Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Contentions of Sri Pulla Reddy:

3. Sri Pulla Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had drawn the attention of this Court to the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the issues originally settled and the issues which had been framed by virtue of an order made in I.A. No. 504 of 1993 and how the learned Judge erred in not deciding the issues framed by virtue of the order in I.A. No. 504 of 1993. The learned Counsel would contend that this, in fact, had caused serious prejudice. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Code') and would maintain that the general rule is that the matter may have to be decided on all issues. The Counsel also had explained, that it cannot be said that the issues which had been left over are unnecessary issues and there are other comprehensive issues covering all the left over issues also hence, serious prejudice is caused. The learned Counsel also had explained the difference in the language introduced in Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code by virtue of 1976 Amendment Act. While further elaborating the submissions the Counsel would maintain that the respective stands taken by the parties also may have to be looked into. It is a suit for partition filed by one branch and no doubt the same is resisted on the ground that there was prior partition. This is a case where a suit for partition was instituted after the re-grant and hence, the stand taken that a suit for partition itself is not maintainable for the reason that these properties being inam properties such action cannot be maintained, also cannot be sustained. At any rate, the learned Counsel would maintain that this is a matter, which may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also had referred to the order made in A.S.M.P. No. 1946 of 2005 and would contend that all other aspects relating to the occupancy rights, the occupancy certificate, the orders passed by the hierarchy of revenue authorities and the writ Court, these are all matters which may have to be decided afresh by the learned Judge after giving due consideration to the issues which had been framed in I.A. No. 504 of 1993 also and in the absence of the same, the judgment made cannot be said to be in accordance with the Order XX Rule 5 of the Code. The learned Counsel also would contend that in a case of this nature the other side cannot take advantage of even Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code for the reason that this is a case where there is total non-consideration of the issues which had been framed in I.A. No. 504 of 1993 and inasmuch as the approach of the learned Judge itself being not in accordance with law, this is a fit matter to be remanded.

Contentions of Sri Narender Reddy:

4. Sri Narender Reddy, the learned Counsel representing R.1 to R.7 and R.19 to R.21 made the following submissions:

The learned Counsel would maintain that on a careful scrutiny of the issues which had been framed originally and subsequent thereto, the comprehensive issue, issue No. 4 had been answered and even if the other issues are not answered the effect would be the same. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the documentary evidence available on record and would contend that even within the branches there were partition decrees subsequent thereto and it is clear that there was prior partition between the branches and hence, this question need not be agitated again. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the different proceedings Ex.A1, Exs.B1 to Ex.B12 and would contend that the fact that these are Inam lands is not in serious dispute. When that being so the question of maintaining a partition action itself is highly doubtful especially in the light of the ratio in Lokraj and Ors. v. Kishan Lal and Ors. , and in view of the same it would be a futile exercise to make an order of remand. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Dr. S.V.S. Ravi Krishna v. K. Sita Ramaiah and Anr. , and would maintain that in view of the fact that the comprehensive issue was considered and findings had been recorded, the non-consideration of certain un-necessary issues may not alter the situation in any way and it cannot be said that any prejudice had been caused in this regard. In alternative, the Counsel would submit that in the light of the clear language specified under Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code, in stead of making an order of remand inasmuch as the whole evidence is available on record, this Court as appellate Court can finally decide the matter if need be by resettling the issues here itself. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on B. Narasimha Reddy and Anr. v. Bhaskara Rao Joshi and Anr. . The learned Counsel also incidentally had pointed to the oral and documentary evidence Exs.B16 and Ex.B.22 and also had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge in detail in relation to the prior partition as well. The Counsel would conclude that in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, if an order of remand is made the contesting respondents, in fact, would be put to serious prejudice since the rights of the parties had been settled long back by virtue of prior partition and no purpose would be served by making an order of remand. The learned Counsel also relied on Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao and Kunju Kesavan v. MM. Philip and Ors. .
With regard to Para No. 6 of the plaint, it is specifically submitted that the plaintiff No. 2 is being an advocate assured with these defendants father that the Inam occupancy certificate should be obtained from the Chairman of the Tribunal-cum-R.D.O., Chevella and the possessory rights of the sons of late M. Veera Reddy shall be protected without disturbing to the long ago partition, and their respective possession. The father of the defendants 1 to 7 is not a literate person and father of these defendants might having the confidence, over the plaintiff No. 2, believed over the assurances, versions and never cross check the acts of the plaintiffs specifically the plaintiff No. 2 who some how managed the revenue officials and obtained the Inam Occupancy Right Certificate in the name of M. Buchi Reddy, Ram Reddy and Laxma Reddy as joint possessors, suppressing the fact of partition. The plaintiff No. 2 also managed the revenue officials that the statement of M. Buchi Reddy was not even recorded which discloses the fraud of plaintiff No. 2 and the professional misconduct on his part. Having annoyed of the joint Occupancy Right Certificate for the suit lands that these defendants have filed the Inam appeal immediately on coming to know the fraud and the District Collector without providing opportunity to hear the case of the appellants, i.e., the defendants herein and without considering the merits of the appeal simply dismissed for default. Against the said dismissal order of the District Collector, R.R. District these defendants immediately filed a writ petition of 1990 and obtained interim status-quo orders from the Hon'ble High Court through the W.P.M.P. No. of 90 on. Therefore, the occupancy right certificate said to be granted by Inams Tribunal on 7.4.1988 holds no water and bad in law and the same was obtained on mis-representation by the plaintiff No. 2. Even otherwise, the partition in between the defendants 1 to 5 and their father took place through the partition decree passed in O.S. No. 84 of 1983 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Hyderabad West and South, R.R. District. The defendant No. 9 also filed a partition suit, registered as O.S. No. 5 of 1982 against his brothers and father on 30.11.1981 and also the suit was decreed. These suits establishes the fact that there was a partition with meets and bounds and subsequently acted upon by all the persons concerned, as such the present suit is filed with oblique motive to disturb the possession of the defendants and to gain more valuable piece of land. Indeed, in the earlier partition these defendants father have been allotted the road side and the plaintiff No. 2 misused the confidence and belief and under the guise of obtaining the occupancy right certificate once again making efforts to litigate for partition contravening the provisions of law. It is absolutely false to say that the owners of land gave sworn statements before the R.D.O.-cum-Inam Tribunal praying for the issuance of occupancy right certificate in respect of the suit lands. The certificate granted by the Inams Tribunal dated 7.4.1988 has got no value for the purpose of the above suit as the relevant issue is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. The rest of the other allegations which are not specifically admitted are deemed to be denied in toto. With regard to Para No. 7 of the plaint, it is false to say that after the cloud in respect of the schedule property clear by virtue of the joint occupancy right certificate and the alleged threats of dispossession by the earlier owners, have eclipsed these defendants filed the appeal before the District Collector, seeking to declare them as occupants in respect of Sy.Nos. 185 and 186, situated at Lothukiunta Village, Alwal to the extent of Ac.6.37 gts. By correcting the occupancy right certificate. As such the mala fides attributed against these defendants are denied except the filing of the appeal before the District Collector, R.R. District with an object to protect the earlier partition and separate possessions of the parties. It is also understood by these defendants that the plaintiffs have also got the partition among themselves and suppressing the same, the plaintiff No. 2 not only obtained the Inam Occupancy Right Certificate as joint but also filed this suit with oblique motive.
With regard to Para No. 8 of the plaint, it is false to say that the Inam appeal case is filed by these defendants with an attempt to deprive other two branches of late M. Ram Reddy by setting up the plea of oral partition as such the same is denied categorically and the plaintiffs are called to prove that there was no partition in between the sons of late Ram Reddy.
With regard to Para No. 9 of the plaint, it is false to say that the acts of these defendants in filing the inam appeal have created a great apprehension in the minds of the plaintiffs with the alleged 1/3 share over Sy.Nos. 185 and 186, as such the same is denied calling the plaintiffs to put to strict proof. Indeed, the plaintiffs by obtaining occupancy right certificate and by way of this suit created the litigation so as to deprive the legitimate possession and rights of the defendants. It is known fact in the entire local area over the long ago partition and the separate residences of the plaintiffs and defendants have establishes the factum of partition in between them. With regard to Para No. 10 of the plaint, it is true to say that the defendants 8 to 13 have got the partition and they have obtained the partition decree from the civil Court, as such their refusal to join as the plaintiffs are just and legally tenable. However, the plaintiffs are not entitled to file the partition suit contravening the provisions of Limitation Act.