The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants - respondents - plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2006 passed in A.S.No.22 of 2004 by the leamed Special Judge for Trial of Olfences under SC / ST (POA) Act - cum - V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy reversing the judgment and decree dated 27 .01.2004 passed in O.S.No.355 of 2000 by the leamed Principal Junior Civil Judgc, Sangareddy.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and correction ofrevenue records of land in Survey No.408/EE (408/4) admeasuring Ac.l-14 Yz guntas situated at Rajampet Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. The plaintiffs contended that they were the pattadars and owners ofthe above agr-icultural [and. Their father Vadde Venkaiah along with three others Golla Antaiah, Vadde Sailoo (father ol' defendants) and Munnuru Narayana, purchased Ac.5-18 guntas of land in Survey No.408 from M.Ramaiah and M.Pochaiah under registered sale deed No.7l6 of 1966 on 27.06.1966 for a consideration of Rs.l000/-. All the purchasers made the land into four equal parts. Each got Ac. I - 14 guntas of land in Survey No.408. Accordingly, mutation was made in their names by gir.ing separate sub-numbers in revenue I 2 Dr.CR& J sa 46 2007

records as 408/A. 408/AA, 40glE and 408/EE (408/1,408/2.nOS/: una aOSal The suit land was in Survey No.4Og,/EE (40g/4) admeasuring Ac.l_14 % guntas that fe, to the share of the father of the plaintiffs vadde venkaiah. During the lifetime of Venkaiah. he cultivated the land personally. Six years ago, due to ill-health, the father of the plaintiffs gave the suit land for cultivation on batai (year to year crop sharing basis) to the father of the defendanrs vadde Sa,oo. The father of the defendants vadde Sailoo died five years ago. rhe defendants continued cultivation on the same condition. The father of the praintiffs arso died four years ago' leaving behind the praintiffs as his onry legar heirs. After the death of the plaintiffs' father, the defendants gave share in the crop ti, Ugadi festival of 2000. But, on 11.09.2000, the defendants made tomrom in rhe village that they wourd not give any share in the crop to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached the defendants on 15.09.2000 arong with their relatives and caste elders to know the reason for denial to give share in the crop for the season. But the defendants without disclosing any reason, refused to give the share in the crop and denied the titre ofthe plaintiffs over the suit rand. Neither the plaintiffs nor rheir father during his rifetime created any kind of ownership rights in favor ol' the defendants or their father, except giving tand for cultivation on crop share basis. The praintiffs verified the records in the Revenue Office and the Sub-Registrar Office, Sangareddy. As per the Sub- Registrar, Sangareddy, no encumbranc created over the suit land in favor 3 Dr.GRR, J sa 46 2O07 of anybody- In the revenue records of recent year, the names of defendants were recorded as pattadars without any kind of translcr right created by any member of the plaintiffs' family. The entries in the revenue records were false and concocted. without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the said entries were made- The defendants were in permissive possession of the suit land as cultivators. As such, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice on 09. I 1.2000 to the defendants demanding them to vacate from the suit land. They also filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short "MRO',), Sangareddy for correction of revenue records and filed the suit seeking the above reliefs.

3. The defendants filed written statement contending that the suit land was sold by the father of the plaintiffs to the father of the defendants in the year 1975- The defendants' father purchased the suit land on 12.07.1975 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,050/- and the defendants succeeded to the said land after their father's death. The plaintiff No.l was the attesting witness to the sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs. The suit was rime barred and the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming that they were owners of the property. The defendants perfected their title by way of adverse possession, even otherwise. The name of the father of the defendan$ was incorporated in the revenue records in respect of the suit land as owner, pattadar and possessor. The defendants' father filed an injunction suit in o.S.No.95 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge, sangareddy against the relatives of the I 4 Dr.GRR" J sa ,16 2007 plaintiffs for a total extent of Ac.2-29 guntas including the suit land and the said suit was decreed in favor of the father of the defendants. ln O.S.No.95 of 1994, the father of the plaintiffs filed a third party affidavit, in which, he admitted that his share of land was sold to the deflendants' father. The del'endans' lather obtained agricultural loan fiom Sangareddy Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank at Sangareddy in the year 1985 on the lands including the suit land. They gave a reply notice to the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs denying all the allcga(ions of ownership and claim over the suit land and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the said pleadings, the following issues u,ere framed by the trial court: i) Whether the plaintitls were entitled to the declaration as sought for? ii) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the defendants? iii) Whether the plaintifls were entitled to the relief of correction of revenue records as sought for? iv) Whether the defendants purchased the suit land from the father of the plaintiffs or alternatively whether the defendants acquired title by way of adverse possession? v) To what relief) Dr.GRR" J sa 46 2O07 () 5. On behalf of the plainriffs, PWs.l to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to A.9 5 were marked. PW.I was the plaintiff No.l. PWs.2 and 3 were neighboring land owners having land in Survey Nos.407 artd 40518 respectively. On behalf of the defendants DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Bl to Bl0 were marked. I The defendant No. I was examined as DW. I and a witness to the un-registered sale deed dated 12-07.1975 marked under Ex.B12 was examined as DW.2.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, thc trial court placed the burden upon the defendants to prove their title to the suit schedule land, as they were admitting the ownership of the father of the plaintiffs and set up the plea of purchase under Ex.Bl and on appreciating the evidence of DWs.l and 2, held that, DW.2 was not an attesting witness to Ex.Bl and the evidence of DWs.l and 2 was inconsistent wiJh each other and found Ex.Bl to be a suspicious document. The trial court also considered the plea of adverse possession taken by the defendants and observed that 12 years period was also not completed from the date the name of the I'ather ol the defendants appeared in the pahani for the year 1999-2000, marked under Ex.A6, and Exs.BS and 89, title deed and pattadar passbook of thc father of the defendants Vadde Sailoo would not disclose as to the mode of acquisition of Ac.2-29 guntas, dismissed the said plea of adverse possession also. 'lhe trial court further by considering the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, which supported the evidence of PW.l, wherein they stated that the defendants were cultivating the 6 Dr.GRR, J sa_46_2007 suit schedule land on batai basis, held that the defendants were in permissive possession and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the suit schedule land from the defendants apart from their entitlement of declaration as pattadars and answered all the issues in favor of the plaintiffs.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendants preferred A.S.No.22 of 2004. The said appeal was decided by the learned Special Judge lor Trial of Offences under SC / ST (pOA) Act - cum - V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and vide its judgment and decree dated 03.08.2006 allowed the appeal setting. aside the judgment and decree passed by the leamed principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy dated 27.01.2004 in O.S.No.355 of 2000 with costs. The lower ':' Appellate Court observed that Ex.B I was a 30 year old document and its genuineness could not be questioned and there was no restriction to register the document at the relevant point of time. If further held that Exs.Bl and 82 were not compulsorily registerable documents and found them to be genuine documents. Thc lower Appellate court observed that the father of the defendans filed o.S.No.95 of 1994 against pw.2 and the relatives of the plaintiffs, which rvas decreed and even though the plaintiffs were not parties to the said suit, as the plaintiffs and their father had not taken any steps challenging rhe decree in the said suit, held that the suit property betonged to the appeltants tlefendants. rue gier Appellate court had also taken into Dr.GRR, J sa 46 2007 (j consideration the third party affidavit atleged to be filed by the father of the 7 plaintiffs in o.S.No.95 of 1994 and held that even though the said document was not marked in the court, as it was part and parcel of the case, had taken it into consideration. The lower Appellate Court also observed that the defendants were.in continuous possession for the past 30 years and that they perlected their title by adverse possession and allowed the appeal suit with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the leamed Principal Junior civil Judge, Sangareddy.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiffs preferred this Second Appeal' g. This court admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law on 05.02.2007: a) whether an un-registered document could be admitted to prove the title simple on the ground that it was 30 years old? b) whether there was any perversity in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court?

10. Hcard Sri N.Ashok Kumar, leamed counsel representing Sri S.R.Deshmukh, leamed counsel for the appellants on record and Sri Kotagiri Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondents. I)r.(;RR, J sr .16 2007 ll. Leamed counsel for the appellants contended that the defendants 8 admitted the title and possession of the plaintiffs and set up Ex.Bl, which was an un-registered and inadmissible document. Ex.B2 was its translation. Ex.Bl was not proved b1, thc evidence of DWs.l and 2. The defendants also lailed to prove their adverse possession continuously. The defendants neither proved the document filed by them nor adverse possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The lower Appellate Court enoneously accepted an inadmissible document, which was in dispute and allowed the appeal. The finding given by the lower Appeltate Court that Ex.Bl was a 30 year old document and the same could be admitted in evidence, was an erroneous finding. The plaintiffs were disputing the genuincness of the said document. The father of the plaintiffs had not filed any third parry affidavit in O.S.No.95 of 1994 admitting the claim of the defendants. lhe def'endants without the knowledge of the plaintiffs or their father got filed the said affidavit by forging the signature of the father of the plaintiffs. The said third paay affrdavit was neither filed nor proved before the trial court. As such. the finding given by the lower Appellate Court that the father of the plaintills filed a third parry affidavit admitting the claim of the defendants, was crroneous and relied upon the judgmexts of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pavitri Devi and another v. Darbari Singh and othersr, Batwant 11993 (4) SCC 392 I I i Singh and another, etc. v. Daulat Singh @ead) by LRs and others2, Mohan 9 Dr.CRR, J sa 46 2007 Lal (deceased) through his LRs. Kachru and others v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar and another3, M. Radheshyamlal v. V. Sandhya and another and etc.{, M.Durai v. Muthu and otherss. State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. M/S. Star Bone Mill and Fertilizer Company6, Rajesh Mitra alias Rajesh Kumar Mitra and another v. M/S.Karnani Properties LimitedT and the judgments of erstwhilc High Court ol Andhra Pradesh in M. Gopal and another v. IC Jangareddy (died) by LRs and another8 and Kesarapu Manikyalu v. Venna Perumallayya (died) by LRs and otherse.

12. Leamed counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the rcspondcnts were claiming their title basing on a simple sale deed dated

12.07.1975. The said sale deed had been executed by the father of the appellants in favor of the father of the respondents. The said sale deed was impounded by collecting requisite stamp duty and penalty and the same was validated by the revenue authorities and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favor of the lather of the respondents and since then they were in possession of the subject land. The appellant No.l (Vadde Adavaiah) was the attestor to 1t997 (7) SCC r37 ' 1996 (l) SCC 639 '2074 (4) SCALE 35 '2007 (3) SCC I 14 6 2013 (9) SCC 3 l9 '2024 (l) SCAI-E 260 "20r l (4) ALD 82r 'g 2000 (t ) ALD 32 I I 10 Dr.GRR, J sa 46 2007 the said sale deed. lherefore, the appellants were estopped from denying the sale made by their father. The main contention of the app€llants was that the subject land was given on batai basis by their father to the father of the respondents, but they lailed to prove the same. There was no documentaqz evidence filed in support of the same. The said plea was invented only for the purpose of taking defence to the plea of adverse possession. The father of the respondents frled O.S.No.95 of 1994, wherein the father of the appellants filed a third party affidavit stating that he sold his share to the father of the reSpondents. The said third party affidavit was filed in A.S.No.22 of 2004 and rhe same was accepted and the appeal was allowed by dismissing the suit hled by the appellants herein. The positive evidence produced by the respondents would disprove the claim of the appellants that they were the owners of the suit property and were not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. All the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants during trial stated that the respondents were in possession of the subject land and that they were cultivating the same. Since the father of the appellants filed a third party affidavit acknowledging the title o-!}: Atn"r of the respondents in the year 1994, the possession of the respondents being continuous, they had perfected their title by adverse possession. Since the respondents were in possession of the property for a period of more than 25 years, the alleged rights of the appellants whatsoever over the suit schedule property had been extinguished l 11 Dr.GR& J sa 46 2007 ; long back due to efflux of time under Section 27 of the Limitation Act read with Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There was no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved or that could be formulated in the Second Appeal. The First Appellate court gave a positive furding with regard to ownership and possession of the respondents. Factual aspects could notbegoneintointheSecondAppealunderSectionl00ofCPCandrelied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MslSugani v' Rameshwar Das and anotherro, punjab wakf Board v. Santokh Singh and othersrr, Laxmidevamma and others v. Ranganath and othersr2, Lisamma Antony & another v. Karthiyayani and another'3, Damodar Lal v' Sohan Devi and othersra, Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi @ead) by LRs and another' etc'ls' Gurudev Kaur and others v. Kaki and othersr6, Dagadabai (Dead) by LRs v. Abbas alias Gulab Rustum pinjaritT, Rame Gowda @ead) by LRs v. M.Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs and anothert8'

13. The judgments in Laxmidevamma and others v' Ranganath and others (cited supra), Lisamma Antony & another v' Karthiyayani and another(citedsupra),DamodarLalv.SohanDeviandothers(citedsupra)'