This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – respondents – plaintiffs
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2006 passed in A.S.No.22 of
2004 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC / ST (POA)
Act – cum – V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy
reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2004 passed in O.S.No.355 of
2000 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and
correction of revenue records of land in Survey No.408/EE (408/4) admeasuring
Ac.1-14 ½ guntas situated at Rajampet Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak
District. The plaintiffs contended that they were the pattadars and owners of the
above agricultural land. Their father Vadde Venkaiah along with three others
Golla Antaiah, Vadde Sailoo (father of defendants) and Munnuru Narayana,
purchased Ac.5-18 guntas of land in Survey No.408 from M.Ramaiah and
M.Pochaiah under registered sale deed No.716 of 1966 on 27.06.1966 for a
consideration of Rs.1000/-. All the purchasers made the land into four equal
parts. Each got Ac.1-14 guntas of land in Survey No.408. Accordingly,
mutation was made in their names by giving separate sub-numbers in revenue
Dr.GRR, J
sa_46_2007
records as 408/A, 408/AA, 408/E and 408/EE (408/1, 408/2, 408/3 and 408/4).
The suit land was in Survey No.408/EE (408/4) admeasuring Ac.1-14 ½ guntas
that fell to the share of the father of the plaintiffs Vadde Venkaiah. During the
lifetime of Venkaiah, he cultivated the land personally. Six years ago, due to
ill-health, the father of the plaintiffs gave the suit land for cultivation on batai
(year to year crop sharing basis) to the father of the defendants Vadde Sailoo.
The father of the defendants Vadde Sailoo died five years ago. The defendants
continued cultivation on the same condition. The father of the plaintiffs also
died four years ago, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. After
the death of the plaintiffs’ father, the defendants gave share in the crop till Ugadi
festival of 2000. But, on 11.09.2000, the defendants made tomtom in the
village that they would not give any share in the crop to the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs approached the defendants on 15.09.2000 along with their relatives
and caste elders to know the reason for denial to give share in the crop for the
season. But the defendants without disclosing any reason, refused to give the
share in the crop and denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Neither
the plaintiffs nor their father during his lifetime created any kind of ownership
rights in favor of the defendants or their father, except giving land for
cultivation on crop share basis. The plaintiffs verified the records in the
Revenue Office and the Sub-Registrar Office, Sangareddy. As per the Sub-
Registrar, Sangareddy, no encumbrances were created over the suit land in favor
Dr.GRR, J
sa_46_2007
of anybody. In the revenue records of recent year, the names of defendants
were recorded as pattadars without any kind of transfer right created by any
member of the plaintiffs’ family. The entries in the revenue records were false
and concocted. Without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the said entries were
made. The defendants were in permissive possession of the suit land as
cultivators. As such, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice on 09.11.2000 to the
defendants demanding them to vacate from the suit land. They also filed an
application before the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short “MRO”), Sangareddy
for correction of revenue records and filed the suit seeking the above reliefs.