HC - declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1-sale deed, which is null and void as per the legislative mandate under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY


SECOND APPEAL No.964 of 2010

Dated: 01-10-2010

Between:

Tadepalli Rama Rao
…Appellant
AND

Ganiwada Satyanarayana Murthy
Respondent


This Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:    


Unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below filed this second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by  VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry dismissing A.S.No.86 of 2004, dated 27.12.2007 and confirming the judgment and decree, dated 15.4.2004 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in dismissing O.S.No.180 of 1997 filed for declaration of plaintiff’s title over the plaint schedule property, for recovery of possession of house property and for future profits.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

The plaintiff instituted the above suit for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property i.e. the house property in an extent of 72 sq.yds. contending that originally the property belonged to one Ganiwada Surnarayana Murthy, the father of the defendant.   That the said Ganiwada Suryanarayana Murthy obtained a patta from the stage Government in the year 1976 for an extent of three cents of house site in RS.Nos.253 and 254 on Gandhi Prakasa nagaram Panchayat area and the plot No.682, and constructed two thatched portioned house.  By that time, the defendant was residing in the Southern side portion of the said house, while his father Ganiwada Suryanarayana Murthy lived in the Northern portion of the said house along with Smt. Marisetti Atchayamma, who is no other than the sister of the defendant.  Said Ganiwada Suryanarayana Murthy to meet his family expenses sold away the Northern portion of the said thatched house to the plaintiff on 30.6.1981 and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying the municipal taxes.   When the plaintiff was making attempts to lease out the said portion, Marisetty Atchayamma, the elder sister of the defendant, who is no other than the mother-in-law of the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to allow them to live in the said house and that the plaintiff allowed her to live in the plaint schedule house purchased by him.   While so, after the death of Ganiwada Suryanarayana Murthy, the defendant with an evil intention to grab the plaint schedule house property filed a suit in O.S.No.256 of 1991 and obtained ex parte decree and got possession of the property.   Later, the defendant filed another suit in O.S.No.109 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Rajahmundry for cancellation of sale deed, dated 30.6.1981 and that the same is being contested by the plaintiff.   Hence the suit for declaration and recovery of possession from the defendant.  Contesting the said suit, the defendant filed a written statement contending that said Suryanarayana Murthy alone lived in the said portion till his death in 1990 and no other person was ever in possession of the same in any capacity.  The house was put up on the site of assigned pata which is hit by Act 9 of 1977 and the same could not be alienated.  The plaintiff cannot lay any claim under invalid sale deed, dated 30.6.1981.   Even if the plaintiff relies on the so called sale covered by sale deed, dated 30.6.1981, he being not in possession at any time, and the defendant and his family being in possession for all these years, it must be deemed that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession.  Since the plaintiff brought into existence the fraudulent and invalid sale deed, dated 30.6.1981, this defendant had to file a suit in O.S.No.109 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Rajahmundry.     

The trial Court framed necessary issues for trial.   After evaluating the evidence, oral and documentary, the trial Court found that even the plaintiff did not deny the fact that the subject-land is the assigned land, that even as per the contention of the plaintiff also, it is an assigned land given patta to the father of the defendant by the Government and therefore, in view of the prohibition contained under Act 9 of 1977, he will not derive any title to the suit schedule property and accordingly dismissed the suit.  On appeal being filed by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal.   Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.

The facts pleaded depict that the house was put up on the site granted by the State Government, which is prohibited from alienation in view of the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.   It is not disputed that patta was granted by Government in respect of the said site in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy and that P.W.1-plaintiff purchased the same under Ex.A.1 sale deed for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- on 30.6.1981. Section 3 of the said Act declares any sale of the assigned land in contravention of the terms as null and void.  P.W.1-plaintiff has not pleaded that he is a bona fide purchaser, that he is a landless poor person and protected under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and that he has purchased the land in good faith from the original owner prior to the commencement of the Act.  In the absence of any such evidence, the plaintiff cannot succeed in obtaining a decree for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1-sale deed, which is null and void as per the legislative mandate under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.   The concurrent findings of facts reached by the Courts below, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, do not give rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law to admit the second appeal.  

The Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.   No order as to costs.   
                                                  
                                                                ________________
            A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

OCTOBER 01, 2010                                                       
Tsr.


No comments:

Post a Comment