Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The appellant herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted O.S. No. 170 of 1987 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District. The respondents herein were the defendants in the aforesaid suit. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, costs of the suit and other reliefs.

2. It was averred by the plaintiff that the property described in the plaint schedule is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The suit village was originally in the Zamindari Estate. The grandfather of the plaintiff named Raghava Reddy @ Chengal Reddy acquired the suit property and other properties from the then Zamindar of Punganur Estate long prior to the notified date under the Estates Abolition Act. After the abolition of Estate during the survey and settlement operations in the year 1960, ryotwari patta was granted for the suit land by the Board of Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh in the name of the plaintiff's grandfather. The suit survey numbers have been correlated to Paimash No. 58 part and since then the plaintiffs father has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land as of their own right. The grandfather of the plaintiff died leaving behind him his three sons viz., A. Subrahmanyam Reddy, A.R. Krishnamurthy Reddy and A. Pratap Chandra Reddy and they succeeded to the estate of plaintiff's grandfather including the suit property. Both Subrahmanyam Reddy and Pratap Chandra Reddy were residing at different places and doing their professions leaving the father of the plaintiff named Krishnamurthy Reddy alone to look after the family properties. The father of the plaintiff became sick and unable to manage the estate of the family properties for the last two years. Hence the plaintiff being eldest member of the family was looking after the management of the suit schedule properties and other properties for the benefit of all the sharers. During the life time of plaintiff's grandfather, mango garden was raised in an extent of Ac. 100-00 out of the vast extent of the land possessed by their family leaving the rest as fallow due to personal inconvenience and financial constraints. The plaintiff came to know that the revenue authorities have not implemented the Board of Revenue orders of 1960 in the revenue records. After hectic efforts finally on verification of the records, Board of Revenue Orders were implemented in revenue accounts on 5-4-1986 in the name of plaintiff's family. Earlier to the implementation of the orders and before getting favourable orders from the Board of Revenue for the suit land and properties, the suit lands were classified as assessed waste lands and the plaintiff's family paid land revenue under 2-A system. The plaintiff and his ancestors have perfected their title even by virtue of adverse possession. The defendants are strangers and having no right over the suit schedule property. Inspite of the fact, at the instigations of persons, who were inimical towards the plaintiff's family, defendants are trying to trespass into the suit land under the guise of D.K.T. patta said to have been issued by the then Punganur Tahasildar for some part of the suit property. On 3-3-1987 the defendants started removing the bushes with the help of their men. Defendants never reclaimed the suit land and they never exercised their rights over any extent of the suit property. The Government authorities have no right to grant D.K.T. patta for the suit land in favour of the defendants. D.K. T. patta alleged to have been issued in favour of the defendants is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not in a position to resist the high-handedness of the defendants. Hence the suit for permanent injunction.

7. It is seen from the records that according to the contention of the plaintiff that the suit land in Sy. No. 420/1 admeasuring Ac. 0-90 cents and Sy. No. 420/2 admeasuring Ac. 4-18 cents forms part of the land in Paimash No. 57, admeasuring Ac. 40-00. According to the contention of the defendants, it was in possession and enjoyment of A.V. Ramachandra Reddy in the year 1957, who was evicted from the land as per the eviction notice dated 2-7-1957 which is produced by the defendants and marked as Ex.B-1. It is further seen that the 1st defendant was working in Defence Services. He applied for allotment of the said land in the year 1962. He came into possession of the said land since then and he reclaimed the said land and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and in the year 1984 'D' Form patta was assigned to him by the Government, which is marked as Ex.B-13. It was also the case of the defendant No. 1 that his wife, who is the second defendant in the suit, was granted land in Sy. No. 420/3 admeasuring Ac. 4-20 cents, which is evident from 'D' Form patta and which is produced on record as Ex.B-14. It was the case of the defendants that Sy. No. 420/2 was sub-divided into Sy.Nos. 420/2 and 420/3. It was the case of the plaintiff that the entire land forms part of Paimash No. 58 and the entire land forming part of Ac. 300-00 was standing in the name of plaintiff's grandfather named R. Raghava Reddy @ Chengal Reddy having entered into possession at the time of Punganur Zamindari and subsequently the possession was implemented in the revenue records. In order to prove the said averments, the plaintiff produced Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the payment of kist to the suit land from Exs.A-3 and A-4. The orders of Board of Revenue were marked as Exs.A-1 and A-2. They were implemented as per Exs. A-5 to A-7. With these documents on record, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule land. There is no dispute that the suit land forms part and parcel of the land originally in Punganur Zamindari Estate. The question is whether they were in paimash Nos. 57 or 58 and other lands covered by paimash Nos. 57 to 59? It is the main issue which was dealt with by the first appellate Court. It further appears from the record that during the pendency of the suit, a Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner visited the suit land twice and filed his report. There was also the evidence of C.W.1 by name N. Ravi Kishore. It further appears from the judgment of the first appellate Court that with the help of the Surveyor and with the help of the sketch of paimash given to him by the first defendant, he located the land covered by the sale deed dated 24-3-1953 belonging to A. Venkataswamy Reddy. He also located with the help of the Surveyor and the relevant document, the land of A. Venkataswamy Reddy purchased by Chengal Reddy, the grandfather of the plaintiff and also the land of Ramachandra Reddy to the extent of Ac. 40.00 and finally he located the suit schedule land in Sy.Nos. 420/1 and 402/2 covered by fencing raised by the defendants. He compared with the particulars mentioned in 'D' form pattas given in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 and found that the land in Sy.Nos. 420/1 and 402/2 are in occupation of the defendants. The first appellate Court also took into consideration the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer, who was examined as C.W.1 and had filed Ex.X-2, the copy of the detailed report submitted by him to the District Collector, Chittoor on 17-6-1996, which has got lot of relevancy in this case. It shows that the land under dispute and the land in Sy. Nos. 420/1 and 420/2 to the extent of Ac. 13.19 cents and Ac. 8.38 cents were included in ryotwari patta granted to Raghava Reddy @ Chengal Reddy under patta No. 1244. It was also noted in 10 (1) account. It also shows that the defendant No. 1 named T. Gurunatha Reddy was also granted D.K.T. patta by the then Tahasildar, Punganur in Sy. Nos. 420/1 and 402/2 and another patta was also given to his wife Neelamma for the lands situated in Sy. No. 420/3 in the proceedings dated 11-9-1984. The said land was shown as unassessed waste land in the year 1984 without taking into consideration of the pending of the finalisation of the implementation of Board Orders. The first appellate Court further observed that in Ex.X-2 it has been categorically stated by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the suit lands are shown in the relevant Revenue records in favour of the defendants as well as the plaintiff. Therefore, it became very essential for the first appellate Court to ascertain actually who was in possession of the schedule lands on the date of the suit without going into the validity of those orders.