Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Papadu vs Golagana Suryanarayana And Anr. on 17 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)ALD318
Author: L. Narsimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narsimha Reddy, J.
1.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 90 of 1991, on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. He filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, against the respondents, in respect of the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac.3-00 in Sy.No. 16/4 of Derasam Village.
2. The appellant pleaded that his grandfather, by name Kolagana Pydayya, was the owner of the land in Sy.No. 16/4, admeasuring Ac.22-60 cents and out of it, he gave Ac.5-00 to one of his sons, Narsimhulu. The appellant is one of the three sons of Narasimhulu and in the family partition, he is said to have been allotted Ac.3-00 of land, in Sy.No. 16/4 and that his other brothers were allotted the remaining Ac.2-00 of land, in that survey number and other properties held by Narasimhulu. He pleaded that the ownership of Pydayya was recognized, through important documents, such as fair adangal, prepared in the year 1953 and that the possession of the appellant over Ac.3-00 of land, in that survey number, was recorded, year after year.
3. The respondents, on the other hand, pleaded that the land in Sy.No. 16/4, was held by Sri Poosapati Venkata Krishnamurthy Raju, as pattadar and from him, the first respondent purchased an extent of Ac.2-70 cents, through sale deed dated 28-5-1985 and another Ac.0-50 cents, through sale deed dated 19-7-1991. Placing reliance upon these two sale deeds and other documentary evidence, the respondents denied the title, as well as possession of the appellant.
4. Through its judgment, dated 30-7-1996, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No. 88 of 1996, in the Court of District Judge, Srikakulam. The appeal was allowed on 13-12-2000. Hence, this second appeal.
5. Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the documentary evidence, placed before the Court, clinchingly established and proved the title of the appellant, that the trial Court recorded a finding, as to the existence of title and possession in favour of the appellant and that there was no justification for the lower appellate Court in reversing it. He contends that the observation of the lower appellate Court that there did not exist any title deeds and that the fair adangal cannot constitute the source of title, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu 1991 Supp (2) SCC 228 and the judgment of this Court in Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence v. Indira Devi and Anr. . He further contends that the lower appellate Court had given greater importance to a xerox copy of 10(1) account adangal, than the certified copy of the fair adangal of the year 1953. Learned Counsel points out that even after disbelieving the evidence of DW-6, the key person behind the transactions in favour of the respondents, the lower appellate Court has chosen to unsettle the findings recorded by the trial Court.
6. Sri K. V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that mere entries in revenue records do not constitute the basis for declaration of title and that a party, who approaches the Court for such a relief, must prove it, beyond doubt. He contends that except the entry in the fair adangal, the other record did not support the plea of the appellant, both as regards the title and possession and that the lower appellate Court corrected the mistake, committed by the trial Court, in decreeing the suit. He further submits that even if the evidence of DW-6 is eschewed from consideration, the burden of the appellant to prove his title, does not stand discharged.
7. The appellant filed the suit for the comprehensive relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, against the respondents. The claim of the appellant was based on inheritance and family partition, whereas the respondents asserted their right, in respect of the suit schedule property, on the strength of purchases, made in the years 1985 and 1991. The trial Court framed the following issues, based on the pleadings of the parties :
(1) Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that he has title to and possession of the plaint schedule land?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for ?
(4) To what relief ?
The appellant deposed as PW-1 and PWs-2 to 4 were also examined on his behalf. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on his behalf. DWs-1 to 6 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-18 were marked on behalf of the respondents. Apart from this evidence, Exs.X-1 to X-5 were also taken on record. The trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the appellant. In A.S.No. 88 of 1996, preferred by the respondents, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiff established his title to the plaint schedule property ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff had possession of the plaint schedule property by the date of the suit ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and for permanent injunction prayed for?
(4) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are just and valid ?
(5) To what relief ?
It held all the points against the appellant.
8. The appellant claimed the rights in respect of the suit land, through his ancestors. Since it was not on the basis of any transfer from third parties, in favour of his ancestors, in the immediate past, it was not excepted of him to trace the origin of title. The earliest document relied upon by him, is the certified copy of the fair adangal, marked as Ex.A-3. It is relatable to the year 1953 and it constitutes one of the most important and basic revenue records, prepared for settlement. In Patta No. 22, the entire extent of land in Sy.No. 16/4, admeasuring Ac.22-60 cents, was recorded in the name of K. Pydayya, the grandfather of the appellant. This record was not modified at any later point of time. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of No. 2 adangal, for the fasli year 1392 ad 1393, which roughly corresponds to 1982 and 1983. The appellant was shown to be the registered owner, as well as possessor of Ac.3-00 of land, out of Ac.22-60 cents in Sy.No. 16/4, for both the years. In Exs.A-2 and A-3, the name of no other person finds place. Exs.A-8 and A-9 are the adangals, for the years 1986 and 1987. In these two documents, the name of the pattadar, for the land in Sy.No. 16/4, is shown as K. Pydayya and Krishnamurthy Raju, whereas the appellant herein was shown as being in possession of Ac.3-00 of land, in that survey number. Ex.A-10 is the Xerox copy of the fair adangal register. Except that it contains further details of some other pattas, it conforms to Ex.A-3 and for Sy.No. 16/4, K. Pydayya is shown as the pattadar. Krishnamurthy Raju is shown as pattadar, for certain other survey numbers.
9. It is true that a declaration of title to immovable properties, can be based on such documents, as are needed in law, to transfer and confer title. This principle, however, needs a little relaxation, when the title is claimed through ancestors and through succession. It would be difficult to trace the title through such documents, in relation to agricultural lands held by farmers. Though the entries in the revenue records do not constitute the basis for declaration of title, law had recognized at least some category of such documents, as constituting the basis. For example, the khasra pahanies in the erstwhile Hyderabad State and fair adangals in the Madras State, have always been treated as authentic sources of title. The reason is that a fairly good amount of exercise is undertaken, from the point of view of verification of title, as well as survey and settlement, before making entries in such records. In Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat's case (supra), the Supreme Court recognized the authenticity of such entries and the decision of the Privy Council in Syed Md. Mazaffaralmusavi v. Bibi Jabeda Khatun AIR 1930 PC 103, was relied upon. In Secretary to Government of India's, case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under :
The Supreme Court in Shikarchand v. D.J.P. Karini Sabha , held that Khasra is a record-of-right. Although the record-of-rights is not a document of title, the Court is perfectly entitled to take into consideration the entry in the record-of-rights for coming to the conclusion that certain person is the owner of the land in question. The party relying on presumption of correctness need not prove foundation or basis of correctness. Where the entry in the record-of-rights shows the suit land in the name of the plaintiff, the onus is on the defendant to prove that the said entry in favour of the plaintiff is not correct.
10. The relief of declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is claimed against the person denying or interested to deny the right or title of the person claiming it. Section 35 of that Act makes it abundantly clear that the declaratory relief granted under Section 34 shall be binding only on the parties to the suit, or those claiming through them and not others. It is difficult to prescribe a standard set of norms or conditions to be proved by a plaintiff in a suit for declaration. Howsoever advisable it may be, to require the plaintiff to satisfy the Court, beyond any reasonable doubt, as to his rights, the relief cannot be denied on failure of the plaintiff in that regard. A combined reading of Sections 34 and 35 of the Act discloses that, as between the rival claims of the plaintiff and defendant in such a suit, the Court has to assess the relative superiority. Once a plaintiff is found to have established a better claim, vis-a-vis the defendant, he cannot be denied the relief on the ground that he did not prove it beyond doubt. Such a course may be permissible only where the declarations sought for are universal in nature and not against the limited persons.
11. It is in this context that the entries in Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-8 to A-10, become relevant. If the respondents are able to prove better title in their favour, for the same land, the presumption that can be drawn from Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-8 to A-10, becomes rather shaky. Therefore, it needs to be seen, as to what contra evidence, the respondents had adduced, before the Court. The first respondent pleaded that he purchased an extent of Ac.2-70 cents of land, out of the same survey number, under Exs.B-16 dated 28-5-1985, from one Sri Poosapati Narayanamurthy Raju and another extent of Ac.0-50 cents, from the same person, through Ex.B-1 dated 19-7-1991. Though the first respondent stated in his evidence, as DW-1, that he deposited the sale deed dated 28-5-1985, with the Andhra Bank to obtain loan, the original sale deed itself is filed into Court. A perusal of the documents discloses that while the vendor, Poosapati Narayanamurthy Raju, is shown as son of Poosapati Raghunatha Raju, in Ex.B-16, his father's name is shown as Narayanamurthy Raju in Ex.B-1. In both the documents, there is overwriting, on the name of the vendor. In Ex.B16, the name of the Ramabhadra Raju was struck off and that of Narayanamurthy Raju was written. In Ex.B-1, originally, the name of Ramakrishna S/o. Narayanamurthy Raju was written and thereafter, the words "Narayanamurthy Raju alias" were inserted, before the name of Ramakrishna. His signatures on both the documents do not tally with each other. These discrepancies are pointed out, only in the context of superiority of the claim of the respondents, than from the point of view of the truth and validity of those sale deeds.
12. The first respondent was issued title deeds and pattadar pass books, in respect of the lands purchased by him, under Exs.B-1 and B-16. They are marked as Exs.B-17 and B-18. The survey number of these lands, is shown as 16/6 for Ac.2-70 cents and 16/13, for Ac.0-50 cents. At an inconsequential place in the column, an unsigned and unverified writing, as O.S.16/04, is interpolated, with a different ink and indifferent writing. No explanation was forthcoming for it. One of the documents heavily relied upon by the respondents, is Ex.B-15, which is a xerox copy of an alleged 10(2) adangal. It is not known as to how this document was admitted in evidence. In Patta No. 22, the names of Poosapati Venkata Krishnamurthy Raju and K. Pyadayya were written, in respect of Sy.No. 16/4.
13. The evidence of DW-6 and PW-3 assumes importance, in this case. DW-6 is the Village Assistant of the concerned village. Even in his chief-examination, he stated that he maintained all the records of the village, that he knows both the parties and that he is the person who arranged for the sale of lands in Sy.No. 16/4, in favour of various persons. It was elicited through him in the cross-examination as under :
As per the Revenue Records Kolagana Pydayya is the owner of the entire Ac.22.60 cents in Sy.No. 16/4 with Patta No. 22. The name of Pusapati Venkata Krishnamurthy Raju does not find place in settlement fair adangal against S.No. 16/4. It is true that the entire properties of Pusapati family are joint family properties. I have no knowledge whether there are any partitions between the family members of Pusapati family. I never saw any document to show that the property covered by S.No. 16/4 belongs to Pusapati family.
The interpolation of name of Poosapati Venkata Krishanmurthy Raju, in Patta No. 22, took place during the tenure of DW-6. At the relevant point of time, PW-3 was the Mandal Revenue Officer. On receiving a complaint in this regard, he called for explanation and recorded the statement of DW-6. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of that statement. DW-6 stated that Poosapati family has no concern with the land in Sy.No. 16/4 and in fact, he traced the title of K. Pyddaya, for that land. Disciplinary proceedings are said to have been ensued, on account of similar acts and omissions, on the part of DW-6.
14. The first respondent did not examine any of his vendors. A frail attempt was made, by summoning certain declarations made by third parties, in relation to that land, under the A.P.L.R. (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. Exs.X-3 to X-5 are those documents, said to have been filed by one Uppalapati Laxminarasimha Raju. It is not stated as to how he is related to the vendors of the respondents. Ex.X-1 is the General Power of Attorney, executed by one Smt. T. Venakataramanamma, in favour of Poosapati Santhosh Kumar S/o. Late Venkata Krishnamurthy Raju. Ex.X-2 is another General Power of Attorney, executed by Uppalapati Kanakamma, in favour of Poosapati Narayanamurthy Raju S/o. Raghunatha Raju. Both these G.P.As were executed in the year 1981. In both of them, it was stated that the executants had land in Derasam Village. Neither any survey numbers, nor the extents thereof, were mentioned. No revenue records, showing the names of those two ladies, were filed. In Ex.B-16, the vendor stated that he got the land through Poosapati Laxminarasamma. The name of that lady does not find place in any other document. Neither Ex.B-1, nor Ex.B-16, was executed by any G.P.As. It is not known as to in what context Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. This being the state of affairs, it cannot be said that the respondents have established any superior title, to the suit schedule property.
15. Now remains the question of possession. Apart from examining the owners of the neighbouring lands, the appellant had placed voluminous documentary evidence before the trial Court, in support of his possession. Ex.A-2 is the adangal, evidencing possession over the land, at the time of filing the suit. The cist receipts, marked as Exs.A-4 to A-7 and A-11 were disbelieved by the lower appellate Court, only on the ground that Ex.A-4, issued for the year 1978, was written on a form printed in the year 1982. Even if Ex.A-4 is eschewed from consideration, no serious infirmity can be pointed out as regards the other cist receipts. Further, first respondent is not a resident of that village.
16. Exs.B-12 to B-14 are the certified copies of No. 2 adangals, for the years 1988, 1989 and 1990. It is interesting to note that in all these documents, the name of the appellant is shown as possessor for Ac.3-00 of land and the first respondent is shown to be in possession of Ac.2-70 cents of land, in Sy.No. 16/4. These entries suggest that the appellant was very much in possession of his Ac.3-00 of land. Inasmuch as the name of the first respondent is also shown in respect of Ac.2-70 cents simultaneously, it is quite possible that it may be in respect of different extent. The fact, however, remains that the possession of the appellant, in respect of Ac.3-00 of land, is reflected not only in the documents relied upon by him, but also in those filed by the respondents. Apart from lending support to the claim of possession of the appellant over the land, these documents buttress his contention, for a presumption to be drawn under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, as regards the title.
17. The second appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside. Consequently, the decree passed by the trial Court, shall stand revived. There shall be no order as to costs.