HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2438 OF 2005, 4186 OF 2005 & 4603 OF 2005 Dated 19-11-2014 C.M.A. No.2438 OF 2005:
Between:
Kamala Kumari.
And:
Vijaya and others.
C.M.A. No.4186 OF 2005:
Between:
Kamala Kumari.
And:
...Petitioner.
…Respondents.
...Petitioner.
Petrim Pentaiah and others.
C.M.A. No.4603 OF 2005:
Between:
Kamala Kumari.
…Respondents.
And:
Vijaya and others.
...Petitioner.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2438 OF 2005, 4186 OF 2005 & 4603 OF 2005 COMMON ORDER:
These three revisions arise out of same E.P. i.e., E.P.No.21 of 1981 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy at Medak and therefore, they are disposed of by way of common order.
C.R.P. No.2438 of 2005 is filed against the orders dated 14-3-2005 in E.A.No.15 of 2005 E.P.No.21 of 1981.
C.R.P.No.4186 of 2005 is filed against order dated 27-7-2005 in E.A.No.21 of 1981 in E.P.No.31 of 1969 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.
C.R.P.No.4603 of 2005 is against the orders dated 27-7-2005 in E.P.No.69 of 2005 in E.P.No.21 of 1981 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.
Revision Petitioner is daughter of Decree Holder in O.S.No.31 of 1969 on the file of City Civil Court, Hyderabad and respondents 1 to 4 in C.R.P.No.2438 of 2005 are third party claimants and 5th respondent in C.R.P.No.2438 of 2005 is original D.Hr. and respondent Nos.6 to 9 in C.R.P.No.2438 of 2005 are J.Dr. and remaining respondents are legal representatives of the deceased D.Hr. and J.Dr.
Heard both sides.
The case of the petitioner is that one Venkata Thirumala Rao was owner of the schedule properties which was cultivated by one Bala goud @ Balaiah as a protected tenant and the said Bala goud became owner of these lands having purchased the same through sale deed dated 8-4-1961 and he executed an agreement of sale in favour of Rudra Veerayya and when Bala goud @ Balaiah failed to perform his part of contract, the said Rudra Veerayya filed O.S.No.31 of 1969 for specific performance of contract and the said suit was decreed and when the D.Hr. failed to execute sale deed, D.Hr. filed E.P. and obtained registered sale deed from the court on 23-4-1981 and when the court bailiff went to deliver possession of the property, the claimant petitioners i.e., petitioners in E.A.No.15 of 2005 originally filed E.A.No.62 of 2001 and when the court dismissed the said application holding that it is not maintainable, they filed E.A.No.15 of 2005 and court upheld the objections of 3rd party claim petitioners and allowed their application.
He further submitted that the claim of 3rd party claim petitioners was only to the extent of Ac.27-08 Guntas whereas the total property covered by decree in O.S.No.31 of 1969 is Ac.45-25 guntas and the decree holder filed E.A.No.69 of 2005 requesting the court to deliver the remaining Ac.18-17 Guntas after excluding Ac.27.08 Guntas over which, a claim is made but the trial court dismissed that application on the ground that there are no separate boundaries and it is not possible to identify the land and dismissed E.P.69 of 2005. He further submitted that while dismissing the E.A.No.69 of 2005, the court consequently dismissed the main E.P. and therefore, the decree holder preferred three revisions.
On the other hand, advocate for third party claimants i.e., petitioners in E.A.No.15 of 2005 submitted that Decree holder claims title through Bala goud @ Balaiah but the said Bala Goud has no title over the property. He further submitted that the said Bala Goud was tenant of Venkata Thirumala Rao and he was not paying rent regularly and the tenancy was terminated through a legal notice on 27-7-1963 and thereafter, there was a compromise, according to which, Bala Goud voluntarily delivered possession of all the lands in May, 1964 to Venkata Tirumala Rao and since then, he got cultivated the land through different persons and also disposed of some lands in favour of some third parties.
He further submitted that the plea of decree holder is two folded. The first plea is that Balagoud became owner as a protected tenant and he got a protected tenancy certificate under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the second plea is that Bala Goud purchased entire Ac.45-25 Guntas in the year 1961 from Venkata Thirumala Rao under a registered sale deed but he failed in proving these two aspects because they have not produced any protected tenancy certificate issued under the provisions of the Act or the registered sale deed said to have been executed by Venkata Thirumala Rao in the year 1961.
He further submitted that there is no material to show that there is a valid decree in favour of the decree holder and the learned Senior Civil Judge rightly upheld the claim of legal heirs of Venkata Thirumala Rao and that the claim of petitioners in claim petition E.A.No.15 of 2005 is only in respect of Ac.27-04 Guntas and that his clients are no way concerned with the other property. He further submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the executing court.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in these revisions is whether the orders of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
As seen from the material, one late Rudra Veerayya obtained an exparte decree against P.Savitri, P.Manikya Prabhu and P.Narasimha Goud in respect of Ac.45-25 Guntas of land and in pursuance of the said specific performance decree, Decree Holder obtained s sale deed in respect of these lands from the court and filed E.P. for delivery of possession. According to 3rd party claimants, i.e., Legal heirs of Venkata Thirumala Rao, they came to know that the Decree holder was trying to take possession of the lands in the year in or about 2000 or 2001, then filed E.A.No.62 of 2001 to declare that the ex parte decree dated 28-8-1969 in O.S.No.31 of 1969 is null and void and not binding on the third party claimants and the Senior Civil Judge after enquiry dismissed the application holding that the petition is not maintainable and the third party claimants cannot get such relief. Third party claimants after dismissal of that application filed E.A.No.15 of 2005 requesting the court to dismiss the E.Ps. to the extent of Ac.27-04 Guntas in Old.S.Nos.59, 91, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 109, 110 and 146 corresponding to New survey Nos.49, 69, 121, 123, 127,128,129,133, 134, 135, 136 and 150 respectively situated in Patelgudam village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. Learned Senior Civil Judge have considered the contentions and rival contentions of both parties claim of third party claimants in respect of land in New survey Nos.49, 69, 121, 123, 127,128,129,133, 134, 135, 136 and 150 respectively. While allowing the claim application, request of the decree holder to deliver remaining part of schedule land was disallowed on the ground that it is not possible to execute decree in respect of the remaining land without boundaries which is a small extent in or about 24 survey numbers.
Now the main grievance of the revision petitioner is that when there is no third party claimant in respect of the other land, the executing court ought to have issued a warrant of delivery in respect of remaining land and the executing court has committed error to the extent of not issuing warrant of delivery in respect of remaining land.
As seen from the material papers, the remaining land of Ac.18-17 Guntas is in 12 survey numbers and most of the extents are very small extents except one item which is Ac.6-39 Guntas. The trial court held that without specific boundaries for these extents, it is not possible to identify the lands and without that, warrant cannot be issued for delivery.
Advocate for revision petitioner contended that at any point of time, there is no dispute to the identity of the land and the observations of the executing court are only imaginary and without bailiff, visiting the land, the observations made by the trial court, are erroneous.
But as seen from the material, in the schedule attached to the decree, no boundaries were furnished in respect of any of the extents of the land. After excluding the claim of third party claimants, remaining Ac.18-17 Guntas is in 12 survey numbers and as seen from the record, in S.No.165, the extent is Ac.0-22 cents in S.No.167, extent is Ac.0-23 cents and like that, many of the items are small extents. If the total extent in a particular survey number was the subject matter of the decree, then there may not be any difficulty for locating such lands. Before issuing delivery warrant, the court must satisfy that the property can easily be located or identified and it is for the decree holder to furnish the necessary particulars for easily locating and identifying the land. But here, as seen from the record, even in the schedule attached to the decree, no boundaries are furnished and only survey numbers are given. So the objection of the revision petitioner with regard to dismissal of E.A.No.69 of 2005 cannot be sustained.
As seen from the record, plea of D.Hr. Rudra Veeraiah with regard to title of his vendor is inconsistent. His first contention is that his vendor became owner as a protected tenant as per the provision of The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the other contention is that his vendor purchased the property from original owner Venkata Thirumala rao under a registered sale deed in the year 1961. This sale deed is not filed in any of the proceedings either in the suit or in the executing proceedings. He has also not produced any certificate issued as per provisions of Act, 1950. As rightly pointed out by advocate for third party claimants, there is a clear cloud over the title of vendor of D.Hr. and even D.Hr. is not sure as to how Bala goud @ Balaiah got title over these properties.
Learned trial judge has elaborately discussed each and every point touching the dispute and came to a right conclusion. I do not find any incorrect findings or any perversity in the approach of the trial court while evaluating the material on record.
The scope of revision is very limited and only when there is apparent illegality on the face of record, then only the revisional court has to interfere with the findings of the subordinate court. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that trial court has not committed any error which warrants interference by this court.
For these reasons, all the revisions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 19-11-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2438 OF 2005, 4186 OF 2005 & 4603 OF 2005 Dated 19-11-2014 Dvs