Section 14
and also Section 3(7) of the Act as that amounts to exercising a jurisdiction
not permitted by the Act and not an irregular exercise of available
jurisdiction.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, in view of the legal position stated in Gram
Panchayat of Village Naulakha's case (1 supra) based on Section 44 of the
Evidence Act, it follows that defendants can successfully question and resist
Ex.X.10 decision of the Tahsildar and Ex.A.2 patta as void and not binding on
them in the present suit by way of their defence. Accordingly, we decide this
point in favour of the defendants.
Point No.2:
28. We must say here that the above conclusion of ours on point No.1 is
sufficient to dismiss this appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court.
However both the learned counsel for defendants argued that Exs.A.1 and A.2 can
be said to be vitiated by collusion and misrepresentation; for want of notice to
them; and on the ground that the plaintiff's father was granted Ex.A.2 patta for
the suit land to which he is not entitled and therefore they are not binding on
them. The learned counsel for the plaintiff tried to sustain Exs.A.1 and A.2
opposing the above argument of the counsel for defendants. As this court has to
answer all the points raised in a first appeal, we take up that controversy as
point No.2.
29. The first contention of the learned Special Government Pleader and Sri
Adinarayana Raju is that no individual notices were given to the defendants by
the Tahsildar under the Act, and if such notices had been given, they would have
brought to the notice of the Tahsildar about Ex.B.1 award, the unreliability of
Ex.A.1 and that the plaintiff's claim is devoid of merits. They say that Ex.A.2
patta and all other proceedings of the Tahsildar must be held to be vitiated and
void on that ground also. Opposing this contention, Sri Satyanarayana relied
upon a Division Bench decision of this court given in Sri Malleswara Swami Vari
Temple vs. Juttiga4 and contended that it was not necessary to give any
individual notices to the defendants under the Act and A.P. Andhra Area Inams
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1957 (for short the Rules)
framed thereunder in the enquiry that preceded the issuance of Ex.X.10 decision
and Ex.A.2 patta and consequently the same cannot be held to be invalid on that
ground.
30. The above contention of Sri Satyanarayana cannot be accepted. Sub-rules
2, 3 and 4 of the Rules prescribe the procedure for issuing notices before the
Tahsildar takes a decision under Section 3 of the Act to notify a land as inam
land. Sub-rule 5 says that copies of notice shall also be served on all other
persons known or believed to be interested in the lands in question by the
Tahsildar. Sub-rule 6 says that where the person interested is found to be an
institution, notice shall be sent to the Manager or trustee or executive officer
or other person in charge of that institution before taking the decision.
Explaining the scope of this sub-rule 5 the Division Bench in Sri Malleswara
Swami Vari Temple's case (4 supra) held as follows in para-10 of the judgment.
"10. Before sub-rule (5) is attracted it has to be shown that the Special
Deputy Tahsildar who was making an enquiry under section 3 knew or believed that
the petitioners were interested in the lands specified in the notice. The
section or the said sub-rule does not cast any duty upon the Tahsildar to make
any effort to find out as to who are the persons can be said to be interested in
the lands specified in the notice. If he by some method or other happens to
actually know or he believed that the petitioners were interested in the lands
specified in the notice then the sub-rule which is couched in a mandatory and
imperative language casts an obligation upon the Tahsildar to issue notice to
such person."
31. The above passage and the observations made in the above Division Bench
judgment would of-course show that no general duty is cast upon the Tahsildar to
give individual notices to the persons interested, but if it is shown that there
is some material before the Tahsildar from which he could reasonably infer or he
can be made to believe that a third person is also interested in the land and
when there is such material, he ought to give individual notice to such third
person before taking a decision about the nature of the inam and to grant patta.
In the present case, Ex.X.1 application dated 06.11.1956 itself of the
plaintiff's father seeking patta discloses that the grant was made for singing
hymns in Lord Venkateswara Swamy temple in Tirumala but the grant was to an
individual. The further claim was that since the grant was made to an
individual, Tallapaka Venkataseshacharyulu who was the inamdar or a descendant
of the inamdar was competent to transfer it under Ex.A.1.
32. It should now be noted that Lord Venkateswara Swamy's temple in Tirumala
is a very ancient famous temple in our country and it was so in 1957 as well and
is situate on the Tirumala hills near Tirupati right from the beginning. That
being the case, no revenue official can be permitted to say that there was no
material before him or he had no knowledge about the interest of that temple in
the land especially and, to repeat, when Ex.X.1 application itself discloses
that the grant was made for singing hymns in that temple. Therefore it can be
said that the Tahsildar was duty bound to ascertain whether the grant was to the
individual or to the said temple and for that purpose it was his duty to hear
the version of the authorities of the said temple also, about the nature of the
grant. Thus as held by the Division Bench in the above decision, this case
cannot be said to be a case where there was no reasonable material before the
Tahsildar to ignore issuing notice to the authorities of the above temple,
managed by the TTD. The Tahsildar failed to give notice to that temple.
33. The learned single Judge who decided the matter in the first instance (in
the aforesaid case) held that failure of the Tahsildar to give individual
notices to other interested persons while taking a decision in Form-II under
Section 3 of the Act makes the whole proceedings void. The Division Bench did
not totally reverse the above view but as stated in para-10 of that judgment
which is extracted supra, it held that to find fault with the Tahsildar in that
behalf it must be shown that there was some material before him from which it
can be said that the Tahsildar had knowledge about the other persons interested
in the land. The Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in that matter on the ground that there was no such material before the
Tahsildar to give individual notices to the persons aggrieved therein. The
Division Bench, thus, upheld the view that the patta or the decision of the
Tahsildar to notify the land as inam land would be void if the Tahsildar failed
to give notices to the other persons interested when he had knowledge about them
or there was some material before him from which it can be said that Tahsildar
ought to have issued notice to third parties interested in the land. In the
present case, the situation is otherwise as Ex.X.1 application of the
plaintiff's father itself discloses that the temple i.e. TTD is also interested
in the land and therefore the failure of the Tahsildar to give individual
notices to TTD vitiates Ex.A.2 patta and makes it void as against TTD and
consequently against the second defendant also. Ex.B.1 award further
strengthens the above conclusion.
34. The aforesaid conclusion of ours on the first contention raised by
defendants under this point is sufficient to decide the same in favour of
defendants. Hence, we decide this point also in favour of defendants.
35. Regarding the plea of Sri Adinarayana Raju that since plaintiff's father
was not an inamdar, he is not entitled to patta for the suit land as it is
notified to be in a ryotwari village by the Tahsildar, we must say that the said
plea is correct. It should be noted that under Ex.X.10 decision, the Tahsildar
notified the suit land to be inam declaring Tirupati village as ryotwari
village. The plaintiff's father was admittedly not an inamdar and he got
possession only under Ex.A.1 which is described as permanent lease deed. Thus
Section 4(1) of the Act which deals with grant of pattas in ryotwari or
zamindari villages provides for grant of pattas only to inamdars. It is Section
4(2) which says that in the case of inam land situate in an inam village alone,
a person in occupation of land as a tenant or in some capacity mentioned therein
would be entitled to patta subject to satisfaction of the conditions and the
shares stated therein.
36. The above legal position has been stated in the decision of this court in
G.C.H.Jagadev vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali5 and the matter was
remanded back to the Tahsildar, but the patta was not declared void. Hence, it
is difficult to accept the contention of defendants that Ex.A.2 patta can be
said to be void on that ground in view of the aforesaid decision of this court.
Even otherwise we refrain from expressing any final opinion on this question as
our conclusions under point No.1 and the aforesaid reasons recorded under point
No.2 are enough to dismiss the appeal.
37. The learned Special Government Pleader invited us to examine Ex.A.1 and
its stamp paper, Exs.B.23 and B.24 registered saswata pattas of 1925 and 1927
respectively and argued that the above documents would show that Ex.A.1 must be
rejected as a doubtful document and not as genuine. He also argued that Ex.X.1
application, Ex.X.8 patta, Ex.X.9 order of the Tahsildar and Ex.X.10 decision of
the Tahsildar appear to have been typed on the same typewriter. He also pointed
out that Ex.X.10 decision of the Tahsildar to notify the suit land as inam land
is dated 27th September 1957 whereas the Rules came into force
on 27th November 1957 and this circumstance would also show that everything was
done in haste. Basing on the said contentions, the learned Special Government
Pleader says that the entire proceedings can be said to be vitiated by
misrepresentation, fraud and collusion and therefore the aforesaid documents
should be ignored as void on that ground in view of Section 14 of the Act.
38. We have considered the above contentions. It is seen that the trail court
did not frame any issue on the above contentions. It is clear that defendants
did not invite the trial court or insist upon it to frame specific issues on
their above pleas or contentions regarding allegations of collusion, fraud and
misrepresentation. It is seen that defendants also did not lead any expert
evidence regarding their contentions relating to stamp paper on which Ex.A.1 is
drafted and the type written matter on other documents. Hence we do not propose
to go into the above questions of collusion, fraud and misrepresentation in this
appeal. We must however say that Exs.B.23 and B.24 documents have relevance to
the plaintiff's plea relating to possession of the suit land and we will
consider them under point No.3.
Point No.3:
39. The third point is regarding plaintiff's possession of the suit land and
the title claimed by him by prescription. Sri K.V.Satyanarayana relied upon
Exs.A.5 to A.9 cist receipts (roughly pertaining to Fasli 1361 to 1386),
Exs.A.10 and A.11 Adangal copies (roughly pertaining to Fasli 1369 to 1379 and
1383) to show that the plaintiff's father and later on the plaintiff himself
were in possession of the suit land. They pertain to Sy.No.9/1B, but extent is
not mentioned. Equally the defendants relied upon Exs.B.2 to B.23 and B.25 to
B.29 documents which are correspondence between defendants inter se and
Government orders and a possession certificate to show that they are in
possession of the suit land right from the beginning. Ex.B.21 is the sale deed
dated 26th August 1993 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first
defendant in respect of Acs.13-64 cents in Sy.No.9/1B/1C2 of which plaint 'A'
schedule land is a part. Ex.B.12 is the agreement of sale dated 4th April 1997
executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant in respect of
Acs.3-10 cents covered by four survey numbers and of them Sy.No.9/1B/1C3 is the
survey number which consists of plaint 'B' schedule land. These documents were
spoken to by D.Ws.1 to 3 who are all officials. The other documents namely
Exs.B.6, B.14 and all other documents among 'B' series marked on behalf of the
defendants would show that possession of the suit land has been with the second
defendant and subsequently it was made over to the first defendant.
40. We have earlier concluded under point No.1 that Ex.X.10 decision of the
Tahsildar and Ex.A.2 patta are void. Thus the title of the plaintiff based on
the said two documents cannot be upheld. Even with regard to the prescriptive
title set up by the plaintiff, Exs.A.5 to A.11 cist receipts and adangals can be
given weight only if there is no other evidence showing a better possessory
title in favour of the defendants. Even otherwise it may be noted that any
person may pay cist for any land but it is not conclusive proof of possession or
ownership. The documents filed by the defendants preponderantly show that
possession has been with them right from the beginning. In fact, though it is
the case of the plaintiff that his father has been cultivating the land right
from the date of Ex.A.1, he could not adduce any convincing evidence to prove
the same. Added to this, Ex.B.1 award shows that the suit land already vested
in the Government and became Government land in 1937 itself.
41. It may also be noted that in a suit for declaration of title, the
plaintiff has to positively prove his case regarding title and cannot rely upon
any weaknesses in the defendant's title. In the present case the evidence also
shows that the defendants have a better case both on title and possession. Even
with regard to boundaries and the identity of the land claimed on the basis of
Ex.A.1 patta, the case of the plaintiff as observed by the trial court is not
convincing.
42. In Ex.A.1 the boundaries for the entire extent of Acs.3-00 are
shown as South-Erukula bata (tribal path), West, South and East-remaining land
of executant of that document. In the plaint for the plaint 'A' schedule land
of Ac.1-88 cents, the boundaries are shown as East, West and North-TTD's land
and South-plaint 'B' schedule land. For plaint 'B' schedule land, the
boundaries shown in that schedule are South-Erukula bata, North-plaint 'A'
schedule land. The Eastern and Western boundaries are shown as canal and TTD
land and road respectively.
43. In the first commissioner's report, the boundaries for the entire extent
are shown as East- Drainage channel, South-Vacant lands in Sy.No.623, West-TTD
land and bye pass road and North-TTD lands. In the second commissioner's report
the boundaries for the entire extent are shown as East-Drainage channel, South-
Erukula bata, West-1st defendant's land and road and North-Plaint 'A' schedule
property divided with fence from plaint 'B' schedule property. Thus it is clear
that boundaries also do not tally and it is also very difficult to localize the
land.
44. Exs.B.23 and B.24 documents, relied upon by the learned Special Government
Pleader, coupled with Ex.B.1 award also have significance to negative the case
of plaintiff regarding possession. Exs.B.23 and B.24 are saswatha pattas dated
14.11.1925 and 27.06.1927 respectively and they are registered documents.
Ex.B.23 shows that it was executed by one T.Mahadevacharyulu in favour of one
K.Venkat Reddy. Ex.B.24 shows that it was executed by the present Tallapaka
Venkataseshacharyulu who also executed Ex.A.1. The recitals in Exs.B.23 and
B.24 would show that both the above gentlemen transferred their right to 1/6th
share and 5/6th share respectively in Sy.No.9 consisting of Acs.53-50 cents and
lands in some other survey numbers in favour of two transferees i.e. K.Venkat
Reddy and P.Subba Reddy mentioned in the said documents respectively. They show
that both the said transferees got possession of the suit land also but in
unpredicated shares, as will be presently seen.
45. The chart furnished by Sri Adinarayana Raju shows that Sy.No.9 consisted
of Acs.53-50 cents and it was subsequently sub-divided. Ex.A.1 dated 02.04.1911
relied upon by the plaintiff is not mentioned in Exs.B.23 and B.24 which are
subsequent documents of 1925 and 1927 respectively even though Ex.A.1 also
pertains to Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.9. If Tallapaka Venkataseshacharyulu had already
transferred Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.9 in favour of plaintiff's father under Ex.A.1
which is of 1911, what should have been transferred under Exs.B.23 and B.24 must
be only Acs.50-00 and odd, but not the entire extent of Acs.53-50 cents i.e. in
Sy.No.9. This circumstance shows that the plaintiff's case regarding obtaining
of possession of the suit land by his father under Ex.A.1 is highly improbable.
46. The above improbability regarding the plaintiff's possession of the suit
land further stands strengthened by Ex.B.1 award. In Ex.B.1 award the names of
the above four persons i.e. T.Mahadevacharyulu, T.Venkataseshacharyulu,
K.Venkata Reddy and P.Subba Reddy are shown as persons interested in the land
acquired i.e. in Sy.No.9/1B. The plaintiff's father's name is not found in
Ex.B.1 and this is a negative point for the plaintiff. Added to this, plaintiff
has not been able to produce any evidence to show that the above four persons or
their descendents claimed any patta under the Act and were successful. This is
also a minus point for the plaintiff and shows that the entire land in
Sy.No.9/1B or even in Sy.No.9 itself was treated as Government land after Ex.B.1
patta and therefore the Act was not applicable to it. This circumstance would
also show that as the land vested in the Government nobody claimed any patta
under the Act. It should also be noted that the plaintiff has not let in any
convincing evidence to show that his father or himself continuously exercised
hostile title for a period of more than 12 years against the Government or the
defendants.
47. What follows from the above circumstances is that the plaintiff's claim
regarding possession and adverse possession has to be rejected as unconvincing
and not proved. We therefore agree with the view of the trial court which held
against the plaintiff on the above aspects.
48. Accordingly, this appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs. All the
C.M.Ps. filed for various interim reliefs pending this appeal, shall stand
disposed of according to the result of this appeal.
_______________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J
______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 2nd APRIL, 2012