IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THURSDAY, THE TENTH OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
SA.No.1243 of 2011 Between :
Y. Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Yella Rama Krishna, Hindu, Aged : 45 years, Occ : House-wife, R/o.13-226, Reddy Street, Guntakal Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District and another.
Vs.
K. Chandra Sekhar, S/o.K. Narayana, Hindu, Aged : 35 years, Occ : Milk Business, R/o.D.No.18-795-D, 60 Feet Road, Guntakal (V) & (M), Ananthapur District and others.
…Appellants/Appellants/ Plaintiffs …Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants Counsel for Appellants/Appellants/ Appellants : Sri K. Chidambaram Counsel for Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants : --
The Court made the following : [order follows]
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
SA.No.1243 of 2011 JUDGMENT :
This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.04.02.2010 in AS.No.7 of 2007 of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur District, confirming the judgment and decree dt.23.02.2007 in OS.No.151 of 2002 of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal.
2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs in the above suit.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property consists of 2 items of vacant site in Guntakal Municipality.
4. According to plaintiffs, these two items were purchased under sale deeds Exs.A.1 dt.11.03.1991 and A.3 dt.01.02.1990, and ever since their purchase they have been in enjoyment of the same. They contended that they approached the Commissioner, Guntakal Municipality for permission to make constructions in the said property and permission was granted under Ex.A.2; that the defendants are residing in the nearby area; that defendants had no right in the plaint schedule property and without any title or possession, they interfered with the construction activity of the plaintiffs; and therefore, they sought relief of permanent injunction against them.
5. The 4th defendant filed her written statement contending that the plaint schedule property is situated in Sy.No.456 ABCD of Guntakal Village which belongs to Government; that in the year 1989, house plots were made therein and one plot No.13 was allotted to 4th defendant; that she had raised foundation up to ground level in the year 1989; that 1st plaintiff and her husband tried to trespass into her house plot claiming that they have purchased the property; that she reported the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntakal (for short, ‘MRO’) who ordered an enquiry and on 22.08.2002, passed orders to stop construction till the completion of enquiry; that notwithstanding the same, the plaintiffs engaged about thirty persons and constructed a shed in violation of the said orders of the MRO, Guntakal. She contended that the sale deeds filed by plaintiffs did not bind her; that plaintiffs had managed the Guntakal Municipality authorities and obtained a permission for making constructions by playing fraud and misrepresentation; the vendor of plaintiffs had no right, title or interest or possession over the plaint schedule property and the sale deeds are void; the MRO, Guntakal conducted an enquiry which revealed that the plaint schedule property is plot No.13 in Sy.No.456 ABCD which has been assigned to 4th defendant; and prayed that the suit be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues :
“1. Whether the plaintiffs are absolute owners of plaint schedule properties by virtue of registered sale deeds dt.01.02.1990 and 11.03.1991 ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?
3. To what relief ?”
7. Before the trial court, plaintiffs examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. The defendants examined DWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.7. Exs.X.1 to X.5 were also marked by the court.
8. By judgment and decree dt.23.02.2007, the trial court dismissed the suit with costs holding that plaintiffs had claimed to be in possession pursuant to the sale deeds under Exs.A.1 and A.3, but they did not file any link documents to show the right, title and interest of their vendors over the plaint schedule property. It also noticed that in Exs.A.1 and A.3 sale deeds, there was no mention as to how the vendors of plaintiffs acquired title to plaint schedule property. It relied on the evidence of the MRO, Guntakal Municipality, who was examined as DW.3 and Exs.X.1 to X.4 produced by him to hold that plaint schedule property forms part of Sy.No.456 ABCD and that it is Government land which had been assigned to 4th defendant. It also referred to Ex.B.3 endorsement issued by the MRO, Guntakal on 28.08.2002 wherein the MRO had noted that he had gone through the connected records and the documents relating to plaintiffs; that he held that plot No.13 house-site patta was assigned to 4th defendant in Sy.No.456 ABCD; in Ex.X.4, 4th defendant had requested to stop constructions started by plaintiffs and the MRO directed the Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor to inquire and stop constructions. It therefore concluded that the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of Sy.No.456 ABCD of Guntakal Town and that the said land belongs to Government and was assigned to 4th defendant; that Ex.A.2, permission issued by Guntakal Municipality, does not establish the title of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and that plaintiffs could not disprove the contention of 4th defendant or Exs.B.3 and X.4. It thus came to the conclusion that plaintiffs could not prove that they were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at the time of the filing of the suit and, therefore, they are not entitled to relief of permanent injunction; and since plaintiffs had failed to prove their title over the plaint schedule property on the basis of such injunction and since they failed to prove their possession on the date of the filing of suit, it held that any construction made in the plaint schedule property after filing of the suit and after obtaining interim injunction from the trial court would not improve the case of the plaintiffs.
9. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs filed AS.No.7 of 2007 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.
10. By judgment and decree dt.04.02.2010, the said appeal was also dismissed confirming the findings of the trial court. The lower appellate court held that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 did not prove that vendors of the plaintiffs had got title and possession over the plaint schedule property and the evidence of DW.3, the MRO, Guntakal, shows that the plaint schedule property was part and parcel of Government land which is in Sy.No.456 ABCD of Guntakal Village and plaintiffs failed to disprove that it did not form part of the said Government land; that plaintiffs did not produce any evidence to show their possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of the filing of the suit; and therefore, they are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
11. Challenging the same, this Second Appeal is filed.
12. Heard Sri K. Chidamabaram, counsel for appellants.
13. The counsel for appellants contended that the courts below had ignored that plaintiffs had title to plaint schedule property under Exs.A.1 and A.3; that both courts erred in holding that plaint schedule property is part and parcel of the property covered by Sy.No.456 ABCD of Guntakal Village without there being any evidence to that effect and without there being any survey to determine whether the said suit schedule property forms part and parcel of Sy.No.456 ABCD; that the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 and Ex.A.2 would prove the possession of plaintiffs and even 4th defendant had admitted that plaintiffs had raised constructions in the plaint schedule property; and therefore, both courts should have held in the appellant’s favour.
14. I have noted the submissions of the counsel for appellants.
15. According to plaintiffs, they had purchased the plaint schedule property under Exs.A.1 and A.3 sale deeds. Both the sale deeds contain no recital as to how their vendors got title. No link documents have been filed by plaintiffs in support of their plea that their vendors had title to the plaint schedule property.
16. The 4th defendant specifically contended that plaint schedule property forms part and parcel of Sy.No.456 ABCD of Guntakal Village; that the said land originally belonged to Government, and in 1989 house plots were made therein and she was allotted plot No.13 by the then Tahsildar, Guntakal; that on 21.08.2002, the 1st plaintiff and her husband tried to trespass into the house-site assigned to her; that police intervened and directed plaintiffs and 4th defendant to settle the dispute with Revenue Officials; that she reported the matter to MRO, Guntakal and the said Official enquired; and on 22.08.2002, he passed orders directing plaintiffs to stop construction till the completion of the inquiry. The 4th defendant filed Ex.B.3 endorsement issued by MRO, Guntakal which specifically mentioned about the complaint of 4th defendant and verification of the documents of plaintiffs in the enquiry conducted by him where husband of 1st plaintiff Ramakrishna participated. Exs.B.3 and X.4 indicated that there was also a survey got conducted by MRO through Mandal Surveyor. Therefore, the 4th defendant has been able to show that plaint schedule property forms part of Sy.No.456 ABCD which is Government land.
17. To rebut the said evidence, the plaintiffs had not got any survey conducted in the trial court or in the 1st appellate court to establish that plaint schedule property did not form part of Sy.No.456 ABCD and was not Government land. Therefore, prima facie, it has to be held that 4th defendant had established that plaint schedule property forms part of Sy.No.456 ABCD and that it is Government land.
18. Ex.A.2 permission granted by Guntakal Municipality to plaintiffs to enable them to make constructions in the plaint schedule property does not confer any title on them over the plaint schedule property. In the absence of any link documents produced by plaintiffs or other proof to show that plaint schedule property did not form part and parcel of Sy.No.456 ABCD, it has to be concluded that they have no title over the plaint schedule property.
19. Coming to the aspect of possession, admittedly the suit was filed on 22.03.2002. There is no material filed by plaintiffs to show that they were in possession of the plaint schedule property on that date. Ex.B.3 = X.4 both indicate that 4th defendant complained of the trespass into her property by plaintiffs on 21.08.2002, which is long after filing of the suit. It may be that plaintiffs have subsequently trespassed into plaint schedule property and made constructions therein but in the absence of any evidence to show that they were in possession as on the date of the filing of the suit, the subsequent trespass does not improve their case. It is not as if plaintiffs have sought injunction only on the basis of their possession. They have pleaded that the basis of their possession is the acquisition of title by them under Exs.A.1 and A.3. Once their title to plaint schedule site is not proved and it is shown that the plaint schedule site forms part of Sy.No.456 ABCD which is Government land assigned to 4th defendant, they cannot be allowed to seek an injunction against the true owner, i.e., 4th defendant.
20. There is no question of law arising for consideration in the appeal. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
21. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, in this Second Appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 10-07-2014 Ndr/*