Smt. Kamlikar Anasuja vs Sri K. Sajjanlal on 3 January, 2025

January 9, 2025

Telangana High Court

Smt. Kamlikar Anasuja vs Sri K. Sajjanlal on 3 January, 2025

Bench: G.Radha Rani

       THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

                 APPEAL SUIT Nos.139 & 156 of 2022


COMMON JUDGMENT:

These two appeals are decided together as the parties are one and the

same and they are interconnected.

2. A.S.No.139 of 2022 is filed by the appellants who were the defendants 1

to 7 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2022 passed in

O.S.No.44 of 2018 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

3. O.S.No.44 of 2018 is a suit for partition filed by the respondents –

plaintiffs.

4. A.S.No.156 of 2022 is filed by the appellants who were the plaintiffs

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.108

of 2016 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

5. O.S.No.108 of 2016 is a suit for declaration, rectification of entries in the

revenue record and injunction.

6. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants and respondents were

legal heirs of late Chandoji. Late Chandoji had three sons by name

Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal and two daughters by name Jangamma
2
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

and Laxmi Bai. The appellants in both the cases are the wife and children of

Ramchanderji. Originally, the son of Balram by name Sajjanlal, son of

Mohanlal by name Raju and daughter of late Chandoji by name Jangamma filed

a suit for partition in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar,

claiming one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties shown as Ac.6-24

guntas each in Survey Nos.611 /1 and 611 /2, total Ac.13-08 guntas in the limits

of Kadthal Village, Amangal Mandal of Mahabubnagar District, which was

numbered as O.S.No.273 of 2006. Thereafter, the said suit was transferred to

the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and re-numbered as O.S.No.44

of 2018. The wife and sons of Ramchanderji filed a suit for declaration of title

with respect to Ac.6-24 guntas of land in Survey No.611 /2 of Kadthal Village

and Mandal (erstwhile Amangal Mandal) of Mahabubnagar District (presently

Rangareddy District) in the year 2016, which was tried as O.S.No.108 of 2016.

Pleadings in O.S.No.44 of 2016:

7. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.273 of 2006 (which was tried as

O.S.No.44 of 2018) was that since 1964-65, late Chandoji and his sons

Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal along with daughter of late Chandoji by

name Kamalikar Jangamma were cultivating the land bearing Survey No.611 to

an extent of Ac.13-08 guntas on crop share basis till 1971-72. In the year 1972-

73, the original pattadars of the said land have sold the said land to late
3
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

Chandoji and his sons for nominal sale consideration, recognizing their previous

services. As the common ancestor, late Chandoji became old, the patta of the

said land was mutated in the names of Ramchanderji and Balram in the revenue

records for convenience sake by assigning sub-division numbers as 611 /1 and

611 /2 to an extent of Ac.6-24 guntas each. Since 1972-73, the names of late

Ramchanderji and late Balram were recorded as pattadars of the suit schedule

lands in all the revenue records. The members of the joint family cultivated and

enjoyed the suit schedule lands. During the course of time, their common

ancestor late Chandoji and his three sons Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal

died. As the family went on enlarging due to marriages of the co-sharers, they

separated in mess, but were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit lands.

There was no physical partition of the suit schedule properties among the co-

sharers. As the plaintiffs in O.S.No.44 of 2018 were experiencing difficulty in

joint cultivation of the suit lands, they convened a meeting on 01.12.2006

before the elders of the village and called the defendants and demanded for

partition of the suit schedule lands into four equal shares and for allotment of

one such share to each of them. The defendants postponed the matter. Again

on 25.12.2006, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for physical partition of

the suit lands. But the defendants bluntly refused taking advantage of recording

their names in the revenue records as pattadars. The plaintiffs approached the

concerned revenue authorities, obtained certified copies of revenue records and
4
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

came to know that behind their back, the defendants (the legal heirs of

Ramchanderji) fraudulently got mutated the entire land in their names. As the

plaintiffs were equal shareholders on par with the defendants over the suit lands,

they filed the suit for partition and separate possession for their one-fourth share

each in the suit schedule lands.

8. The defendants 1 to 7 (appellants in A.S.No.139 of 2022) filed written

statement submitting that late Ramchanderji (the father of defendants 1 to 6 and

husband of defendant No.7) purchased the suit lands with his self-earnings from

its earlier owners through registered sale deed document Nos.505/1968 and

506/1968 on 05.06.1968. However, the name of late Balram was also joined by

late Ramchanderji as one of the purchasers and joint owners of the suit lands,

though he had not contributed any money to purchase the said lands. His name

was nominally recorded as one of the owners of the said lands. Late Chandoji

had no concern with the suit lands, as he had not acquired the suit lands and not

contributed anything for purchasing the suit lands. Even if he cultivated the suit

land earlier as contended by the plaintiffs, still, he would not get any title much

less valid title over the suit lands. Late Balram had also not contributed any

money for purchasing the suit lands and his name was nominally recorded as

joint owner along with late Ramchanderji. The relations between late

Ramchanderji and late Balram were cordial and as such late Ramchanderji got

name of his brother Balram recorded as co-owner of the suit lands nominally
5
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

and purchased the lands in his name nominally. Infact, late Ramchanderji was

the absolute owner of the suit lands and his other brothers, sisters and his late

father Chandoji had no right and interest over the suit lands and they were not

ancestral joint family properties. Thus, the plaintiffs had no right to seek

partition of the suit lands. On this ground alone, the suit was liable to be

dismissed. The plaintiff No.1 i.e. Sri Kamlikar Sajjanlal (S/o.LateBalram) was

also not having any subsisting right in the suit lands, in view of the fact that, his

father sold the same to late Ramchanderji. The revenue authorities mutated the

names of late Ramchanderji and late Balram as co-owners / joint owners of suit

lands. Late Ramchanderji permitted Balram to cultivate part of the suit land for

some period. Late Balram had shown his willingness to sell his interest in the

suit lands to late Ramchanderji and the said proposal was accepted by late

Ramchanderji. Accordingly, late Ramchanderji purchased the interest of late

Balram in the suit lands by paying valid sale consideration of Rs.5,025/- on

22.03.1975 (Aananda Nama Samvatsara Palguna Shudda Dashimi). The said

Balram executed sale deed in favor of late Ramchanderji on 22.03.1975 having

received sale consideration and transferred his interest in the suit land and left

the possession of suit land by completely handing over possession of his share

of land out of suit lands to late Ramchanderji. The said document was later got

validated by late Ramchanderji by paying necessary stamp duty and penalty

before Revenue Divisional Officer (for short “RDO”), Mahabubnagar in the
6
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

year 1989. The said document was implemented in the revenue records and the

name of Ramchanderji was mutated as exclusive owner of suit lands and the

name of Balram was deleted. The plaintiffs were aware of the said proceedings,

but intentionally suppressed the same.

8.1. The defendants 1 to 7 further submitted that late Ramchanderji was in

exclusive possession of the entire extent of the suit land from 22.03.1975 till his

death on 02.01.1996, which included the land in the name of Balram in the

revenue records. Thereafter, the defendants were continuing possession as

absolute owners being legal heirs of late Ramchanderji.

8.2. The defendants 1 to 7 further submitted that late Ramchanderji and

thereafter the defendants were in possession of the suit lands continuously

without interruption from 22.03.1975 with the knowledge of late Balram and

plaintiffs and all others openly asserting and claiming title to the suit property.

The defendants acquired title to the said laid by being in adverse possession for

more than the statutory period of 12 years. The rights of plaintiffs if any over

the suit lands were extinguished for being out of possession for more than the

statutory period. The defendants were absolute and exclusive owners of the suit

land to an extent of half share in their own right, which they succeeded from

late Ramchanderji, who was the absolute owner of the said extent and

succeeded to the rest of the extent as legal heirs of Ramchanderji, which was
7
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

purchased by him. The names of defendants were also mutated as owners of the

suit land after the death of Ramchanderji and pattadar passbook and title deeds

were also issued to them. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 had no connection with the suit

lands. The claim of the plaintiffs that late Chandoji had acquired the suit land

was not correct. The suit lands were not joint family properties nor acquired by

late Chandoji or by the late father of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff No.1 had also

no right to file the present suit, in view of the fact that, his late father himself

had no right over the suit lands, as during his lifetime, he had sold his interest in

the suit property to the late father of defendants 1 to 6. The rights of plaintiff

No.1 and his late father Balram were extinguished in the suit lands for being out

of possession for the past more than 12 years.

8.3. The defendants 1 to 7 further contended that the suit was barred by

limitation. They also contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder and

mis-joinder of parties. Late Chandoji was having a daughter by name Laxmi

Bai, whose existence was not shown by the plaintiffs. Late Balram was having

wife by name Shankari Bai and two daughters by name Bharathi Bai and Rani

Bai, who were all alive and their existence was also not shown by the plaintiffs.

Late Mohanlal was having wife by name Sharpu Bai and her existence was also

not shown. All the legal heirs of Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal and

Chandoji were not shown as parties. The suit was not maintainable in view of

non-adding of said persons to the suit.

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

9. Subsequently, another daughter of late Chandoji by name Laxmibai was

added as defendant No.8, the daughters of late Ramchanderji were added as

defendants 9 and 10, the daughters of late Balram were added as defendants 11

and 12 as per the orders in I.A.No.88 of 2012 dated 13.11.2013 and wife of late

Balram and wife of late Mohanlal were added as defendants 13 and 14

respectively as per the order in I.A.No.84 of 2014 dated 13.10.2014. The

daughter of late Ramchanderji added as defendant No.10 also filed her written

statement in a similar manner as that of defendants 1 to 7.

10. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar on considering the

pleadings in O.S.No.273 of 2006 framed the issues as follows:

(i) Whether the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of parties?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs were in joint possession of schedule
property?

(iii) Whether the defendants acquired title over the property by
adverse possession?

(iv) Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

(v) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary decree for
partition of schedule properties, as prayed for?

(vi) If so, to what relief?

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

After adding the other defendants, additional issues were framed

on 25.10.2017 as follows:

(i) Whether the father of defendant No.10 had purchased the
share of late Balram for a consideration of Rs.5,025/- on
22.03.1975 and delivered possession?

(ii) Whether the defendants 1 to 7, 9 and 10 had acquired the
title by way of adverse possession?

(iii) To what relief?

11. The plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and two other witnesses were

examined as PWs.2 and 3 in support of the case of the plaintiffs. Exs.A1 to A8

were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 was examined as

DW.1 and DWs.2 and 3 were examined on behalf of the defendants. Exs.B1 to

B58 were marked.

Pleadings in O.S.No.108 of 2016:

12. The defendants 1 to 7 in O.S.No.44 of 2018 subsequently filed

O.S.No.108 of 2016 as plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration of title,

rectification of entries in the revenue record and injunction only for Ac.6-24

guntas of land forming part of Survey No.611 /2 of Kadthal Village and Mandal

(erstwhile Amangal Mandal), Mahabubnagar (presently Rangareddy District)

with averments almost in a similar manner as that of the contents of their

written statement filed in O.S.No.44 of 2018. They contended that they were
10
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

absolute owners, pattadars and possessors of Ac.13-09 guntas forming part of

Survey No.611 of Kadthal Village and Mandal (erstwhile Amangal Mandal),

Mahabubnagar District (presently Rangareddy District). Originally,

Sri Ramchanderji, late husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 7

during his lifetime purchased Ac.6-25 guntas forming part of Survey No.611 /1

under registered sale deed document dated 05.06.1968 registered as document

No.506 of 1968 of Book-I, Volume 42 on page 470 in the Office of the Sub-

Registrar, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District from its lawful owner,

possessor and pattadar Sri Guduru Narsi Reddy, S/o. Sri Yella Reddy and

purchased an extent of Ac.6-24 guntas forming part of Survey No.611 /2 of

Kadthal Village and Mandal under a sale deed dated 05.06.1968 registered as

document No.505 of 1968 of Book-I, Volume 42 on pages 469 to 470 in the

Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kalwakurthy from its lawful owner, possessor and

pattadar Sri Guduru Kanth Reddy, S/o. Sri Yella Reddy. At that point of time,

Sri Ramchanderji nominally got the name of his brother Sri Balram, included in

both the said sale deeds as one of the purchasers, but infact the entire sale

consideration was paid by Sri Ramchanderji only. After purchasing the said

land, the names of Sri Ramchanderji and his brother Sri Balram were mutated

in the revenue records. Upon mutation, the said lands were assigned with

Survey Numbers as 611 /1 and 611 /2 i.e. land admeasuring Ac.6-24 guntas,

which was made patta in the name of Balram was shown as assigned with
11
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

Survey No.611 /2 and land admeasuring Ac.6-25 guntas, in which patta was

made in the name of Ramchanderji was assigned as Survey No.611 /1.

Subsequently, a settlement took place among Sri Ramchanderji, Sri Balram and

Sri Mohanlal, the youngest brother of Sri Ramchanderji and Sri Balram,

pursuant to which Balram and Mohanlal jointly sold the land admeasuring

Ac.16-00 guntas in Survey No.698 in Kadthal Village of Mahabubnagar

District, which extent of land includes the share of Sri Ramchanderji. Sri

Balram and Sri Mohanlal jointly received the sale consideration with respect to

the said land and appropriated the same for themselves. Thereafter, Sri Balram

joined Sri Mohanlal and executed a sale-cum-family settlement deed dated

22.03.1975 conveying the suit land standing in the name of Sri Balram in favor

of Sri Ramchanderji. Later, the said sale-cum-family settlement deed was

recorded in the revenue records in the year 1980 and the entire extent of land

admeasuring Ac.13-09 guntas was mutated in the name of Sri Ramchanderji in

the Record of Rights (for short “ROR”). Subsequently, the sale-cum-family

settlement was validated vide proceedings No.D/4645/88 issued by the RDO,

Mahabubnagar District and requisite stamp duty with penalty was paid and a

new ROR was also issued in the name of Ramchanderji confirming his rights,

title and possession over the same. The entry in ROR was conclusive proof of

title, de hors the pahanies. During his lifetime, Sri Ramchanderji enjoyed the

exclusive possession of the suit land and exercised ownership rights over the
12
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

same without any hindrance from any quarter including the defendants. After

the demise of Sri Ramchanderji during the year 1996, upon the application of

the plaintiffs, after complying the requisite formalities, succession pattas were

granted in favor of the plaintiffs by the Tahsildar, Amangal Mandal,

Mahabubnagar District and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favor of

the plaintiffs. As the land values in and around the vicinity of the said land

increased, the defendant in collusion with his family members including his

children, aunt and son of Mohanlalhatched a conspiracy to usurp the suit land

and also the land lying in Survey No.611 /1 and filed a suit for partition in

O.S.No.273 of 2006. The defendant filed a representation before the revenue

authorities and exercising influence over them succeeded in getting a favorable

report in his favor from the Tahsildar, AmangalMandal, Mahabubnagar District,

which report per se, was against the records and documents. Basing on the said

report, the RDO, Mahabubnagar without verifying the correctness of the said

report, cancelled the succession pattas issued in favor of the plaintiffs vide its

proceedings No.B/9322/2012 dated 08.05.2015. The plaintiffs further

submitted that the change of ownership in the ROR record was not affected

pursuant to the succession patta issued as per the proceedings in File

No.E/121/1996 dated 31.12.1996, but was affected pursuant to the recording of

the sale-cum-family settlement deed dated 22.03.1975 by the concerned during

the year 1980 and proceedings of the RDO during the year 1988. Neither the
13
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

defendant nor anybody claiming through him or Sri Mohanlal or Sri Chandoji

objected the said proceedings or the entries in the revenue records, till the

defendant filed representation before the District Collector, Mahabubnagar.

The cancellation of succession patta by the RDO was nonest and bad and the

same was not binding upon the plaintiffs. Upon coming to know about the ill

attempts made by the defendant, the plaintiffs made a representation dated

26.05.2015 before the District Collector, Mahabubnagar. An enquiry was taken

up afresh and report dated 04.05.2015 was sent to the RDO. But the RDO

ignoring the said report proceeded against the plaintiffs and passed orders

against the plaintiffs cancelling the succession pattas. Against the said orders

passed by the RDO, the plaintiffs preferred a revision before the Joint Collector,

Mahabubnagar in Case No.D1/40/2015. But unfortunately, the same also went

against the plaintiffs on technicalities. Therefore, the plaintiffs were

constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court vide Writ Petition

No.32521 of 2016 and the High Court vide its orders dated 27.09.2016

suspended the operation of the orders passed by the RDO as well as the Joint

Collector. But the defendant meanwhile exercising his influence over the

revenue officials, succeeded in obtaining a patta passbook bearing No.411366

from the Tahsildar, AmangalMangal, Mahabubnagar District in his favor with

respect to the land admeasuring Ac.6-24 guntas forming part of Survey No.611,

which was assumed as Survey No.611 /2 of Kadthal Village and Mandal. The
14
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

defendant during the second week of October, 2016 basing on the pattadar

passbook and entries in the revenue records, attempted to create third party

interest detrimental to the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit

land. As such, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, rectification of entries

in the revenue records for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16

and for the consequential relief of injunction.

13. Sri K.Sajjanlal, S/o. late Balram was shown as the only defendant in

O.S.No.108 of 2016. He filed written statement contending that the father of

the defendant i.e. Sri Balram as well as Sri Ramchanderji had jointly purchased

the land in Survey No.611 to a total extent of Ac.13-08 guntas under registered

sale deed documents Nos.505/1968 dated 05.06.1968 and 506/1968 dated

05.06.1968 and they were put into joint possession by their vendors. The

names of Ramchanderji and Balram were shown jointly in the revenue records

since the year of their purchase. Though, Ramchanderji and Balram were

separated in mess, they jointly used to cultivate the entire extent of Survey

No.611 i.e. Ac.13-04 guntas (including the suit land). Ramchanderji died long

back and Balram, the father of defendant died in the year 2005. The parties to

the suit faced difficulty in joint cultivation of the total extent of the land in

Survey No.611. Therefore, they asked the plaintiffs for partition and separate

possession. But, they did not come forward for effecting partition. The

defendant then approached the revenue authorities for certified copies of ROR
15
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

and then came to know that the plaintiffs succeeded in mutating their names as

legal heirs of Ramchanderji in respect of the entire extent of the land in Survey

No.611 under false proceeding No.E/121/1996 dated 31.12.1996 of the Mandal

Revenue Officer (for short “MRO”), Amangal. On enquiry, the defendant came

to know that there was no such proceeding. The authorities had given him

endorsement to that effect. The defendant filed an application bearing

No.B/9322/2012 before the RDO, Mahabubnagar challenging the illegal

proceedings of the MRO, Amangal in E/121/1996. The RDO allowed the

appeal and after thorough enquiry, cancelled the proceedings E/121/1996 and

granted succession in favor of the defendant in respect of the suit lands. The

Tahsildar, Amangalimplemented the order and mutated the name of the

defendant in the Record of Rights in respect of the suit land and issued pattadar

passbook and title deed in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a revision

before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. The Joint Collector dismissed the

revision vide proceeding No.D1/40/2015 and confirmed the order of the RDO,

Mahabubnagar. The plaintiffs filed Writ Petition before the High Court and

obtained interim suspension of the order, but by the said date, the order was

implemented. Hence, the interim order became infructuous. The defendant and

others filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the plaintiffs and

others vide O.S.No.273 of 2006 before the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Mahabubnagar and the same was pending adjudication. The plaintiffs were
16
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

aware of denial of their exclusive title way back in the year 2006 when the suit

O.S.No.273 of 2006 was filed, but did not choose to file counter claim. He also

further contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The other claimants of the suit lands were not made as parties to the suit and

prayed to dismiss the suit.

14. Basing on the said pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

(i) Whether late K.Balram was nominally shown as one of the
vendees of the sale deed dated 05.06.1968 vide document
No.505/1968 relating to the purchase of the suit schedule land from
its original order Sri Guduru Kanth Reddy?

(ii) Whether late K.Ramchanderji was the exclusive owner of the
suit schedule land?

(iii) Whether the sale-cum-family settlement deed dated
22.03.1975 executed by late Balram and late Mohanlal in favor of
late Ramchanderji was true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to seek a declaration of
their right of ownership over the suit schedule land?

(v) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to rectification of entries in
the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule land?

(vi) Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(vii) To what relief?

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

15. The plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and two (02) other witnesses

were examined as PWs.2 and 3 on behalf of the plaintiffs. Exs.A1 to A45 were

marked. The defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and another witness was

examined as DW.2 on behalf of the defendants. Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.

16. The trial court on considering the evidence on record held that the

plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016 had no exclusive right and title over the suit

land in Survey No.611 /2 and that they failed to prove the existence of the sale-

cum-family settlement dated 22.03.1975, as such opined that they were not

entitled for rectification of entries in the revenue records or for declaration of

title but passed a preliminary decree in O.S.No.44 of 2018 observing that the

suit land was joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants and that the

plaintiffs were entitled for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal

shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 each and one

share to the legal heirs of late Ramchanderji with separate possession by metes

and bounds.

17. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the legal heirs of late

Ramchanderji filed these appeals.

18. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing

Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the appellants on record and Sri

J.Ram Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
18

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the suit

schedule property was not a joint family property and it exclusively belonged to

Ramchanderji and thereafter to his legal heirs. The suit for partition was not

maintainable. The trial court though framed six issues and two additional issues

in the suit for partition, failed to frame the main issue i.e. whether late Chandoji

was the owner of the suit schedule property and whether the property was in the

nature of joint family property liable for partition. It was a serious error on the

part of the Court below, which vitiated the judgment. Unless, the Court frames

such an issue and answers it, the suit for partition was not maintainable. The

plaintiffs, who came to the Court contending that the suit schedule property was

acquired by Chandoji and kept in the names of Ramchanderji and Balram, need

to prove the same under Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872. But no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to prove that Chandoji

acquired the suit schedule property and kept it in the names of Ramchanderji

and Balramexcept filing Ex.A1 pahani in O.S.No.44 of 2018 (original

O.S.No.273 of 2006), which would show the name of Chandoji in the tenant

column, but not in the pattadar column. Exs.A2 to A6 would show the names

of Ramchanderji and Balram in the pattadar column. The oral evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 was relevant. The admissions made by PWs.1 to 3 in the cross-

examination were crucial. But unfortunately, the Court below did not

appreciate the oral evidence at all. It was a serious error on its part, as the trial
19
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

court had to invariably appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence.

The appellants/ defendants in O.S.No.44 of 2018 marked Ex.B1, sale-cum-

family settlement deed executed by Balram and Mohanlal in favor of

Ramchanderji in respect of the land in Survey No.611. Though, this document

was in Telugu, it was in chain language. As such, the trial court unable to

comprehend it, ignored the same. It was a crucial document. As such, the

translation of the above document was filed as additional evidence under

Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC vide I.A.No.1 of 2023. The other exhibits filed by

the appellants – defendants would show the mutation done in favor of

defendants 1 to 7 and the pahanies in their names for various years. Ex.B56

was the proceedings of Tahsildar dated 31.12.1996, whereby the mutation of

defendants 1 to 7 took place. Ex.B55 would show the deletion of the name of

Balram in the revenue entries and continuation of the name of Ramchanderji

alone. The findings recorded by the trial court that the suit was not barred by

limitation as well as the findings that defendants 1 to 7 did not perfect their title

by way of adverse possession, were erroneous. When PWs.1 to 3 in O.S.No.44

of 2018 categorically admitted that the land was never cultivated by Balram and

Mohanlal and that the same was under cultivation of Ramchanderji, the Court

was bound to consider as to why the said Balram and Mohanlal never raised

any objection nor approached the revenue authorities / Civil Court for their

share and for proceeds of the cultivation. There could be only one inference
20
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

that could be gathered from their conduct that Balram and Mohanlal gave up

their land in Survey Nos.611 /1 and 611 /2 in favor of Ramchanderji. It was

only after the death of those two persons, the plaintiffs had instituted O.S.No.44

of 2018 (original O.S.No.273 of 2006) seeking partition of the suit schedule

property. Except the revenue records, no title documents were marked. The

findings of the Court below that the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the

suit schedule property was contrary to the oral evidence on record. When there

was no evidence to show that the land was purchased by Chandoji, the Court

could not presume that the possession of Ramchanderji was possession of all

the members of the joint family. The court wrongly referred to the revenue

entries from 2015 onwards, since this Court in W.P.No.32521 of 2016 dated

03.04.2023 held that the continuation of the revenue entries would depend upon

the outcome of A.S.Nos.139 and 156 of 2022. Hence, the Court below could

not take into account the order of the RDO of the year 2015 and that of the

order of the Joint Collector in the year 2016. Even though, Ex.B1 was an un-

registered document and could not be relied upon for the purpose of proving the

title, the said document together with the oral evidence and entries in the

revenue records for a long period put together would establish that Balram and

Mohanlal acted as per the contents of Ex.B1 and the said document could be

looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the aspect of possession and prayed
21
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

to allow the appeals by setting aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court

in O.S.No.44 of 2018 and O.S.No.108 of 2016.

20. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the

plaintiffs in O.S.No.44 of 2018 filed the suit seeking partition of their joint

family immovable properties acquired during the lifetime of their late

grandfather by name Chandoji. They filed the suit on the basis of revenue

records and registered sale deeds. The relationship between the parties was

admitted. The defendants 1 to 7 in O.S.No.44 of 2018 denied that the suit

schedule property was not a joint family property and that the entire suit

schedule property to an extent of Ac.13-08 guntas was the self-acquired

property of their father late Ramchanderji. They also claimed adverse

possession and that the suit was barred by limitation. Ex.A1 pahani copy

pertaining to the year 1964 and 65 would clearly show the name of Chandoji in

the column of cultivation and the names of Narsi Reddy and Kanth Reddy as

pattadars, which would disclose that the grandfather of the plaintiffs rendered

his services by cultivating the suit schedule property and acquired the same

through his hard earned money and purchased the same in the names of his sons

by name Ramchanderji and Balram. After the death of their father

Ramchanderji, the defendants 1 to 7 in O.S.No.44 of 2018 colluded with the

then revenue officials and manipulated the revenue records and obtained ROR

title deeds in respect of the suit schedule property in Survey No.611 /2 without
22
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

the knowledge and notice to the plaintiff No.1 and other plaintiffs against the

principles of natural justice. The appellants had taken inconsistent pleas. On

one hand, they contended that the suit schedule property was acquired by their

father Ramchanderji, but on the other hand, they had taken the plea of adverse

possession and also contended that the rights of the plaintiffs were

extinguished. They also pleaded ouster and that the suit was barred by

limitation. The appellants totally relied upon Ex.B1, B54 and B56. Ex.B1 was

impounded by the then RDO, as per proceedings No.B/4645/1988 dated

05.12.1988. But, as per Ex.A5 in O.S.No.108 of 2016, the signature of RDO

was different and not tallying with the signature under Ex.B1. Ex.B1 document

was incomprehensible. The contents of it could not be understood. It was not

executed by all the parties. It was a suspicious and ambiguous document and

could not be considered as a document under Section 93 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. In Ex.B54 pahani, the revenue authorities did not mention the

details of the sale deed and the names of the parties to the alleged sale deed.

The revenue authorities stated the proceedings of the RDO as dated 08.02.1989,

but whereas in Ex.B1 proceedings, the date was mentioned as 05.12.1988.

Thus, the contradictory statements made by the appellants / defendants as well

as the revenue authorities would clearly reveal that Exs.B1 and B54 were not

genuine and relied upon the following judgments:

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

Bhagwan Dayal (since deceased) represented by his legal
representatives and another v. Mst.Reoti Devi (deceased) represented
by her legal representatives1.

B.R.Patil v. Tulsa Y Sawkar and Others 2.

MN.Aryamurthi and another v. M.L.SubbarayaSetty (dead) by his
legal representatives and others3.

YellapuUmaMaheswari and another v. Buddha JagadheeswaraRao
and others 4.

Pratapsingh (Dead) through legal representatives and others v. Shiv
Ram (Dead) through legal representatives5.
Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and others 6.

21. On considering the rival contentions of both the learned counsel, the

points that arise for consideration in these appeals are:

(i) Whether the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.44 of 2018 (original
O.S.No.273 of 2006) are joint family properties and whether the respondents,
who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.44 of 2018 are entitled for partition of the suit
schedule properties as claimed by them?

(ii) Whether the sale-cum-family settlement deed dated 22.03.1975 can be taken
into consideration?

(iii) Whether the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016, are
entitled for the relief of declaration of title, rectification of entries in the revenue
records and consequential injunction, as claimed by them?

AIR 1962 SC 287
2
2022 Law Suit (SC) 175
3
AIR 1972 SC 1279
4
(2015) 16 SCC 787
5
(2020) 11 SCC 242
6
(1976) 3 SCC 642
24
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

(iv) Whether the judgments of the trial court in O.S.Nos.44 of 2018 and 108 of
2016 are in accordance with the facts and law or liable to be set aside?

(v) To what relief?

Point No.(i):

Whether the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.44 of 2018 (original
O.S.No.273 of 2006) are joint family properties and whether the
respondents, who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.44 of 2018 are entitled for
partition of the suit schedule properties as claimed by them?

22. In a suit for partition, the plaintiff has to initially prove that he was

having a share or interest in the suit schedule properties, as partition of property

can be only among those having a share or interest in it. The person who does

not have a share in such property cannot be a party to a suit for partition. The

Court has to first decide whether the plaintiff has a share in the suit property

and whether he is entitled for division and separate possession. The plaintiffs

approached the Court contending that the suit schedule property was acquired

by Chandoji and was kept in the names of Ramchanderji and Balram. As per

Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden lies upon

them to prove the facts, which were asserted by them.

23. The plaintiffs got examined PWs.1 to 3 in O.S.No.273 of 2006 (re-

numbered as O.S.No.44 of 2018) in support of their case.

24. The plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1. PW.1 was none other than the

son of Balram. He filed his evidence affidavit contending that their ancestors
25
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

were having land in Survey No.611 to a total extent of Ac.13-08 guntasand that

they cultivated the land jointly on crop share basis till 1971 – 72 and in the year

1972-73, the original pattadars of the said land sold the said land to Chandoji

and his sons for nominal sale consideration recognizing their previous services.

Late Chandoji got mutated the patta of the land in the names of Ramchanderji

and Balram for an equal extent of Ac.6-24 guntas each. He further stated that

since 1972-73, the names of late Ramchanderji and his father late Balram were

recorded as pattadars of the suit schedule land in all revenue records and that

the members of the joint family cultivated and enjoyed the suit schedule lands.

25. The plaintiffs got filed Exs.A1 to A11 in support of their contention.

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the pahani for the year 1964-65. Ex.A1 pahani

would show the name of Chandoji in the tenant column, but not in the pattadar

column. The names of the pattadars were shown as Narsi Reddy and Kanth

Reddy, sons of Yella Reddy, which would not disclose Chandoji as the owner

of the property. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the pahani for year 1971-72.

Ex.A2 would show the names of Ramchanderji and Balram in the tenant

column and the names of Narsi Reddy and Kanth Reddy in the names of

pattadar column. Thus, this document also was not of any help to the plaintiffs

to show that Chandoji or his sons Ramchanderji or Balram were owners of the

suit schedule properties. Exs.A3 and A4 are the certified copies of pahanies for

the year 1972-73 and 1984-85 respectively, wherein the names of Ramchanderji
26
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

and Balram were recorded in the pattadar column for the suit schedule

properties. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the pahani for year 1990-91. It would

disclose the name of Jangoji i.e. the son of Ramchanderji also along with the

names of Ramchanderji and Balram against the suit schedule properties both in

the possessory column and the pattadar column. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of

the pahani for the year 1993-94 and it would disclose the names of

Ramchanderji and Balram both in the pattadar and possessory columns. Except

the revenue records, no documents of title were filed by the plaintiffs to show

that their ancestor Chandoji had purchased the land or that his name was

recorded in the pattadar column.

26. The contention of the defendants 1 to 7 was that the suit schedule

property was purchased vide document Nos.505/1968 and 506/1968 dated

05.06.1968 in the names of Ramchanderji and Balram. The amount was paid

by Ramchanderji only, but nominally the name of Balram was also included.

The revenue authorities mutated the name of Ramchanderji in respect of the

land in Survey No.611 /1 and the name of Balram in respect of the land in

Survey No.611 /2 and that Balram and Mohanlal executed a sale-cum-family

settlement deed (Ex.B1), whereby they gave up their right over the entire land

in Survey No.611 in favor of Ramchanderji, since they sold away another land

in Survey No.698, in which Ramchanderji also had a share.
27

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

27. PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the suit schedule properties

were registered in the names of his father Balram and his senior paternal uncle

Ramchanderji by virtue of sale deeds, though he stated that his grandfather had

purchased the property in their names. He thereafter admitted that his

grandfather did not purchase the property in the names of his father and his

senior paternal uncle as deposed earlier. He also admitted that his father or

younger paternal uncle Mohanlal had never personally cultivated the suit

schedule property. He also admitted that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 never personally

cultivated the suit schedule property. He stated that the suit schedule property

was given on tenancy to Ramchander Naik and Lokya Naik and the tenants

used to pay Rs.1,500/- for the entire suit schedule property and that they were

now paying Rs.3,000/- or Rs.4,000/-. He stated that he came to know that his

father Balram and his senior paternal uncle Ramchanderji used to collect lease

amount from the tenants, which amounts to hearsay. He explained that since he

was away from home by virtue of his duties as driver, he had no knowledge of

property affairs. He admitted that the plaintiffs never received any lease

amount from the tenants. He stated that after the death of Ramchanderji and his

father Balram, the family members of Ramchanderji got mutated their names in

the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property. He also admitted

that his father never filed any petition before the revenue authorities claiming

that he got right in the suit schedule property.

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

28. Thus, the evidence of this witness would disclose that he was having no

knowledge of the property affairs since he was away from home by virtue of his

duties as a driver. The evidence of PW.1 is also contradictory on the aspect,

wherein he stated initially that his grandfather purchased the property in the

names of Ramchanderji and Balram, but later again stated that his grandfather

did not purchase the property in the names of his father and his senior paternal

uncle as deposed earlier. His evidence also would disclose that his father or

Ramchanderji never personally cultivated the suit schedule property. Though,

he stated that the properties were leased to tenants, the plaintiffs failed to

examine any of the tenants named by PW.1 i.e. Ramchander Naik or Lokya

Naik, as stated by him. His evidence also would disclose that after the death of

Ramchanderji, the property was mutated in the names of family members of

Ramchanderji, but his father never filed any petition before the revenue

authorities claiming any right in the suit schedule property.

29. PW.1 in his cross-examination also stated that his grandfather Chandoji

owned a house at Kadthal and the same had been partitioned in 1970 among

Mohanlal, Balram and Ramchanderji, which would disclose that there was an

earlier partition in the year 1970 among Mohanlal, Balram and Ramchanderji

after the death of their father Chandoji in the year 1967 or 1968.
29

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

30. The plaintiffs got examined one of their relatives by name Malketi

Niranjan as PW.2. He stated that PW.1 was his son-in-law by relation. The

grandfather of PW.1 by name Chandoji was his paternal uncle. For the past 50

years, Chandoji and his sons cultivated the land in Survey No.611 to an extent

of Ac.13-08 guntas on crop share basis till 1971-72. In the year 1972-73, the

original pattadar sold the said land to Chandoji and his sons recognizing their

previous services.

31. Thus, both PWs.1 and 2 stated that the original pattadars of the suit lands

sold the said lands in the year 1972-73. But no sale deeds were filed by the

plaintiffs in support of their contention. As per the defendants, the sale deeds

were of the year 1968. But, as per the plaintiffs, the sale deeds were of the year

1972-73. The defendants, who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016 filed

the said sale deeds and marked them as Exs.A1 and A2 in the said suit. The

same would disclose that the plaintiffs in the suit are not aware of the details of

the property for which they are seeking partition.

32. PW.2 in his cross-examination stated that Chandoji had three sons

Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal. Chandoji died 25 or 30 years back.

Ramchanderji died 10 or 12 years back. Balram died about 10 years back.

Mohanlal died 16 years back. He further stated that he did not know the extent

of suit schedule property. Since beginning, Ramchanderji and his sons were
30
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

cultivating the suit schedule lands. He stated that he had not seen the revenue

record to know in whose names the suit schedule properties were recorded. He

also stated that he did not know whether Ramchanderji and his brothers

partitioned their properties or not and how they dealt with their properties.

33. Thus, the evidence of this witness also would disclose that since

beginning Ramchanderji and his sons were only cultivating the suit schedule

land, but not Balram or his children or any other plaintiffs like Mohanlal or the

daughters of Chandoji. Thus, the evidence of this witness is no way helpful to

the case of the plaintiffs.

34. The plaintiffs also got examined one Islavath Ramchand as PW.3. PW.3

stated in his chief-examination affidavit that he along with his father was

cultivating the lands of PW.1 and his family. The name of this witness was not

stated by PW.1 as he was cultivating their lands. His evidence was introduced

subsequently by PW.1. PW.3 in his cross-examination stated that the total

extent of the suit schedule land was Ac.13-00 guntas and odd. He knew

Ramchanderji and Balram. About 10 or 8 years back, he sold his land situated

near the schedule property. He stated that the 1st defendant’s father let out the

schedule land to them and they cultivated the schedule land. During the

lifetime of Ramchanderji, the father of PW.3 cultivated the suit schedule land as

a tenant for a period of ten years. After the death of Ramchanderji, they were
31
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

paying the cowl amount to his wife. He stated that the plaintiffs never

cultivated the schedule land.

35. Thus, the evidence of this witness would show that Ramchanderji was

cultivating the schedule land and that he and his father were tenants to him for a

period of ten (10) years and after the death of Ramchanderji, they were paying

the cowl amount to his wife. Thus, the evidence of this witness is helpful to the

defendants 1 to 7, rather than the plaintiffs. PW.3 further stated that he did not

know in whose name, the patta was granted for the schedule land. He did not

see Chandoji. He did not know the properties of Chandoji and how his children

dealt with those properties.

36. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 was of no help to the case of the

plaintiffs to prove that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties

and that all the plaintiffs were having a right or share over the same.

37. The defendant No.1 K.Jangoji was examined as DW.1. The case of the

defendants was that the plaintiffs were not having any share or right in the suit

land and they were not entitled to seek for partition of the suit land. Their late

father purchased the suit schedule property with his own money through

registered sale deed document Nos.505/1968 and 506/1968, but nominally got

mentioned the name of late Balram in the sale deeds, though he had not

contributed any money. The said property was the self-acquired property of his
32
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

father Ramchanderji and his grandfather Chandoji had nothing to do with the

said property. The suit property was not ancestral property or joint family

property. His father alone was in exclusive possession of the entire suit

schedule property during his lifetime as absolute owner and the name of Balram

was recorded as one of the owners of the suit land in the revenue records. His

late father permitted Balram to cultivate part of the suit land for some period.

He further stated that late Balram executed a sale deed in favor of their father

on 22.03.1975. Balram was never in possession of any part of the suit land

since the said date. His father got the said sale deed validated before the RDO,

Mahabubnagar by paying stamp duty and penalty. The name of Balram was

deleted as joint pattadar in the suit lands and the name of his father alone was

continued as exclusive owner of the suit land. As per the evidence of DW.1, his

father died on 02.01.1996 and till then he was in possession of the suit land as

owner and after the death of his father, he along with his other brothers

continued to hold the possession of the suit schedule property as absolute

owners. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 had no connection with the suit schedule

property. But they colluded with PW.1 and filed the present suit. The plaintiffs

were not having any share in the suit land and they were never in possession of

the suit schedule property at any time.

38. The defendants 1 to 7 got filed Exs.B1 to B56 in support of their

contention. Ex.B1 is the private sale-cum-family settlement deed dated
33
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

22.03.1975 executed by Balram and Mohanlal in favor of Ramchanderji.

Exs.B2 to B13 are the certified copies of the pahanies for year 1994-95 to 2009-

10, which continuously show the names of defendants 1 to 7 at pattadars and

possessors against the suit schedule properties. Exs.B14 and B53 are the

certified copies of the ROR pahanies in the names of defendants 1 to 7 against

the suit schedule properties issued by Mee-Seva, certified by Tahsildar,

Amangal pertaining to the Fasli years from 1420 onwards till the year 1424.

All these documents would continuously show the possession of defendants 1 to

7 as against the suit schedule property from 1994-95 till the date of filing of the

suit by the plaintiffs.

39. DW.1 in his cross-examination stated that he was having the original sale

deed, under which his father and his brother purchased the property and denied

that during the lifetime of Chandoji, their grandfather purchased the schedule

lands in the names of his sons nominally in the year 1968. He admitted that

since 1968, Balram did not sell the land under a registered sale deed to his

father. He stated that in the year 1988, they submitted Ex.B1 before MRO,

Amangal for mutation. He stated that he did not know whether any notices

were issued by the revenue officials at the time of change of name of Balram.

He denied that the schedule lands were ancestral properties and that there was

no partition between his father and the father of plaintiff No.1 and that the

plaintiffs were entitled for partition and separate possession. He admitted that
34
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

the orders passed by the MRO including the names of defendants 4 to 6 in the

ROR was set aside by the RDO, Mahabubnagar. He denied the suggestion that

Ex.B56 was created in collusion with the revenue authorities, as the original

was not available with Kadthal MRO office.

40. Thus, the cross-examination of DW.1 was mainly with regard to the

execution of Ex.B1 by Balram and that the mutation proceedings by the MRO

without issuing notice to the son of Balram i.e. plaintiff No.1.

41. Ex.B54 is the certified copy of ROR dated 27.12.2016, Ex.55 is the

certified copy of the old ROR dated 27.12.2016, Ex.56 is the certified copy of

the proceedings of the MRO, Amangal dated 31.12.1996, Ex.57 is the certified

copy of the pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.58 is the certified copy of the order

dated 27.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.32521 of 2016 by the High Court.

42. The defendants also got examined one Kamballapally Mallaiah as DW.2.

He stated that the family of the defendants was in possession of the suit

schedule properties for the past many years and that he was seeing them

cultivating the said lands since his childhood. The plaintiffs never cultivated

the suit lands at any point of time. He also attended the coolie work in the land

of defendants number of times and that he was aware of the defendants in

possession of the said lands and that they were enjoying the said lands as

owners to his knowledge.

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

43. In his cross-examination, DW.2 stated that he did not know the name of

the paternal grandfather of 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant. He did not know how

the ancestors of the parties got the properties. He stated that he owned

Ac.4-00 guntas of land in Survey No.260 and that he was personally cultivating

the land. He had seen the pahanies pertaining to the schedule properties in the

names of defendants 1 to 7.

44. One Islavath Lokya was examined by defendants 1 to 7 as DW.3. DW.3

stated that the lands of the defendants were very near to his lands. He was

having lands at Takarajuguda Revenue Village, Hamlet of Challampally Village

under Talakondapally Mandal and that he knew the lands of defendants, which

were near to his land, though they were in Kadthal Village. He had seen the

defendants cultivating their lands for the past more than 35 years. He stated

that the plaintiffs never cultivated the suit land at any point of time. His lands

were adjacent to the lands of the defendants.

45. In his cross-examination, he stated that the disputed lands were situated

at a distance of 1 kilometer from his lands. He did not see the paternal

grandfather of the 1st plaintiff and did not know whether any properties were

devolved from the grandfather of the plaintiffs. He did not know that

Ramchanderji and Balram purchased the land in Survey No.611. He stated that

he did not see the partition documents among Ramchanderji and Balram.
36

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

46. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses would not disclose that they were

aware of all the family affairs of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7. Their

evidence would only disclose that defendants 1 to 7 and their father

Ramchanderji were cultivating the suit schedule properties for a long time for

more than 35 years. None of these witnesses stated about the plaintiffs

cultivating the land or that any of the tenants were paying cowl amounts to the

plaintiffs.

47. The documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs also would not show

that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties. The names of

Ramchanderji and Balram were recorded for some years as pattadars and after

1996, the names of defendants 1 to 7 were mutated against the suit schedule

properties, which would only disclose the long possession of defendants 1 to 7

in the suit schedule properties. In the absence of any oral or documentary

evidence that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties of the

parties, the trial court allowing the suit for partition is considered as illegal. As

such, this Court is of opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition of

the suit schedule properties as claimed by them.

POINT No.(ii):

Whether the sale-cum-family settlement deed dated 22.03.1975 can be
taken into consideration?

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

48. As this document is crucial to decide the issues in both the suits, it is

considered necessary to decide this aspect prior to deciding the other point.

49. The sale-cum-family settlement deed dated 22.03.1975 was marked as

Ex.B1 by the appellants, who were the defendant in O.S.No.44 of 2018 in the

said suit. The said document was in Telugu, but in chain language. Though

DW.1, K.Jangoji stated in his cross-examination that he was going to file

translated copy of Ex.B1, had not filed the same before the trial court.

50. The trial court had not taken into consideration the said document

observing that:

“13. Thus one of the sources of title claimed by the defendants is the
sale of late Balram’s share in the suit land on 22.03.1975 under a sada
sale deed to their father late Ramchanderji. The sada sale deed was
marked as Ex.B1. On perusal of it, I found it is not legible and it is in
Telugu chain language. Even the numericals appeared to be in Telugu
language. It is not clear whether it is sale deed or settlement deed or
sale-cum-settlement deed or relinquishment deed.

“15. Further, the defendant No.1, who was examined as DW.1, though
stated in his evidence that he is going to file translation copy of Ex.B1,
the record shows that no such translation copy of Ex.B1 filed.”

51. With the said observation, the trial court had not taken into consideration

the above said document.

52. The appellants filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in A.S.No.156 of 2022 to receive

the original sale-cum-family settlement deed with neat copy and true translation

in English and a copy of pahani patrika issued by the Record Assistant dated
38
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

14.05.1976 as additional evidence. K.Jangoji, the appellant No.2 filed an

affidavit in support of the said petition stating that as they were under the

impression that the said document was in Telugu, though the same was written

in chain language, thereby they had not filed the neat copy of the document and

translation in English before the trial court. With regard to the copy of pahani

patrika issued by the Record Assistant dated 14.05.1976, he stated that the said

document was recently traced out while searching some other papers in their

home. As such, the same could not be filed in the suit. The above document

would show that the patta of the suit schedule land stood in the name of Narsi

Reddy and Kanth Reddy, sons of Yella Reddy. The name of their father was

recorded in the possessory column and that the said document was material and

important for the just disposal of the appeals.

53. The respondent filed his counter affidavit contending that they were

fictitious documents. The same were forged, fabricated and suspicious. No

date was mentioned in the alleged sale-cum-settlement deed. One of the parties

i.e. Ramchanderji had not signed the above document. The schedule of both the

properties was mentioned as Survey Nos.611 /1 only, sale price was wrongly

mentioned as Rs.5,025/-, but as per the contents of the plaint filed by the

petitioners – plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016, they mentioned Rs.5,425/- as

debt to be discharged by Sri Ramchanderji. They also stated that sale-cum-

family settlement deed was dated 21.02.1975 and also stated the extent of the
39
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

land in Survey No.698 of Kadthal Village as Ac.16-00 guntas sold by Balram

and Mohanlal, but no extent of the land in Survey No.698 was mentioned in the

alleged sale-cum-family settlement deed. The contents of the plaint in

O.S.No.108 of 2016 was different from the contents of the alleged sale-cum-

family settlement deed and its translation in Telugu and English. The said

document and its translations were ambiguous. The same were not admissible

as per Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same could not be

received in evidence on behalf of the petitioners – appellants in A.S.No.156 of

2022.

54. With regard to the copy of the pahani patrika, he contended that there

was no attestation by any revenue authorities. The survey number was not

mentioned anywhere. The said document was created and fabricated. The

petitioners – appellants had not mentioned in the plaint with regard to the said

document. There was no pleading on the said aspect. As such, the same could

not be received as evidence.

55. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for

the respondent on this aspect.

56. As the sale-cum-family settlement deed was filed by the appellants

before the trial court itself and the same was marked as Ex.B1 in O.S.No.44 of

2018 and the appellants are now filing its translations in Telugu and English
40
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

and as the said translations are material to understand the contents of Ex.B1 and

as the original of Ex.B1 is also filed before this Court and the appeal is nothing

but continuation of the suit, it is considered fit to allow the petition with regard

to receiving the translations of Ex.B1 in Telugu and English.

57. With regard to the copy of the pahani of the year 1975 pertaining to the

BANDHO BAST record certified by the record keeper, as there is no pleading

with regard to the said document by the appellants in the plaint, it is considered

not fit to receive the same at this stage.

58. In the result, the application is partly allowed receiving the translations of

Ex.B1 in Telugu and English and the application is dismissed with regard to

receiving the certified copy of pahani patrika of the year 1975.

59. The English translation of Ex.B1 reads as follows:

“Sri Shubhamasthu
On this the phalguna Shudha Dashami, Ananda Nama year, Kamlikar Balram and
Mohan Lal, sons of Chandoji, do hereby executed this document in favour of
Kamlikar Ramchander, S/o.Chandoji, R/o.Kadthal Village, that from out of the
land purchased in Survey No.698, we Balram & Mohanlal have sold the same to
Sathar. The land in Survey No.611 /1 extent Ac.6-25 guntas fell to your share.
On this survey number and Survey No.611 /1 extent Ac.6-25 guntas, total extent
Ac.-13-10 guntas, having value Rs.5,025/- including our shares were allotted /
given to Ramchander. The said land belongs to Mohan Lal. We sold that land.
Henceforth, we do not have any right, title or any sort of objection over our
shared land in the above survey number, and on the land given to Ramchander.
This document is executed on an oath between three of us.

Sd/- BALRAM
Sd/- MOHAN LAL

Scribed by
ANANTH REDDY,
41
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

WITNESSES:

1. Sd/- K.Ramreddy, Ompugdem.

2. Sd/- Khasimji, Vasthavapuram, Member, Gram Panchayath.

3. Sd/- M.A.Sathar.

4. Sd/- Kanthekar Miltry Balram

60. The said document would disclose that it was executed by Balram and

Mohanlal, sons of Chandoji in favor of their elder brother Kamlikar

Ramchanderji, S/o.Chandoji and it would disclose that the family had another

land in Survey No.698 and Balram and Mohanlal have sold the same to one

Sathar. They also stated that the land in Survey No.611 /1 to an extent of Ac.6-

25 guntas fell to the share of Ramchanderji and on the said survey number and

Survey No.611 /2 (which could have been wrongly typed as 611 /1 for the

second time) to an extent of Ac.6-25 guntas, total Ac.13-10 guntas having value

of Rs.5,025/- including their shares was allotted / given to Ramchanderji. It

further described that the above land in Survey No.698 belonged to Mohanlal

and that they sold the land. Henceforth, they did not have any right or title or

any sort of objection over their share of land in the above survey number and on

the land given to Ramchanderji.

61. The above document would disclose that Balram and Mohanlal

relinquished their share in Survey No.611 /2 in lieu of their selling the land in

Survey No.698 and appropriating the entire amount. The extent of the land in

Survey No.698 was not mentioned in the above document. But the plaint in

O.S.No.108 of 2016 filed by the appellants / plaintiffs would disclose the same
42
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

as Ac.16-00 guntas. The respondent had not specifically denied that they were

not having any land in Survey No.698 or that his father and Mohanlal had not

sold the same to Sathar. The document was signed by M.A.Sathar, who was

also one of the witnesses. One other witness name was shown as Khasimji.

The grandson of Khasimji was examined as PW.3 by the appellants – plaintiffs

in O.S.No.108 of 2016. PW.3 filed his evidence affidavit in O.S.No.108 of

2016 stating that the plaintiffs (appellants) were having agricultural land in

Survey Nos.611 /1 and 611 /2 in the limits of Kadthal Village, Amangal

Mandal, Mahabubnagar District to a total extent of Ac.13-09 guntas. The entire

land was in the custody of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were cultivating the

said agricultural land till date. They were the original pattadars of the said

agricultural land. The defendant was no way concerned with the above land.

The entire land in Survey No.611 belongs to the plaintiffs as per the family

settlement deed, which was executed in the year 1975 among the family

members. In the said deed, his grandfather was one of the witnesses by name

Khasimji, R/o.Vastavapuram. The family settlement deed was executed in the

house of plaintiff No.1. At the time of execution of family settlement deed, he

came along with his grandfather and he was aware of the entire transaction. In

his cross-examination, he also stated that the family settlement deed referred in

his chief-examination affidavit was executed in the year 1975. His grandfather
43
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

was a witness to the said family settlement deed. He was not a witness to the

said document.

62. Thus, the appellants (plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016) had produced all

the available evidence in their possession as well as examined the available

witnesses, who can speak about the said document. As the said document was a

very old document alleged to be of the year 1975 and the executants of the said

document, Balram and Mohanlal or the witnesses, none of them were alive and

the executants Balram and Mohanlal had never raised any claim over the suit

schedule property i.e. in Survey Nos.611 /1 or 611 /2 during their lifetime,

which raises a presumption over its genuinity, the said document can be taken

into consideration. Non-mentioning of Survey No.611 /2, but mentioning

Survey No.611 /1 twice and mentioning the total extent as Ac.13-10 guntas

shows that it could be a typographical mistake, which would not be given much

weight.

63. The main objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondent was

that the plaintiffs had mentioned the said document as an un-registered sale

deed before the revenue authorities and were mentioning the same as sale-cum-

family settlement deed in the present suits. If it was considered as a sale deed,

the names of the vendors or vendees and the sale consideration, were not clear.

If it was considered as a settlement deed, all the family members were not
44
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

parties to the said document. Sri Ramchanderji was not a signatory to the said

document.

64. The trial court also observed that if late Balram sold his interest to his

elder brother late Ramchanderji, since Ac.16-00 of land in Survey No.698,

wherein late Ramchanderji also had share was sold away, normally, in such

cases, the question of sale would not arise and at the most a relinquishment

deed or exchange deed would be executed and not a sale deed and they would

create a doubt as to the very nature of transaction covered by Ex.B1.

65. But the trial court itself had referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another v. Buddha R.

Jagadheeswararao and others (cited supra) relied by the learned counsel for

the appellants (defendants in O.S.No.44 of 2018), wherein it was held that:

“It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document
is not a decisive factor but the nature and substance of the
transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of
the document and that the admissibility of a document is
entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document
but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who
seeks to introduce the document in question.”

66. Thus, the nomenclature of the document, whether it was a sale deed or

family settlement deed or relinquishment deed or exchange deed is not material

to consider whether the document was admissible or not. But it was based upon

the recitals contained in the said document. The above document is an un-

registered and un-stamped document.

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

67. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment itself held that the

document affecting relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property

requires compulsory registration. The un-registered and un-stamped partition

deed and the deed of relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property

are not admissible in evidence for primary purpose of division of joint

properties by metes and bounds, but it could be relied upon for establishing

collateral purposes i.e. severance of title and nature of possession of various

sharers, if it is impounded by paying stamp duty together with penalty.

68. The above document was impounded by the RDO, Mahabubnagar as per

the proceedings No.D/4645/88 dated 03.12.1988 marked as Ex.A5 in

O.S.No.108 of 2016. The said proceedings would disclose that he examined the

said document in the light of instructions contained in the Indian Stamp Act,

1872 and ordered the same under 40(1)(b) of the said Act and collected the

stamp duty of Rs.175/- together with penalty of Rs.5/-, a total amount of

Rs.180/- was recovered from Sri K.Ramchanderji, S/o.Chandoji.

69. Thus, the father of the appellants had paid the necessary stamp duty and

penalty and got the document impounded in the year 1988 itself prior to filing

of the suit for partition by the son of Balram by name Sajjanlal in the year 2006

itself.

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

70. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of

Consolidation and others (cited supra), after reviewing several judgments on

family arrangement / settlement existing till that date, observed that:

“19. Thus it would appear from a review of the decisions
analysed above that the Courts have taken a very liberal and
broad view of the validity of the family settlement and have
always tried to uphold it and maintain it. The central idea in the
approach made by the Courts is that if by consent of parties a
matter has been settled, it should not be allowed to be re-
opened by the parties to the agreement on frivolous or
untenable grounds.

20. A full bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ramgopal v.
Tulshi Ram and another [AIR 1928 All 641, 649] has also
taken the view that a family arrangement could be oral and if it
is followed by a petition in Court containing a reference to the
arrangement and if the purpose was merely to inform the Court
regarding the arrangement, no registration was necessary.

21. Similarly in Sitala Baksh Singh and others v. Jang
Bahadur Singh and other [AIR 1933 Oudh 347], 348-349] it
was held that where a Revenue Court merely gave effect to the
compromise, the order of the Revenue Court did not require
registration. In this connection the following observations were
made:

“In view of this statement in para 5 of the plaint
it is hardly open to the plaintiffs now to urge that
Ex. 1, the com promise, required registration
when they themselves admit that it was
embodied in an order of the Revenue Court and
that it was given effect to by the Revenue Court
ordering mutation in accordance with the terms
of the compromise.

****

We hold that as the Revenue Court by its
proceeding gave effect to this compromise, the
proceedings and orders of the Revenue Court
did not require registration.”

Similarly in a later decision of the same Court in Mst.
Kalawati v. Sri Krishna Prasad and others [AIR 1944 Oudh
49], it was observed as follows:

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

“Applying this meaning to the facts of the
present case, it seems to us that the order of the
mutation court merely stated the fact of the
compromise having been arrived at between the
parties and did not amount to a declaration of
will. The order itself did not cause a change of
legal relation to the property and therefore it did
not declare any right in the property.”

22. The same view was taken in Bakhtawar v. Sunder Lal
and others [ILR 48 All], where Lindsay, J., speaking for the
Division Bench observed as follows:

“It is reasonable to assume that there was a bona
fide dispute between the parties which was
eventually composed, each party recognizing an
antecedent title in the other. In this view of the
circumstances, I am of opinion that there was no
necessity to have this petition registered. It does
not in my opinion purport to create, assign,
limit, extinguish or declare within the meaning
of these expressions as used in Section 17(1)(b)
of the Registration Act. It is merely a recital of
fact by which the Court is informed that the
parties have come to an arrangement.”

23. Similarly the Patna High Court in Awadh Narain Singh
and others v. Narain Mishra and others [AIR 1962 Pat 400]
pointed out that a compromise petition not embodying any
terms of agreement but merely conveying information to the
Court that family arrangement had already been arrived at
between the parties did not require registration and can be
looked into for ascertaining the terms of family arrangement.

24. This Court has also clearly laid down that a family
arrangement being binding on the parties to the arrangement
clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the
parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from
revoking or challenging the same.

44. In view of our finding that the family settlement did not
contravene any provision of the law but was a legally valid and
binding settlement in accordance with the law, the view of
Respondent No. 1 that it was against the provisions of the law
was clearly wrong on a point of law and could not be sustained.
Similarly the view of the High Court that the compromise
required registration was also wrong in view of the clear fact
that the mutation petition filed before the Assistant
Commissioner did not embody the terms of the family
arrangement but was merely in the nature of a memorandum
48
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

meant for the information of the Court. The High Court further
erred in law in not giving effect to the doctrine of estoppel
which is always applied whenever any party to the valid family
settlement tries to assail it. The High Court further erred in not
considering the fact that even if the family arrangement was not
registered it could be used for a collateral purpose, namely, for
the purpose of showing the nature and character of possession
of the parties in pursuance of the family settlement and also for
the purpose of applying the rule of estoppel which followed
from the conduct of the parties who having taken benefit under
the settlement keep their mouths shut for full seven years and
later try to resile from the settlement. In Shyam Sunder and
others v. Siya Ram and another [1973 ALJ 53] it was clearly
held by the Allahabad High Court that the compromise could
have been taken into consideration as a piece of evidence even
if it was not registered or for that matter as an evidence of an
antecedent title.

45. On a careful consideration of the facts and the
circumstances and the law discussed above, we are clearly of
the opinion that-the orders of the High Court as also that of
Respondent No. 1 suffer from a substantial error of law
resulting in serious injustice to the appellant by re- opening a
dispute which had been settled almost seven to eight years
before the proceedings for re-opening the same were started. In
not interfering to correct the clear error of law committed by
Respondent No. 1, the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested in it by law, and, therefore, the order of the High Court
itself was legally erroneous and cannot be sustained. The
contentions raised by the appellant are well founded and must
prevail, while the contentions advanced by the respondent fail.”

71. As seen from the facts of the present case, PW.1 in O.S.No.44 of 2018

admitted that there was an earlier partition between Ramchanderji, Balram and

Mohanlal in the year 1970 in respect of the house property and the family has

immovable properties to an extent of Ac.6-25 guntas in Survey No.611 /1 at

Kadthal Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District in the name of

Ramchanderji, in Survey No.611 /2 to an extent of Ac.6-25 guntas in the name

of Balram and Ac.16-00 guntas in Survey No.698 in the name of Mohanlal.

Balram and Mohanlal sold the land in Survey No.698 and in lieu of the share of
49
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

Ramchanderji in the said land, had given up their right in Survey No.611 /2,

which was in the name of Balram and admitted that they did not have any right,

title or any objection over the said land to be given to Ramchanderji.

72. Thus, it was in the shape of a family arrangement, which took place prior

to the execution of the document and the same was reduced into writing only to

make Balram and Mohanlal bind over to the contents mentioned therein. The

said document was binding on all the parties and even if it was not registered, it

can be used for collateral purpose for the purpose the showing the nature and

character of possession of the parties in pursuance of the family settlement.

The conduct of the parties can also be inferred from the said document, as

Balram and Mohanlal had never raised any dispute over the property in Survey

No.611 /2 during their lifetime. The rule of estoppel also flows from the

conduct of the parties, as they have taken benefit under the settlement having

sold the land in Survey No.698. The legal heirs of the parties i.e. the sons of

Balram and Mohanlal are also bound by the said document and cannot resile

from the said settlement. The trial court committed an error in not taking into

consideration Ex.B1. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the sale-cum-

family settlement deed dated 22.03.1975 has to be taken into consideration for

settling the dispute between the parties.

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

POINT No.(iii):

Whether the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016, are
entitled for the relief of declaration of title, rectification of entries in the
revenue records and consequential injunction, as claimed by them?

73. The defendants 1 to 7 in O.S.No.44 of 2018 had filed O.S.No.108 of

2016 seeking the relief of declaration, rectification of entries in the revenue

records and relief of injunction. The contention of the parties and their

evidence in both these suits is one and the same. The plaintiff No.2, the son of

Ramchanderji by name K.Jangoji was examined as PW.1. Exs.A1 to A42 were

marked on his behalf. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016 filed Exs.A1 and

A2, the certified copies of the registered sale deed document Nos.505/1968 and

506/1968 dated 05.06.1968 respectively. Both these documents are in Urdu and

their translations are filed. The translations of these documents would disclose

that one Guduru Kanth Reddy and Guduru Narsi Reddy, sons of Yella Reddy

had sold the suit schedule properties in favor of Ramchanderji and Balram, sons

of Chandoji for a valid sale consideration of Rs.500/- for each of the said

properties and put them in possession of the same. The age of Ramchanderji

was shown as 32 years age and the age of Balram was shown as 29 years by the

date of executing the sale deed in the year 1968. These documents would

disclose that Ramchanderji and Balram were majors and that they purchased the

suit schedule properties in their own names. Thus, what could be extracted

from the above documents was that Ramchanderji and Balram had purchased
51
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

Ac.6-24 guntas of land in Survey Nos.611 /2 and 611 /1 at Kadthal Village,

Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distirct and that they were absolute owners of

the same. Ex.A3 is the copy of the old ROR and Ex.A4 is the copy of the new

ROR pertaining to the year 1989-90. Ex.A4 would disclose the names of legal

representatives of Ramchanderji were mutated in the revenue records against

Survey No.611/1 basing upon viraasath (succession) and against Survey

No.611/2 by way of sale deed. Ex.A5 is the copy of the proceedings of the

RDO vide proceedings NO.D/4645/1988 dated 03.12.1988 for receiving the

stamp duty and penalty under Stamp Act for validating the un-registered sale

deed. Ex.A6 is the copy of the MRO proceedings No.E/121/1996 dated

31.12.1996, which would show the names of legal representatives of

Ramchanderji were recorded as against the Survey Nos.611 /1 and 611 /2 to a

total extent of Ac.13-09 guntas. Exs.A7 to A20 are the copies of the title deeds,

passbooks, which were in the names of the plaintiffs for the Survey Nos.611 /1

and 611 /2.

74. The cross-examination of PW.1 also would disclose that the certified

copy of the family settlement deed was marked as Ex.A44 and there was also

cross-examination on the said aspect. But the description of the exhibits

marked in O.S.No.108 of 2016 would disclose that Ex.A44 was the attested

copy of the FIR issued in Crime No.101 of 2018. Thus, the trial court had not
52
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

taken proper precautions in marking the documents and reading the said

documents in evidence.

75. Though O.S.No.273 of 2006 was transferred from the Court of I

Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar to the Court of I Additional

District Judge, Mahabubnagar and was re-numbered as O.S.No.44 of 2018 and

the parties as well as part of the suit schedule property was one and the same,

the learned I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar instead of taking a joint

trial, adjudicated both O.S.No.44 of 2018 and O.S.No.108 of 2016 separately.

He recorded the evidence separately, but referred the documents which were

marked in one case in the other case. The sale deeds of 1968 were not exhibited

in O.S.No.44 of 2018. The orders of the RDO and Joint Collector were also not

marked in O.S.No.44 of 2018. But the said documents were considered in

O.S.No.44 of 2018.

76. The cross-examination of PW.1 as well as the evidence of DW.1 would

disclose that the respondents relied upon the letter addressed by the Tahsildar,

Amangal Mandal dated 03.06.2013 marked as Ex.A23 vide letter

No.A/1025/2013 and the proceedings of the RDO marked under Ex.A24 vide

proceedings No.B/9322/2012 dated 08.05.2015 and the proceedings of the

Tahsildar, Amangal Mandal marked under Ex.A25 dated 06.06.2015 and of the

proceedings of the Joint Collector vide Case No.D1/40/2015 dated 27.08.2016.
53

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

They would disclose that on the representation given by the respondent i.e.

Sajjanlal, S/o.Balram that the succession was done by the then Tahsildar when

his father was alive without giving any intimation to his father or them, an

enquiry was conducted and basing upon the report given by the Tahsildar,

Amangal that the Tahsildar, Amangal granted succession through File

No.B/121/96 dated 31.12.1996 by deleting the name of K.Balram and

incorporating the names of sons of Ramchanderji and considering that Balram

died on 21.10.2005 as per the birth and death register of Kadthal village and the

Tahsildar, Amangal had not intimated to any one at the time of correction of

records as well as succession and the total extent of Ac.13-09 guntas was

implemented in the names of legal representatives of Ramchanderji, the RDO

considered the same as illegal. As the deceased Balram was having legal heirs

his wife, Shankari Bai and his son Sajjanlal and though notices were issued to

the sons of Ramchanderji, they orally informed that a case was pending in the

Civil Court and had not responded in writing to the notices issued, cancelled the

succession granted by the then Tahsildar vide File No.B/121/1996 dated

31.12.1996 and granted succession in favor of legal representatives of Balram

in respect of land in Survey No.611 /2 to an extent of Ac.6.24 guntas situated

within the limits of Kadthal Village of Amangal Mandal equally.

77. The said orders of the RDO, Mahabubnagar were also upheld by the Joint

Collector, Mahabubnagar. The Joint Collector observed that the alleged sale
54
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

deed (Ex.B1 marked in O.S.No.44 of 2018) was not validated under Rule 22(2)

of ROR Rules, as such, it has no value.

78. The Joint Collector also observed that succession was granted in favor of

the legal heirs of K.Ramchanderji in respect of Survey No.611 /2 when Sri

K.Balraj was alive and as the changes were not made as per the rules, observed

that the RDO rightly cancelled the proceedings No.B/121/96 dated 31.12.1996

of the then MRO, Amangal and upheld the orders of the RDO, Mahabubnagar.

The revenue authorities considered the said document as an un-registered sale

deed but not as a family settlement deed. As Ex.B1 was not an un-registered

sale deed but in the nature of a family settlement deed, as discussed above and

the document does not require registration and failed to observe that the same

was validated by the RDO, Mahabubnagar earlier in the year 1988 itself, as per

the proceedings marked under Ex.A5 vide Proceedings No.D/4645/88, which

was not set aside by the Joint Collector, the same holds good. The certified

copies of the pahanies marked under Exs.A29 to A42 would disclose the long

standing possession of the appellants till 2009-2010 till the revenue authorities

affected change of the names in the revenue records. The uninterrupted long

possession of the plaintiffs and cultivation of lands by them for more than 30

years and as the oral evidence of the witnesses also would categorically disclose

that the suit schedule property was cultivated by Ramchanderji and his sons, but

not by Balram and Mohanlal and Balram and Mohanlal never raised any
55
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

objection nor approached the revenue authorities / Civil Court for their shares

or for the proceeds of cultivation during their lifetime, the plaintiffs are entitled

for declaration of title over the suit schedule property even by adverse

possession. Only after the death of Balram and Mohanlal, their legal heirs filed

the suit along with daughter of Chandoji. The family members till filing of the

suit in the year 2006 for partition have treated the said lands as belonging to

Ramchanderji and his legal heirs.

79. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others 7,

wherein it was held that:

“3. The main question for consideration in the present suit is as
to whether the plaintiffs were in hostile continuous possession
of the suit lands by virtue of which they had perfected their title
to the land by adverse possession. Both parties claim to be in
possession of the suit land. While considering the above
question, the Court will also have to look into the plea raised by
the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the
plaintiffs had come in possession of the suit land for a brief
period after the death of Fakir Chand, father of the defendant as
“Shikmi” that is sub-tenants. The plea of sub- tenancy was as
such not raised in the written statement nor any issue was
framed by the trial Court in this connection. No particulars of
alleged sub-lease were given. Not even date of creation of
alleged sub-lease was stated. The defendants have tried to build
an argument based on plea of sub tenancy (shikmi)at appellate
stage. In support of this plea they rely on certain entries in the
revenue records. Since this plea pre-supposes possession of the
plaintiffs, the defendants took the stand that they had taken
back the possession of the land from the defendants.”

5. The main question as we have already noted is the question
of continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands.

7
AIR 2003 SC 1905
56
Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

The sale deed dated 9.5.1931 by Fakir Chand, father of the
defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the predecessor in interest
of the plaintiff, is an admitted document in the sense its
execution is not in dispute. The only defence set up against said
document is that it is unstamped and unregistered and therefore
it cannot convey title to the land in favour of plaintiffs. Under
the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and
registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However,
legal position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in
the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can
be looked into for collateral purposes. In the present case the
collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the
plaintiffs over the suit land. The sale deed in question at least
shows that initial possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land
was not illegal or unauthorized. It is significant to note that the
sale deed is dated 9.5.1931 and Fakir Chand died somewhere in
the year 1949-50. During his lifetime Fakir Chand never
disputed plaintiffs’ title or possession of the suit land.”

80. Even in the present case, the appellants and their predecessor

Ramchanderji were in hostile possession of the suit schedule property for a long

period. As such, the trial court ought to have declared that they perfected their

title by adverse possession. Even though, Ex.B1 could not be relied upon for

the purpose of proving the title, the said document together with the oral

evidence of the witnesses and the entries in the revenue records for a long

period put together and the conduct of Balram and Mohanlal not raising any

dispute during their lifetime, would establish the possession of the appellants,

and that they perfected their title by way of adverse possession.

81. As such, the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016

are entitled for relief of declaration of title, rectification of entries in the

revenue records and consequential injunction as claimed by them.
57

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

POINT No.(Iv):

Whether the judgments of the trial court in O.S.Nos.44 of 2018 and 108 of
2016 are in accordance with the facts and law or liable to be set aside?

82. As the trial court failed to appreciate the oral evidence of the witnesses

and failed to appreciate the documentary evidence, particularly the document

marked as Ex.B1 dated 22.03.1975 in O.S.No.44 of 2018 (sale-cum-family

settlement deed) and failed to consider the principles for granting the relief of

partition and separate possession, as well as principles in considering the

adverse possession and the aspect of limitation, it is considered fit to set aside

the judgments of the trial court in O.S.Nos.44 of 2018 and 108 of 2016.

POINT No.(v):

To what relief?

83. In the result, both the appeals A.S.No.139 and 156 of 2022 are allowed

setting aside the judgments and decrees dated 29.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.44

of 2018 and 108 of 2016 respectively by the learned I Additional District Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

No order as to costs.

Dr.GRR, J
as_139 & 156_2022

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in these appeals, if any

shall stand closed.

_____________________
Dr. G. RADHARANI, J
Date: 03rd January, 2025
Nsk.

Source link

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pulandar Singh on 23 June, 2025

The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Damera Veeraswamy Naidu on 4 July, 2025

Bachubhai @ Hamirbhai Gandabhai Khint … vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2025

Pankaj Gupta & Anr vs Jammu Municipal Corporation & Ors on 2 July, 2025

Nahar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pulandar Singh on 23 June, 2025

The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Damera Veeraswamy Naidu on 4 July, 2025

Bachubhai @ Hamirbhai Gandabhai Khint … vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2025

Pankaj Gupta & Anr vs Jammu Municipal Corporation & Ors on 2 July, 2025

Nahar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025

Smt. Kamlikar Anasuja vs Sri K. Sajjanlal on 3 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Smt. Kamlikar Anasuja vs Sri K. Sajjanlal on 3 January, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

About us

Company

Top Stories

Now Is the Time to Think About Your Small-Business Success

Program Will Lend $10M to Detroit Minority Businesses

Kansas City Has a Massive Array of Big National Companies

Subscribe