Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: declaratory decree in State Of A.P. vs B. Venkatamma And Ors. on 3 August, 2004Matching Fragments
2. While admitting the second appeal, the substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the second appeal is formulated as follows:
"Whether the declaratory decree granted is contrary to the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and whether the suit is maintainable."
3. Except the aforesaid substantial question of law that was formulated while admitting the second appeal, no other substantial question of law has been raised or formulated.
4. The case of the plaintiffs as averred in the plaint is that the first plaintiff is the widow, Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are sons and Plaintiffs 6 to 8 are daughters of late B. Muthyalu and they are his legal heirs. Plaintiffs 9 to 13 are the grandsons and Plaintiff No. 14 is the grand-daughter of late Raja Shivaraj Bahadur, the then Jagirdar of Ameerpet Village in Hyderabad District. The plaint schedule property is an agricultural land, admeasuring 0-23 guntas in Sy.No. 151, comprised of Door Nos. 7-1-210 and 7-1-211, situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, bounded by North: 12' lane and compound and house of late Tara Bai and Door No. 7-l-211/1A, South: 40' wide road, East: neighbours house i.e., H.No. 7-1-209 and West: Nala (open drain). Public Road from Ameerpet to Balkampet.
20. The only substantial question of law that was framed at the time of admission of second appeal is as to "whether the declaratory decree granted is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and whether the suit is maintainable". To decide the said question, it is just and necessary to go through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties.
21. The undisputed facts are that the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No. 151, old Sy.No. 48 in the pre-survey records in Block-B, Ward No. 5 is situated in Ameerpet Village and admittedly, it was a former Jagir village i.e., Non-Khalsa Village in old Hyderabad District of old Hyderabad State, including the said survey number. The extent of the said property is 0-23 guntas. There is no dispute with regard to the boundaries and identity of the property. Late B. Muthyalu was holder, occupant and cultivator of the said land and as per Ex.A4 pahani patirka for the year 1351 Fasli i.e., 1941-42, the name of late B. Muthyalu is shown as cultivator of the land in question. Late Muthyalu also paid land revenue and the same was recorded in Pauthi Bhahi i.e., land revenue book-cum-pattedar pass book, which is filed as Ex.A49 from the years 1940-41 onwards.
39. Insofar as the other questions as to whether the declaratory decree granted is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 is concerned, the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 relates to the survey of lands and settlement of boundary disputes. There is no dispute as regards to the boundary or with regard to the survey of lands. Under the aforesaid rules and circulars as extracted above, it is the duty of the Settlement Officer to enter the name of the relevant person, and the main object of the Act is to survey the lands and settle the boundary disputes. Merely because in the survey records, it is shown as Poramboke or Bandikana, it does not mean that it is a Government land as explained by PW.2 in his oral evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the declaratory decree granted by the Lower Appellate Court is not contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and the suit is maintainable. The Lower Appellate Court rightly granted the decree as prayed for.