Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Narina Satyanarayana @ Addala ... vs Addala Venkata Ramana . on 5 September, 2019
Bench: Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7218 OF 2011
NARINA SATYANARAYANA @ ADDALA SATYANARYN … Appellants
VERSUS
ADDALA VENKATA RAMANA . & ORS. … Respondents
O R D E R
Heard Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Shwetha Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.01.2019 delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby the second appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court as well as the Additional District Judge affirming the judgment of the trial court were set aside.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed that she was owner in possession of 0.03 acre, i.e., 3 cents (approximately 150 sq. yds) of land shown in the plaint schedule. According to her, the defendant was a distant relative and she had permitted him on his request to stay in a portion of the small hut constructed by her on this portion of the land. Signature Not Verified
It is not disputed Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.09.26 that the lands are Government Paramboke lands. 11:39:47 IST Reason:
2
According to the plaintiff, the defendant started repairing some portion of the house and, therefore, on 16.6.1977, she got a notice issued to him to stop the repairs and, thereafter on
30.04.1978 got issued a notice to the defendant to vacate the premises. Since he did not vacate the premises, she filed a suit. The stand of the first defendant in the written statement was that, in fact, he along with the plaintiff had both come to Rajahmundry in the year 1945 and they jointly occupied this 3 cents of land in Rajendranagar. According to the defendant, this land was divided equally between them and each one constructed a hut on half portion of the land. They both had constructed houses in their respective portions. Further stand of the defendant was that he got a patta for 1.5 cents within the specified boundaries and has been residing there uninterruptedly. The trial court, after framing issues, recorded evidence and decreed the suit. Thereafter, the defendant filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge and the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court and held that it was mandatory upon the plaintiff to prove her title by producing the Patta which had not been produced. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the matter was remanded. Both the parties were given permission to lead further evidence. Reading of the judgment of the first appellate court in the first round clearly indicates that the first appellate court held that the plaintiff had to produce the Patta to prove her title.
3After the case was remanded, the parties led some evidences. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, the only additional evidence was in the nature of further examination of PW-2. As far as the defendant is concerned, three documents were filed after remand including the some plan of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit which judgment was upheld by the appellate Court. The defendant then approached the High Court in second appeal. Though the substantial question of law, as framed by the Court, is unartistically worded, the substance of the question as framed by the High Court was, “Whether the Courts below were justified in declaring the title of the plaintiff in the absence of the Patta in the light of the remand order in A.S. No.8 of 1988 wherein it was held that non-filing of the patta by the respondent is fatal”. It is well settled law that if proceedings between the parties attain finality on a certain issue, then that issue cannot be raised in subsequent or collateral proceedings. In the first round, the appellant court held that proof of the Patta was mandatory. Despite that, patta was not produced. The explanation given is that the Patta was lost. As rightly held by the High Court, even if the Patta was lost, an attempt could have been made to produce evidence from the Government Department that the Patta was, in fact, issued by the concerned department to the plaintiff. It is not disputed that the lands are Government Paramboke land. It is an admitted position that Patta with regard to Paramboke land is given as per the occupation of the people in 4 possession of the land. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of half portion of the property on the basis of title. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the title. The plaintiff cannot take benefit of the fact that the defendant has failed to prove his title perfectly.
Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………………………………,J.
(Deepak Gupta) ………………………………………………………,J.
(Aniruddha Bose) New Delhi;
September 05, 2019.
ITEM NO.118 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 7218/2011
NARINA SATYANARAYANA @ ADDALA SATYANARYN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ADDALA VENKATA RAMANA . & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 05-09-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Adv.
Mr. Sarath S. Janradanan, Adv.
Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, AOR Ms. Shwetha Parihar, Adv.
Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Adv.
Ms. G. Ushasri, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu T. Menon, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)