Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: oral trust in G. Gurucharanam vs R. Venkat Rao And Ors. [Alongwith Second ... on 24 August, 1995Matching Fragments
45. As against this evidence, the evidence produced by the defendants is that Kabala. But when this documentary evidence is compared to the evidence given on behalf of plaintiffs, one thing is clear that there is some discrepancy regarding measurement and price of the site purchased. It is elicited from the evidence of D.W. 5, the vendor of the 2nd defendant, that at relevant time he was working as an Executive Officer of the Mancherial Municipality. It is plaintiffs case that at no time title to the schedule property was conveyed to Fareeduddin as he did not deposit the bid amount within the stipulated time. When no title was passed to Fareeduddin, and further as on the date of issuing Khabala the property in question was not vested in the municipality and on the other hand it was a Government poramboke and the authority to grant was only Government and not the municipality, neither issuing of khabala a valid one nor even if issued, the same nullified in view of not depositing the bid amount by Fareeduddin under clauses (3) and (4) of Section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act. The period between granting of khabala and selling of the property by Fareeduddin creats doubt. If really the municipality issued khabala because Fareeduddin was in possession of the property, no proper explanation why Fareeduddin was not examined when he was alive till 1983. Rejection of plaintiffs application in I.A. 200/79 in O.S. No. 435/79 does not act as res judicata as the said application was only for impleading the plaintiffs in the suit, which was rejected and within four days from that date namely on i 31-3-1980 the suit was decreed. Except trusting their oral evidence, the defendants did not produce any acceptable evidence to prove that they are in possession of the property. From the evidence produced, it is clear that plaintiffs never cancealed, on the other hand, they proved their adverse possesion. They established that their possession over suit schedule property as open, uninterrupted right from 1353 Fasli till the date of filing of the suit, peaceful and to the knowledge of others.