Appeal Suit No. 4141 of 2003. Case: Indukuru Ramachandrareddy and Another Vs Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Appeal Suit No. 4141 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri B.V. Subbaiah, Adv. and For Respondents: Sri Challa Sitaramaiah, Adv. |
| Judges | B. Chandra Kumar, J. |
| Issue | Andra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Sections 17, 17(1); Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 91, 92; Andra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Sections 2, 8; Andra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971- Sections 6, 6(A), 6(B), 6(C), 6A(3), 9, 9(1), 9(2); Transfer of ... |
| Citation | 2012 (6) ALD 195, 2012 (4) ALT 569 |
| Judgement Date | October 28, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
-
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2003 passed in O.S.No.98 of 1998 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit and the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience.
-
In Ritesh Tewari Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 677 the Apex Court observed as follows:
Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest.
-
When the people have no regard for truth, it becomes a difficult job to the Court to know the true version. However, the Courts have to examine the entire evidence with analytical approach and conclusions have to be drawn on proper appreciation of evidence and on the basis of settled legal principle. A study of chronological events rationally reveals probabilities of the case of each party.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiff, who was having approximately 60 acres of land, filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal on 11.04.1975 and had shown the suit schedule land in his declaration. Out of the total extent of Ac.22.76 cents of the suit schedule land, Ac.13.32 cents is in D.No.436/1 and Ac.9.38 cents is in D.No.826, situated in Agnigundala Village, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District. The plaintiff worked as Village Karanam till 1959 and subsequently as Village Sarpanch for 15 years. The first defendant is the father of the second defendant and they are from Kotapalli Gudur Village and Mandal, Nellore District. According to the first defendant, he sold away his landed property at his native village and came over to Agnigundala Village, Guntur District and purchased the suit land for cultivation. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff executed a sale deed on 16.07.1975 in Ex.B.1 in favour of defendants in respect of the suit land and the said sale deed was registered on the same day. The recitals of Ex.B.1 go to show that the plaintiff had delivered possession of the suit land to the defendants. It also shows that there was an agreement of sale between the parties agreeing to sell the suit schedule land to the first defendant dated 06.06.1958 (Ex.A.29). The plaintiff himself has filed Ex.A.29. Defendants 1 and 2 and the wife of the first defendant mortgaged the suit schedule land and some other property at their native place to State Bank of India, Vinukonda Branch, Guntur District, and obtained loan of Rs.27,000/- on 26.04.1976 and the plaintiff stood as guarantor for the said loan transaction. Ex.B2 copy of the plaint reveals that revival letters were also executed in favour of the said bank in 1977 and 1979. Though the plaintiff pleaded before the Land Reforms Tribunal that he sold the suit schedule land to the defendants and executed Ex.B.1 - registered sale deed on 16.07.1975 and that the said sale deed was executed in pursuance of the earlier agreement of sale executed by him under Ex.A.29, the Land Reforms Tribunal did not accept the said contention of the plaintiff on the grounds that he did not file any document in support of his contention and the registration was done after the notified date and, accordingly, computed the land to the holding of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendants are not the parties to the said proceedings. The plaintiff also surrendered four acres of land which was found to be in excess of the ceiling area in some other land covered by Survey Nos.807/1, 21/2, 102/2C and 176. The Land Reforms Tribunal passed the said order under Ex.A.3 on 21.08.1976. Thus, the plaintiff did not surrender the suit schedule land though he was declared as excess land holder. Since defendants 1 and 2 and the wife of the first defendant failed to discharge the loan amount, the State Bank of India filed the suit in O.S.No.14 of 1980 against them and also the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed on 17.11.1980 (The subsequent events go to show that in E.P.No.122 of 1989 filed by the Bank, auction notice to sell the suit schedule land was also issued. But however, before conducting the auction, the first defendant had paid the entire decreetal amount and consequently E.P. was closed in September, 1999). It appears that the wife of the first defendant died in 1988. He admitted that he had kept the land fallow from 1983 till 1991. One Madineni Kotaiah claims that he had taken the suit land on lease from the first defendant from 1994 to 1998. Though the first defendant did not admit the same but, he had admitted the said fact in Ex.A31. He also seems to have admitted that he left Agnigundala village in 1989 and returned in 1994. Thus, it appears that the defendants were not regularly residing at Agnigundala village, but were visiting the said village now and then.
-
The plaintiff claims that he was issued Ex.A.1 and A.2 but alleges that the Village Administrative Officer took the Pattadar Pass Book in Ex.A.2 on the ground of preparing title deed and returned it on 10.10.1996 by deleting two survey numbers pertaining to the suit schedule land in the Pattadar Pass Book at the instance of the first defendant. Then, he filed a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, for inclusion of the suit survey numbers in his Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed on 15.10.1996. As his representation was not considered, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.1148 of 1997 seeking a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, to finalise his appeal and this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal filed by the plaintiff within three months from the date of receipt of the said order. Then the plaintiff issued a notice to the Revenue Divisional Officer that he would move to the High Court for contempt of Court, if his appeal is not disposed of.
-
In the meanwhile, one Madineni Kotaiah filed a suit against the plaintiff for perpetual injunction on the ground that he was a tenant of the suit schedule land from 01.04.1994 to 01.04.1998, having obtained the land on lease from the defendants and that he had raised crops in the suit schedule land and that the plaintiff was interfering with his possession. Subsequently, said Madineni Kotaiah filed a memo not pressing the suit on the ground that the purpose of filing of the said suit was not served. In the meanwhile, the first defendant paid Rs.600/- towards cist for the suit schedule land into the Treasury on 29.01.1998. He had also applied for grant of Pattadar Pass Books and Title deeds for the suit lands on 17th and 19th January, 1998 to the Tahsildar, Ipuru Mandal, which were received in the office of the Tahsildar, Ipuru Mandal, on 21.01.1998 (However, no orders were passed on the said application till 24.09.2009). Then the first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 1998 before the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda, against the State of A.P. represented by its District Collector, Guntur, Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, Mandal Revenue Officer, Ipuru Mandal, and also against the plaintiff herein restraining the officials from issuing the Pattadar Pass Book and the Title Deed to the plaintiff herein and for consequential reliefs on 17.04.1998. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed for default on 17.10.2003. The plaintiff appeared through his Advocate in the said suit. In the meanwhile, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, passed orders directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ipuru Mandal, to include the suit schedule survey numbers in the Pattadar Pass Book of the plaintiff on 02.06.1998 (Ex.A.5). Challenging the same, the first defendant preferred a revision before the Joint Collector, Guntur District, on 08.09.1998. In the meanwhile, the first defendant got issued legal notice to the revenue officials and the plaintiff in Ex.A.31 on 13.08.1998. Then the first defendant lodged a complaint to the police, Ipuru, on 10.10.1998 under Ex.B.5 alleging that the plaintiff's followers attacked him with deadly weapons, but somehow, he escaped with minor injuries and that the plaintiff and his men were trying to destroy the cotton crop and other crops raised by him in the suit schedule land. Basing on the said report, the police, Ipuru, registered a case in Crime No.147 of 1998 under Section 379 read with 34 IPC against the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff filed the present suit on 29.10.1998.
-
As seen from the averments made by the plaintiff in his pliant, his simple case is that the suit schedule land is his ancestral property and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and paying land revenue regularly. It is also his case that the State Government issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed to him and that he raised cotton crop in an extent of six acres and maize and red gram in eight acres and tobacco in one acre and remaining land was ploughed and made ready for seedling. It is also his case that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, vide his proceedings dated 02.06.1998, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ipuru Mandal, to issue Pattadar Pass Book to him. Alleging that the defendants are very powerful in the village and that they got the support of their community people, Congress-I Party and evil elements in the village and that they are making hectic attempts to grab the suit schedule land by dispossessing him and that he cannot resist the highhanded acts of the defendants, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.
-
The defendants filed a written statement and denied the averments made by the plaintiff. The contentions of the plaintiff that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land or that he raised crops in the suit schedule land have been denied. Referring to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, the defendants contended that they had preferred an...
To continue reading
Request your trial