Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On the other hand, Ex.A.6 is the proceeding of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hindupur Mandal under which the MRO traced the title of the present defendants. The MRO noted that the lands which are the subject matter of the suit are registered in the name of Karnam Narayanappagari Ugrappa, the minor represented by his guardian Venkappa. The MRO traced the title in 1929. In fact, this document is an order passed by the MRO after Ex.B.1 reply. An objection was raised by the plaintiffs in the suit for the mutation in the defendants favour. After considering all the aspects, the name of the first defendant and the co-owner was incorporated in the revenue records while holding that their vendor-Achamma had title to the property. Even Ex.A.8 shows that Ac.2.92 cents and Ac.1.67 cents are in the name of Achamma, the wife of Ugrappa. Ex.A.8 is the 10 (1) account showing the mutation of their names. Similarly, Ex.A.10 also shows the possession and enjoyment of the land by the defendants in their favour. The defendants have also filed Ex.B.1-relevant entry in the diglot resettlement register. Page-52 of the Diglot/A-register shows the new survey No.391 as three items of which item 556 (1) measuring Ac.2.92 cents is in the name of Ugrappa, minor represented by his guardian-Venkappa. Similarly, Survey No.393 item No.4 is old survey No.556 (c) measuring Ac.1.67 cents in the name of Ugrappa, minor represented by his guardian. This register is of the year 1929 showing the entire resettlement exercise that was carried out in 1929. The defendants have also filed the list showing the names of the joint pattadars in the village of Kotnuru. Ex.B.8 shows that the survey No.396 is in the name of Anjinappa, the guardian of Ugrappa. The mutation of the name of the first defendant is proved by Ex.B.5, which is issued on 20.06.1988. Similarly, the copy of adangal of the village Kotnuru, which is marked as Ex.B.6 shows that the name of Khasim Sab was included after correction of the name of the original pattadar-Ugrappa. The first defendant has also filed the cist receipts showing the payment of tax by him. These documents are marked as Exs.B.15 to B.19. To assert that these documents cannot be the basis for 'title', the learned counsel for the appellants relied on

It is a fact that the revenue records by themselves cannot be treated as documents of title. However, the fact remains that both under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and because of the fact that they are the result of a 'physical exercise' done on the land, they do have a certain evidentiary value, particularly the 1929 Resettlement Register. Even the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants clearly show that the documents/entries in the revenue records and registers have (2014) 2 SCC 269 (2010) 5 SCC 382 AIR 1961 AP 361 2001 (3) ALD 600 2013 (5) ALT 241 2014 (3) ALT 473 to be considered along with other documents that are filed before they are accepted as proof of title. In the two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, particularly G. Satyanarayana's case (8 supra), a learned single judge of this Court has carried out a very extensive and a detailed study of the revenue administration pertaining to the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. At page 496, para-60 clause (1) the Settlement Register also known as the diglot or A-register was held to be the basis/foundation upon which the entire revenue administration rests. In para-119, while discussing the evidentiary value of entries in the revenue records, the learned single Judge held that the diglot or A-register could be held to be the core revenue record (Ex.A.9). The learned single Judge also discussed the case law including Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and came to the conclusion at para-137 that the A-register is the mother of all registers. Similarly, in the conclusions, the learned single Judge also held that when there are two rival claims relying upon the entries in the revenue records, the person whose name is recorded in the basic record, such as the A-register and their successors-in-interest will be considered to be the rightful owner.

This Court on an examination of all the facts and figures including the evidence introduced by both sides shows that 1929 onwards the name of Ugrappa was recorded in the relevant record - diglot or A-register. The exact land that is the subject matter of the transfer by Ugrappa's wife under Ex.A.2 sale deed is referred to in the settlement register from 1929 onwards. Ugrappa's wife executed a registered sale deed in favour of first defendant and another. The tax receipts that are filed show the possession and enjoyment of the property by the first defendant. The documents filed by the plaintiffs do not show the enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiffs. The records from 1929 read with other documentary evidence in this case clearly prove the title and enjoyment of the property by the defendants and their predecessors-in-title.

However, a perusal of the cross-examination clearly reveals that PW.1 admits that 'at the time of 'resettlement in 1926 to 1929, they did not file any objection for change of the patta. I do not know what happened at the time of resettlement. I do not know whether my father approached the revenue authorities for change of the pattadars name in the diglog'. The witness also admits that 'the name of Ugrappa, minor represented by guardian might be there as pattadar in the diglot of 1929'. It is also settled law that the Court has to see the entire evidence on record to come to a conclusion about the truth or otherwise of the same.