Telangana High Court
Chandrakani Sampoornamma And 3 Others vs Bhumaraju Yedukondala Raju And Another on 2 May, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ A.S.No.69 OF 2020
% 02-05-2025
# Chandrakani Sampoornamma & others
....Appellants/plaintiffs
Vs.
$ Bhumaraju Yedukondala Raju & another
.... Respondents/Defendants
! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana,
learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri M.V.
Hanumantha Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma,
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2008) 15 SCC 673
2. (2006) 4 SCC 658
3. (1960) 2 SCR 253
4. (2007) 5 ALT 510
5. (2003) 8 SCC 752
6. (2022) 9 SCC 516
7. (1997) 2 SCC 485
8. (1970) 3 SCC 350
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
+ A.S.No.69 OF 2020
Between:
# Chandrakani Sampoornamma & others
....Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
$ Bhumaraju Yedukondala Raju & another
.... Respondents/Defendants
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 02.05.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
__________________
P. SAM KOSHY,J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
A.S.No.69 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)
Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior
Counsel, representing Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma,
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The present appeal is under Section 96 r/w Order XLI
Rule 1 of C.P.C. assailing the judgment and decree, dated
31.07.2019 in O.S. No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Special
Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (PoA) Act-
cum-VII Additional District Judge at Khammam. The said
suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs herein against the
defendants seeking the relief of recovery of possession of the
suit schedule property by cancelling the registered sale deed
bearing document No.8094/2005 dt.26.05.2004/
dt.08.09.2005 executed by late Satyanarayana in favour of
defendant No.1 and registered sale deed bearing
4
No.9743/2005 dt.27.03.2004/dt.29.11.2005 executed by late
Satyanarayana in favour of defendant No.2, at Sub-Registrar
Office, Khammam obtained the same by the defendants from
late Satyanarayana under undue influence, coercion and
fraud, and the same was dismissed.
3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as
they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is
that plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children
of Chandrakani Satyanarayana and he expired on 03.11.2005
intestate leaving behind plaintiffs 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and
successors to his estate. The father of late Ch. Satyanarayana
by name, Ch. Nagaiah was the owner of the land to an extent
of Ac.04-09 gts., situated at Khammam and the said property
was got by the said Ch. Nagaiah through the proceedings
under Section 38-E of the A.P.Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act.
4(i) Since the date of death of Chandrakani Nagaiah,
who is the great-grandfather of plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and father
of late Satyanarayana, was in possession and enjoyment of
5
the same. The said Nagaiah was having four sons, namely,
Chandrakani Ramulu, Chandrakani Yeladri, Chandrakani
China Yaladri @ Yerraiah and Chandrakani Mallaiah; among
them, Chandrakani Ramulu and Chandrakani China Yaladri
@ Yerraiah, and Chandrakani Mallaiah were no more. The
father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and husband of plaintiff No.1 was the
son of Chandrakani Yaladri, who is second son of
Chandrakani Nagaiah. Chandrakani Satyanarayana got
General Power of Attorney from Chandrakani Ramulu and his
sons and sons of Chanmdrakani China Yaladri @ Yerraiah for
the sale of the property got by them in oral partition.
4(ii) In the oral partition, the sons of Chandrakani
Nagaiah have got Ac.01-03 gts., Ac.01-02 gts., Ac.01-02 gts.,
and Ac.01-02 gts., of their respective shares. First son
Chandrakani Ramulu and third son Ch. China Yaladri @
Yerraiah have given General Power of Attorney in favour of
Chandrakani Satyanarayana for the sale of their respective
shares i.e. Ac.01-03 gts., and Ac.01-02 gts., Thus, the said
Satyanarayana was the owner of immovable property to an
extent of Ac.03-07gts. including his father’s share. The said
property was in possession and enjoyment of the said
6
Satyanarayana. The said Satyanarayana has sold away
Ac.01-00gts., of the land through General Power of Attorney in
favour of his wife i.e. plaintiff No.1 in the year, 1986 through
Registered Sale Deed, which is the exclusive property of
General Power of Attorney holder and it is also the ancestral
and joint family property. Since then, plaintiff No.1 was in
possession and enjoyment of the same.
4(iii) In the year 2003, the brother of the Satyanarayana
by name, Rama Nana was trying to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the property, as such, the said
Satyanarayana had filed a suit for perpetual injunction vide
O.S.No.77 of 2003, before the Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Khammam, and the said suit was decreed on 18.08.2003 in
favour of the said Satyanarayana. The said Satyanarayana
developed ill vices and did not care to maintain the plaintiffs,
as such, the plaintiffs have approached the legal services
Authority, Khammam, and filed L.S.A.C.No.33 of 2003 against
the said Satyanarayana for partition of the properties owned
by him. In the said L.S.A.C. the award was passed on
15.02.2003 declaring that the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are the
owners of the suit schedule property. In view of the said
7
Award/decree passed by the Legal Services Authority, the
plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit
schedule property.
4(iv) After granting the above said decree in favour of
plaintiffs 2 to 4, late Satyanarayana had allegedly executed
the Registered Sale Deeds in favour of the defendants in
respect of the land to an extent of Ac.01-23½ gts., each, vide
document No.8094 of 2005, dated 26.05.2004 and document
No.9743 of 2005, dated 27.03.2004 and the said documents
were registered by the Registering Authority on 08.09.2005
and 29.11.2005 respectively without having any right and
possession over the suit schedule property. The said
documents are sham and nominal without any consideration
and it was attributed by the said Satyanarayana under the
influence of alcohol. In fact, late Satyanarayana had no right
over the said property because he has already given the said
property in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 4 vide Award passed in
L.S.A.C.No.33 of 2003 dated 15.02.2003.
4(v) After execution of the alleged sale deeds in favour
of the defendants by late Satyanarayana, he died on
03.11.2005. Then the defendants were interfering with the
8
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. In view
of the said circumstances, in order to protect their possession,
plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.441 of 2007 before the Prl. Junior
Civil Judge’s Court, Khammam, and got ad-interim injunction
orders against defendant No.1 vide I.A.No.1033 of 2007 and
after Filing counter, the said I.A. was dismissed on
30.07.2007. After dismissal of the above I.A., the plaintiffs
have preferred C.M.A.No.28 of 2007 and the same was also
dismissed by the I Addl. District Judge, Khammam, on
22.07.2008. These facts were not brought to the notice of the
plaintiffs by their Advocate, who was appearing on their
behalf. After knowing the said facts, the plaintiffs preferred a
Revision vide C.R.P.No.5674 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High
Court and the same was also dismissed on 18.06.2009.
4(vi) The very execution of the sale deeds in favour of
the defendants was known to the plaintiffs when the
defendants have filed their counter in the above said I.A.
No.1033 of 2007 on 12.07.2007. Till that date, they did not
know about the alleged execution of the sale Deeds in favour
of defendants by late Satyanarayana. Based on the alleged
sale deeds, the defendants forcibly trespassed into the suit
9
schedule property and created nuisance at the spot. As per
the sale deed executed on 24.07.1986 vide document No.2317
of 1986 in favour of plaintiff No.1 by late Satyanarayana, she
is the absolute owner of the said extent. So also the land to
an extent of Ac.03-07 gts., got by plaintiffs No.2 to 4 vide
L.S.A. No.33 of 2003, they are the owners and all the
properties belong to ancestral and joint family properties. Late
Satyanarayana had no right to sell away the said properties in
favour of third parties without the consent of plaintiffs 1 to 4
and the said sale deeds were executed by late Satyanarayana
under the influence of the alcohol and it is not disposed off by
the said Satyanarayana for the benefits of joint family
property. As such, the said documents are liable to be
cancelled.
4(vii) The suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.441 of
2007 before the Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Khamnam,
was withdrawn by them by filing a Memo, dated 20.07.2009,
and they were permitted to file a separate suit. As such, the
plaintiffs filed the present suit as stated supra.
10
5. On the other hand, defendants No.1 and 2 filed their
Written Statement denying the averments made in the plaint,
and further submitted that the defendants had purchased the
land to an extent of Ac.03-07gts., in Sy.No.249 from the
husband of plaintiff No.1 by name, Ch. Satyanarayana
through Registered Sale Deeds by paying consideration on
27.03.2004 and on 26.05.2004 for Rs.9,00,000/- respectively.
Ever since the date of purchase, the defendants are in
possession and enjoyment of the same and they have applied
to the Tahsildar for “No Objection Certificate”. The Revenue
Authorities after conducting due enquiry, issued Pattedar
Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of defendants vide Title
Deed Nos.321 and 322.
5(i) It is further contended that the vendor of the
defendants namely, Ch.Satyanarayana was the owner and
possessor of the suit schedule property and he was issued
with pattedar Pass books and title deeds vide No.235. The
said Ch.Satyanarayana in turn sold the land of Ac.03-07gts.
including the suit schedule property to these defendants for
consideration as stated supra and possession was delivered
on the same day of purchase. The defendants have purchased
11
the land of Ac.3-07gts., from Chandrakani Satyanarayana and
they are enjoying the property with clear title and the plaintiffs
are nothing to do with the property purchased by the
defendants. The Revenue Authorities also entered the names
of Defendants in the pahani patrika and the plaintiffs have no
locus-standi to file any suit against the defendants.
5(ii) It is further contended on behalf of defendants that
the alleged Award in L.S.A.C.No.33 of 2003 dated 15.02.2003
before the Legal Services Authority, Khammam, which was
between the family members of Chandrakani Satyanarayana
is not at all binding on the defendants, it was collusive Award
obtained behind and back of third parties to knock away their
properties and to cause wrongful loss. Even the said collusive
Award was not registered, as such, it cannot be looked into,
for any purpose.
5(iii) It is further contended that even after the Award
passed in L.S.A.C.No.33 of 2003, the vendor of the defendants
namely, Ch. Satyanarayana continued his proceedings in
O.S.No.77 of 2003, on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s
Court at Khammam, in which, the said Satyanarayana has
taken police protection vide E.A. No.701 of 2003 in E.P.No.905
12
of 2003 in O.S.No.77 of 2003 dated 02.12.2003. This
otherwise shows that the L.S.A.C. Order was collusive one to
knock away the properties of third parties. The plaint in O.S.
No.77 of 2003 shows that the said Satyanarayana was an
absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property
and that he was enjoying it with absolute rights before selling
it to these defendants. The name of Ch. Satyanarayana was
entered in the pahanies. It was false to allege that Ch.
Satyanarayana used to addict to all vices in as much as he
continued to be in service till his death.
5(iv) It is further contended that when these defendants
planning to construct a compound wall around the suit
schedule property, some antisocial elements tried to interfere
with their possession and enjoyment. The culprits have
damaged the roof of two rooms constructed by defendant No.1
and committed theft, as such, a report was lodged and
culprits were arrested. This otherwise shows that these
defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. In I.A.No.285 of 2006 in O.S.No.1054 of
2006 dated 29.01.2007 is pending in between the defendants
and one Rama Krishna, who is the owner of the land situated
13
an eastern side. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed
for fixation of the boundaries with respect of the suit schedule
property and that of the property of one G. Rama Krishna
(Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.411 of 2007).
5(v) It is further contended that subsequently, the
matter was settled out side of the Court and these defendants
and Ramakrishna were settled possession of their respective
properties within their specific boundaries with specific
measurements of 449 feet from west to east. In I.A.No.126 of
2005 in O.S.No.406 of 2005 dated 27.12.2005, which was
between the defendants and defendant No.2 in O.S.No.441 of
2007, the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, was pleased
to pass ad interim injunction order in favour of defendants
No.1 and 2. The said suit was filed to harass defendants No.1
and 2, as they failed to get any relief in O.S.No.441 of 2007.
Defendants No.1 and 2 are in settled position and also owners
of the suit schedule property for a fairly longtime and as such,
the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.
6. The trial Court after hearing both sides and based on
material available on record, passed the judgment and the
result portion is as follows:
14
“I am holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that
defendants 1 and 2 played fraud with late Chandrakani
Satyanarayana and obtained orginals of Exs.A.1 and A.2
sale Deeds while he was under influence of alcohol and on
the other hand, the Defendants have established that they
are bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule land and they
had purchased the suit schedule land under the originals of
Ex.A.1 and A.2 from late Ch. Satyanarayana for valid sale
consideration. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have no right to seek
the relief of cancellation of originals of Exs.A.1 and A.2/Sale
Deeds and also they have no right to seek possession of
suit schedule land and therefore, the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
RESULT
In the result, the suit of the Plaintiffs is dismissed. In the
circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own
costs.”
Aggrieved by the same, the present first appeal is filed by the
plaintiffs.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits
that the trial Court committed a serious and grave error in
holding that Ex.A-3/Award passed in L.S.A.C.No.33 of 2003
dated: 15-02-2003 is collusive in nature and not binding on
the respondents/defendants. The said finding is baseless and
unreasonable as the said Award is much prior to the sales
under originals of Ex.A-1 and A-2. The Trial Court ought to
15
have inferred that the said sale deeds are not binding on the
appellants/plaintiffs as the vendor of the
respondents/defendants had no title to convey the same to
the respondents/defendants under the originals of Ex.A-1 and
A-2.
7(i) Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs
further submits that the trial Court wrongly held that since
the suit in O.S.No.441 of 2007 filed for perpetual injunction in
respect of the suit property is dismissed, the present suit
claiming title for recovery of possession is not maintainable.
The said finding is too bad and unsustainable in law since the
appellants lost their possession over the suit property, as
such, the said suit in O.S.No.441 of 2007 filed for injunction,
was withdrawn with a liberty to file the present suit seeking
recovery of possession. Therefore there is no legal flaw to
maintain the instant suit.
7(ii) Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs
further submits that the trial Court failed to note that Ex.A-3
award passed in L.S.A.O.P No.33 of 2003 in all respects is
valid in law and binding on the parties, where under late
16
Chandrakani Satyanarayana surrendered all his rights under
the said award in favour of the appellants. Therefore by the
date of Ex.A-1 and A-2, the said late Chandrakani
Satyanarayana had neither title nor possession over the suit
property and Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 documents were pressed into
service collusively only to defeat the legal rights of the
appellants over the suit property. The trial Court erred in
disbelieving the Ex.A-3/Award without assigning any reasons
for its conclusions. The said Award has become final as the
same has not been challenged by the respondents/Defendants
or their vendor during his lifetime.
7(iii) Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs
further submits that the trial Court failed to note that a
purchaser cannot have better title than that of his vendor.
Evidently said late Chandrakani Satyanarayana had no title
by the date of Ex.A-1 and A-2 since he lost all his rights under
award Ex.A-3. The suit property is the joint family property of
late Chandrakani Satyanarayana and the appellants and the
appellants No.2 to 4 are coparceners having an undivided
1/4th interest each in the subject property and the sale
17
obtained by the respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 from the
said late Chandrakani Satyanarayana is invalid, inoperative
and unenforceable in law and the trial Court ought to have
rejected the claim of the respondents/defendants under
originals of Ex.A-1 and A-2.
7(iv) Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs
further submits that the trial Court failed to note that by the
date of Ex.A-1 and A-2, the appellants No.2 to 4 were minors
and the alienation made by their father late Chandrakani
Satyanarayana in favour of the respondents/defendants No.1
and 2 under the originals of Ex.A-1 and A-2, is without
obtaining any permission as required under the Hindu
Minority and Guardianships Act, as illegal and invalid.
Therefore, the sales in favour of the respondents/defendants
No.1 and 2 are illegal and void ab-initio. The trial Court failed
to note that when admittedly the suit property is joint family
property and evidently when the appellants No.2 to 4 are
minors and the burden heavily lies on the purchasers to prove
that there was legal necessity for the said sale or it is for the
benefit of minors.
18
7(v) Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs
further submits that the trial Court failed to note that the
Pattadar Passbooks marked as Ex.B-2 and B-3 stand in the
name of late Chandrakani Satyanarayana, were cancelled by
the competent revenue authorities holding that the
respondents/defendants have no right, title to the subject
property and the same was confirmed in the Revision before
the Joint Collector, Khammam. The trial Court failed to note
that the respondent No.2 who is claiming to have purchased a
part of the suit property under the original of Ex.A-2 sale
deed, was not even examined herself to prove the said
transaction. The trial Court wrongly held that the suit
property is the absolute property of late Chandrakani
Satyanarayana as the said property admittedly, is the joint
family property of late Chandrakani Satyanarayana and the
appellants No.2 to 4 and though a vague and bald allegation
made by the respondents/defendants that the property is
absolute property of late Chandrakani Satyanarayana, but in
the cross- examination the respondent No.1 even not able to
say how late Chandrakani Satyanarayana got his property
and not denied the source of title of late Chandrakani
19
Satyanarayana as suggested by the Appellants. Accordingly,
prayed to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondents/defendants submits that the Lok Adalat Award is
not binding on these respondents as it was only an
understanding between the parties and it cannot bind the
third parties.
8(i) Learned counsel for respondents/defendants further
submits that the appellants contended that the award passed
by the Lok Adalat is binding and referred Section 22E of Legal
Services Authorities Act, which reads as under:
“Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this
Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement
agreement, shall be final and binding on all the parties
thereto and on persons claiming under them.”
Learned counsel for respondents/defendants vehemently
argued that the Lok Adalat Award in the present case is
passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act
and not under Section 22E, and Section 21(2) reads as under:
“Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and
binding on all the parties to the dispute; and no appeal
shall lie to any court against the award”.
20
The Legal Services Authorities Act has contemplated two
types of Lok Adalat namely general Lok Adalat and secondly,
the permanent Lok Adalat. In the instant case, the Award
itself shows that it is passed under Section 21 of the Act,
which means it is governed by Section 21(2) of the Act, and
not the 22E which is for Permanent Lok Adalat.
8(ii) Learned counsel for respondents/defendants further
submits that Section 21(2) of the Act clearly states that the
award is binding to the “parties to the dispute”, whereas the
respondents are not parties to the dispute. The Section 22E
adds that it applies to the “parties to the dispute and anybody
claiming under them”. While the fact remains that the Section
22E does not apply in the instant case and that these
respondents being purchasers of the property through the
registered sale deed, they cannot be treated as “claiming
under them” claiming through them. The difference is that
while claiming “under” means the original owner holds the
right in the subject matter, whereas in the instant case, since
the respondents are purchasers the role of the vendors ends
and the purchasers cannot be called as claiming under the
21
previous owner. Therefore, in any case, the Award is not
binding on these respondents.
8(iii) Learned counsel for respondents/defendants
further submits that the Lok Adalat Award has no legal force
as the claim before the Lok Adalat is not backed by any legal
right of the parties. The Award of the Lok Adalat would be
valid only if the claim by the plaintiffs is genuine and they are
otherwise eligible for the same. In the instant case, the
plaintiffs have claimed partition of their share in the subject
property, which means the plaintiffs would have genuine right
of their share. However, the pleadings in the plaint clearly
show that they do not have any such night. The pleadings
itself show that, the property was originally owned by one
Chandrakani Nagaiah, to an extent of Ac.04-00 guntas, and
during his lifetime, he had partitioned among his four sons
namely, 1) Chandrakani Ramulu (2) Chandrakani Yeladri (3)
Chandrakani China Yeladri @ Yerraiah and Chandrakani
Mallaiah. It was pleased that the Ramulu, China Yerraiah
and Mallaiah were already died. The vendor of these
respondents namely Chandrakani Satyanarayana (husband of
the first plaintiff and father of other plaintiffs) is the son of
22
second one namely Chandrakani Yeladri. Out of Ac.04-00
guntas, first son got Ac.01-03 gts, and other three got Ac.01-
02 each. As such, the husband of the first plaintiff has
actually inherited the share of his father which is Ac.01.02
gts., and the sons of first son and third son have given
General Power of Attorney to the husband of the first plaintiff,
that is the vendor of the respondents herein.
8(iv) Learned counsel for respondents/defendants
further submits that even according to the pleadings itself,
total extent is Acers 3.07 Guntas, which is the suit property.
Ch. Satyanaraya has inherited only Ac.01.02 guntas and the
remaining Extent of Ac.02.05 gts., he was holding only
General Power Attorney on behalf of its actual owners, as
such, the children or wife of Sri Ch. Satyanarayana cannot
claim any share in the property that was being managed by
the General Power of Attorney holder. It is also further
pleaded that out of total Ac.03.07 guntas, Ch. Satyanarayana
also sold one acre to his wife (that is first plaintiff), but that
was never claimed and plaintiffs have admitted the title of Ch.
Satyanarayana that is the vendor of the respondents herein.
23
8(v) Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
further submits that the finding of the competent Civil Court
is binding on the Lok Adalat and persists unless the same is
set aside, as such, the concept of res-judicate has to be
applied. Earlier the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction
wherein the interlocutory application for temporary injunction
was dismissed, which was confirmed by the District Court in
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and further ratified by the High
Court in Civil Revision Petition. The finding of the Trial Court
in para two of page seven of the order says as under:
Ex. A-1 Award was in between the family members of
late Chandrakani Satyanarayana and petitioners and
it was not acted upon which is evidenced under ExA-4
pahani which is filed by the petitioners themselves. As
per pahanies the name of late Satayanarayana was
shown for the year 2005-2006. Therefore, it shows
that the award under Ex.A-1 was a collusive one and it
was not effected and the petitioners 1-4 were never put
into possession of the property”.
This finding/observation of a competent court remains intact
unless it was set aside by any Appellant Court.
24
8(vi) Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
further submits that it is further found by the competent Civil
Court in earlier suit vide O.S.No.441 of 2007 that:
“for the above mentioned reasons the petitioners failed to
prove their possession and their pleadings are inconsistent
with the documents filed by them, thereby I feel that the
petitioners failed to prove their possession as on the date of
filing of the suit”.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit for
injunction and filed the present suit. In the earlier suit, they
have claimed the possession, whereas in the instant case they
have asked for “recovery of possession”, but nowhere they
stated that they were dispossessed by these
respondents/defendants. The finding as to the possession was
also categorically observed by the court below.
8(vii) Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
further submits that in the Lok Adalat Award, the plaintiffs
mentioned one family arrangement dated 08.07.1997 through
which they have claimed their share, but curiously the said
family arrangement document was not filed in any case either
in the earlier suit for injunction nor in the suit for recovery of
possession.
25
8(viii) Learned counsel for respondents/defendants
further submits that the suit itself is not maintainable as the
prayer sought for in the plaint cannot be decreed as it is filed
for recovery of possession. The “recovery” would be used
where it was to get back which was held earlier. In the entire
pleadings, it was never claimed the earlier possession, as
such, the question of “recovery” does not arise. The plaintiffs
ought to have filed for declaration of their title, which was not
done. In the absence of such prayer of their right of the title,
they are not entitled for a possession or, much less, for
recovery of possession of the subject lands. Even the Lok
Adalat award did not give any title to the plaintiffs, but only
contended that the husband of first plaintiff in the said case
had agreed not to sell the property. If there is any title that is
conveyed through the Lok Adalat, the decree/award ought to
have been registered under the provisions of Section 17 of the
Registration Act.
8(ix) Learned counsel for respondents/defendants
further submits that the prayer in the suit is for recovery of
possession “by cancelling the registered sale deeds” of the
respondents herein. It is a settled principle that cancellation
26
of sale deed can only be prayed for, by those who were parties
to the deed, but not the third parties. The plaintiffs are not
the executants of the sale deeds but they are third parties in
which case they should have sought for declaration that “the
sale deeds of the defendants are null and void and not binding
on the plaintiffs”, but that was not pleaded. Accordingly,
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:
9. A perusal of the record shows that plaintiffs 1 to 4
contended that Chandrakani Satyanarayana was the absolute
owner and possessor of total land to an extent of Ac.3-07 gts.
situated in Sy.No 294 of Khanapuram Haveli revenue village.
Out of this, he is alleged to have sold the land to an extent of
Ac.1-00 to his wife i.e. Plaintiff No.1 under a Registered sale
deed/Ex.A4 bearing document No.2317 of 1986 dated
26.7.1986. If the claim that Chandrakani Satyanarayana sold
Ac.1-00 gts., out of Ac.03-07 gts. under the original of
Ex.A.4/Sale Deed is indeed accurate, the remaining land in the
possession and enjoyment would be only Ac.02-07 gts.,
However, the Award under Ex.A-3, dated 15.02.2003 reveals
27
the existence of a Family Arrangement dated 08.07.1997.
Pursuant to which, the entire suit schedule property i.e. Ac.03-
07gts., in Sy.No.294 was allegedly allotted to his children. This
raises a significant contradiction. How could Chandrakani
Satyanarayana have sold any portion of the land in 1986 if, by
1997, the entire property had been conveyed to his children?
Therefore, the evidentiary value of Ex.A4 is significantly
weakened. Furthermore, if it is established that the Family
Arrangement dated 08.07.1997 indeed transferred the entirety
of the suit schedule property to the children, Chandrakani
Satyanarayana could not have retained any portion of the
property to be conveyed to Plaintiff No. 1 under Ex.A4. This
inconsistency casts doubt on the plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover,
the plaintiffs failed to produce the Agreement of Family
Arrangement dated 08.07.1997, which forms the basis of their
claims. In the absence of this critical document, the validity of
the sale deed in favor of Plaintiff No. 1 (Ex.A4) cannot be
effectively challenged, nor can the claim of the plaintiffs that
the entire property was transferred under the family
arrangement be substantiated.
28
10. The plaintiffs contend that, pursuant to the Lok Adalat
Award dated 15.02.2003, they have been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule land. When the defendants
attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and
enjoyment in the year 2007, the plaintiffs filed a suit in
O.S.No.441 of 2007 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s
Court, Khammam, and also filed a petition in I.A.No.1033 of
2007 seeking a temporary injunction until the disposal of the
main suit. However, the petition in I.A.No.1033 of 2007 was
dismissed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Khammam, on 30.07.2007. Aggrieved by this decision, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.28 of 2007 before the I
Additional District Court, Khammam, which was subsequently
dismissed on 22.07.2008. Dissatisfied with the appellate
court’s judgment, the plaintiffs sought revision through
C.R.P.No.5674 of 2008 before the High Court. This revision
petition was also dismissed on 18.06.2009. Thereafter, the
plaintiffs withdrew O.S.No.441 of 2007 on 20.07.2009.
11. Following these setbacks, the plaintiffs altered their
position and claimed that Defendants No.1 and No.2 are in
29
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.
Furthermore, they alleged that Defendants No.1 and No.2
obtained originals of Exs.A-7 and A-8 (certified copies of
registered sale deeds) from Chandrakani Satyanarayana by
committing fraud while he was in a drunken state. However, if
Chandrakani Satyanarayana had indeed executed the sale
deeds under the alleged circumstances, the plaintiffs would
have raised this issue during the earlier suit, i.e., O.S.No.441
of 2007. Notably, no such plea was made at that time,
undermining the credibility of their new claim.
12. Contentions of Defendants No.1 and No.2:
Defendants No.1 and No.2, who are husband and wife,
contend that they lawfully purchased the suit schedule lands
under registered sale deeds (Exs.A7 and A8) for valid
consideration on 26.05.2004 / 08.09.2005 and 27.03.2004 /
29.11.2005, respectively. The certified copies of the sale deeds
(Exs.A7 and A8) executed in their favour by Chandrakani
Satyanarayana confirm that he alienated the suit schedule
lands to meet his family necessities. As such, late
Chandrakani Satyanarayana sold the suit schedule lands to
30Defendants No.1 and No.2 for the sustenance of his family,
including Plaintiffs 1 to 4. Since the execution of the original
sale deeds, the defendants have been in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands as bona
fide purchasers from the original owner, Chandrakani
Satyanarayana. Furthermore, the defendants assert that they
had no knowledge of the collusive order passed by the Lok
Adalat, Khammam, in LSAC No.33 of 2003, dated
15.02.2003.
13. Revenue Records Supporting Defendants’ Claim:
Following a due inquiry, the revenue authorities issued
pattedar passbooks and title deeds in favor of Defendants
No.1 and No.2. The defendants further argue that prior to
these transactions, Chandrakani Satyanarayana was the
undisputed owner and possessor of the suit schedule land,
as evidenced by the pattedar passbook and title deed (Exs.B2
and B3) issued in his name by the revenue authorities.
These records affirm his ownership status at the time of
execution of the sale deeds.
31
14. The plaintiffs challenged the issuance of pattedar
passbooks and title deeds in favor of Defendants No.1 and No.2
by the concerned Tahsildar. Upon conducting a due inquiry,
the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban, cancelled the said passbooks
and title deeds. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendants filed
an appeal before the Joint Collector, Khammam, which was
also dismissed. Subsequently, the defendants preferred a writ
petition before the High Court, which remains pending for
consideration.
15. The revenue authorities primarily relied upon the Award
passed by the Lok Adalat, Khammam, in LSAC No.33 of 2003,
dated 15.02.2003. It is noted that, as per law, an award passed
by the Lok Adalat is final, and no appeal lies against it.
However, in this case, the award in question was rendered
between Chandrakani Satyanarayana and his family members.
Thus, it does not bind third parties. The plaintiffs contend that
the award was collusive, obtained surreptitiously to deprive
third parties of their rightful properties and cause them
wrongful loss. Moreover, since the said award was not
32
registered, it lacks legal validity and cannot be relied upon for
any purpose.
16. The defendants further contend that, despite the Award
passed in LSAC No.33 of 2003, their vendor, Chandrakani
Satyanarayana, continued legal proceedings in O.S.No.77 of
2003 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Khammam. In the course of these proceedings, he sought
police protection by filing EA No.701 of 2003 in E.P.No.905 of
2003 in O.S.No.77 of 2003, dated 02.12.2003. This suggests
that the LSAC Order was collusive in nature and intended to
deprive third parties of their rightful properties.
17. Contents of the plaint in O.S.No.77 of 2003 indicate that
Chandrakani Satyanarayana was the absolute owner and
possessor of the suit schedule property and exercised full
ownership rights before conveying the property to the
defendants. When the defendants attempted to construct a
compound wall around the suit schedule property, certain
antisocial elements unlawfully interfered with their possession
and enjoyment. These individuals caused damage to the roof of
two rooms constructed by Defendant No.1 and committed theft.
33
Consequently, a complaint was lodged with the police, leading
to the arrest of the perpetrators. This further substantiates
that the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property, reinforcing their claim of legal
ownership and uninterrupted possession.
18. The plaintiffs assert their claim of possession primarily on
the basis of the Lok Adalat Award (Ex.A3). The said Award was
passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, rather than under Section 22E. Section 21(2) of the Act
stipulates as follows:
“Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on
all the parties to the dispute; and no appeal shall lie to any court
against the award.”
However, Section 21(2) clearly states that the award is binding
on the parties to the dispute. In the present case, the
respondents were not parties to the dispute. Consequently, the
award does not extend its legal effect to them.
19. Judicial Precedents Relied Upon by the Appellants:
Learned counsel for the appellants has cited several
judicial precedents in support of their claims. Among them, the
relevant judgments are discussed below:
34
20. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that when a
son acquires property from his father, upon the birth of his
own sons (third generation), they acquire a birthright in the
property as part of the joint family estate. Courts are bound to
uphold and enforce amicable family arrangements that settle
disputes and facilitate the distribution of property among
family members and he relied upon Ranganayakamma and
another v. K.S. Prakash (Dead) by LRs., and others, 1 and he
also relied upon Hari Shankar Singhania and others v. Gaur
Hari Singhania and others 2 and MST Rukhmabai v. Lala
Laxminarayan and others 3 and submitted that these cases
reaffirm the presumption under Hindu law that a family is
deemed to be joint. A member of a joint family is not required
to explicitly claim a share in the joint family estate. He may
also relinquish his interest orally, and such renunciation
merely extinguishes his individual interest, allowing the
remaining members to continue holding the property as joint
family property.
1
. (2008) 15 SCC 673
2
. (2006) 4 SCC 658
3
. (1960) 2 SCR 253
35
21. Additionally, it is a well-settled legal principle that courts,
while assessing the credibility of witness testimony, must take
into account the witness’s conduct by reviewing the evidence in
its entirety. Furthermore, an admission made by a party in
pleadings is admissible against them proprio-vigor–
meaning “by its own force and strength.”
22. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently
argued that the principle cited by the trial court–that a
plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not
on the weakness of the defendant’s case, as reiterated in
Mohammed Ibrahim (D) by L.Rs. & another v. Mohammed
Abdul Razaak 4–does not imply that even if the plaintiffs
establish their claims by a preponderance of probabilities, the
onus probandi never shifts to the defendants to rebut them.
The concept of burden of proof loses significance once both
parties have adduced evidence on the issues in contention. He
further submitted that the legal position on this matter has
been clearly elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in a
4
. (2007) 5 ALT-510
36
suit for recovery of possession based on title, it is for the
plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the court that he, in law,
is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over
the suit property and have the possession restored to him and
he relied upon the R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v.
Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another 5.
However, the trial court failed to examine what title remained
with Chandrakani Satyanarayana to convey to the defendants
subsequent to the Lok Adalat settlement and Award (Ex.A3),
which acquired the sanctity of a decree of a Civil Court
under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987. The court also failed to consider whether the award
could be binding on the defendants, who subsequently
purchased the same property, and whether any portion of the
property remained with Satyanarayana for valid conveyance.
Without addressing these fundamental legal questions, the trial
judge summarily dismissed the award as collusive, without
offering substantial reasoning.
23. Arguments by the Respondents/Defendants:
5
. (2003) 8 SCC 752
37
Conversely, learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants contends that the plaintiffs had
previously filed a suit for injunction O.S.No.441 of 2007,
wherein their interlocutory application for temporary injunction
was dismissed. This dismissal was subsequently confirmed by
the District Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and further
ratified by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition. The
learned counsel relied on the finding of the trial court in Para 2
of the Interlocutory Order, which stated:
“Ex.A-1 (Award) was entered into between the family members of late
Chandrakani Satyanarayana and the petitioners, but it was never acted
upon, as evidenced by Ex.A-4 (pahani) filed by the petitioners
themselves. The pahani records for the years 2005-2006 reflect the
name of late Satyanarayana, thereby demonstrating that the award
under Ex.A-1 was collusive and never took effect. The petitioners were
never put in possession of the property. Furthermore, their pleadings
are inconsistent with the documentary evidence presented, leading to
the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish possession as of
the date of filing the suit.”
24. Subsequently, the plaintiffs/appellants withdrew
O.S.No.441 of 2007 and initiated the present suit. In the
earlier suit, they claimed possession, whereas in the current
suit, they seek recovery of possession. Given these
developments, the respondents contend that the Lok Adalat
Award lacks legal force, as the claim made before the Lok
38
Adalat was not backed by any enforceable legal right of the
parties. An award passed by a Lok Adalat holds validity only
when the claim of the plaintiffs is genuine and legally
sustainable.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued
that the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat under Section 20 is to
facilitate a settlement of disputes between the parties in a case
and it has no adjudicatory role and it cannot decide a list and
he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v
Yunus and others 6 wherein at para No.37 it is observed as
under:
“37. The object of the 1987 Act inter alia as can be noticed from
the Preamble to the Act, also is the organisation of Lok Adalats.
It is clear beyond the shadow of any doubt that the jurisdiction of
the Lok Adalat under Section 20 is to facilitate a settlement of
disputes between the parties in a case. It has no adjudicatory
role. It cannot decide a lis. All that it can do is to bring about a
genuine compromise or settlement. Sub-section (4) of Section 20
is important so far as the law giver has set out the guiding
principles for a Lok Adalat. The principles are justice, equality,6
. (2022) 9 SCC 516
39fair play and other legal principles. The significance of this
provision looms large when the Court bears in mind the scheme
of Section 28-A of the Act.”
26. Arguments Advanced by the Appellants:
Learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended
that since the existence of the joint family is undisputed, any
property held by the family, along with subsequent
acquisitions, assumes the character of coparcenary property.
Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sher Singh and others v. Gamdoor Singh 7, where
it was held:
“Once the existence of the joint family was not in dispute, necessarily
the property held by the family assumed the character of coparcenary
property and every member of the family would be entitled by birth to a
share in the coparcenary property unless any one of the coparcener
pleads, by separate pleadings, and proves that some of the properties
are his self-acquired properties and could not be blended in the
coparcenary property.”
27. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellants asserted
that any alienation by the Karta of a coparcenary property,
unless justified by legal necessity, estate benefit, or
indispensable duties, is voidable at the instance of any
coparcener. He relied upon the ruling in Raj Kumar
7
. (1997) 2 SCC 485
40
Raghubanchmani Prasad Narain Singh v. Ambica Prasad
Sngh (Dead) by L.Rs and others 8, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held:
“In any event an alienation by the manager of the joint Hindu
family even without legal necessity is voidable and not void.”
28. Analysis of Sale Deeds and Ownership Rights:
A perusal of the registered sale deeds under Ex.A1 and
Ex.A2 establishes that Chandrakani Satyanarayana held
absolute ownership rights over the suit schedule properties.
Further, the records indicate that he alienated the properties
for the benefit of his family, thereby confirming that the sale
was made with the intent to support his family. Consequently,
the sale deeds under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 hold legal validity and
remain enforceable.
29. Maintainability of the Suit:
The suit itself is legally not maintainable, as the relief
sought by the plaintiffs–“recovery of possession by
canceling the registered sale deeds”–cannot be granted. The
legal concept of “recovery” applies only when the plaintiff
8
. 1970(3) SCC 350
41seeks to regain possession that was previously held. However,
the plaintiffs have never claimed prior possession in their
pleadings, which renders the question of recovery irrelevant.
30. Additionally, it is a well-settled legal principle that only
parties to a sale deed have the right to seek its cancellation.
Third parties lack the legal standing to challenge registered
sale transactions. In the present case, the plaintiffs are not the
executants of the disputed sale deeds; rather, they are third
parties attempting to invalidate the transactions. On the other
hand, Defendants No.1 and No.2–who are husband and wife–
purchased the suit schedule lands through registered sale
deeds (Exs.A7 and A8) for valid consideration, executed on
26.05.2004 / 08.09.2005 and 27.03.2004 / 29.11.2005,
respectively. Furthermore, Exs.A7 and A8, being certified
copies of sale deeds executed in favor of Defendants No.1 and
No.2 by Chandrakani Satyanarayana, clearly establish that the
vendor alienated the property for his family necessities.
Thus, the bona fide status of the purchasers is well-
established, and they have been in lawful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule lands since the execution of
42
Exs.A7 and A8. The defendants are therefore entitled to
protection as bona fide purchasers from the original owner,
Chandrakani Satyanarayana.
31. Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view
that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit, and there is
no ground for appellate interference. The plaintiffs have failed
to establish a legal basis for their claim, and the relief sought is
untenable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
32. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 02.05.2025
Note:
Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly.
B/o
Bdr
[ad_1]
Source link