THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.Nos.1649 of 1998 and 2083 of 1998 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Since these two appeals arise out of an order, dated 27-07-1998, passed in O.P.No.155 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, the same are heard and taken up together for disposal by way of common judgment. The appellant in A.S.No.2083 of 98 is claimant No.1 and the appellants in A.S.No.1649 of 1998 are claimants 2 to 5 in the said O.P. During the course of award proceedings, claimant No.1 and claimant Nos.2 to 5 filed separate claim petitions in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3-50 cents in Sy.No.367/6 situated at Patavala Village, Kakinda, East Godavari District, which was acquired for house sites, but both of them could not establish their independent right and title to the said acquired property and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kakinada, while passing Award No.28/86, dated 30-09-1986, ordered the amount of compensation to be deposited in the Civil court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for being paid to the real owner. On reference, the case was registered as O.P.No.155 of 87. The 1st claimant independently claimed ownership of the said acquired land contending that the said property is the ancestral property of her father, who got the same in the family partition about 20 years ago and the said land was given to her as gift under an unregistered gift deed and though her name was mutated in the revenue records and she has been paying tax to the Government, the compensation was not given to her. It is further stated that in the land ceiling proceedings also the property was shown as that of the 1st claimant and when the alleged vendors of claimants 2 to 5 made an attempt to interfere, she filed a suit in O.S.No.665 of 80 and the said suit was decreed under Ex.A-3, dated 20-11-1990. It is further stated that she had also sold an extent of 50 cents to one Siddani Lakshmi, W/o.Ramarao under a registered sale deed and therefore, claimants 2 to 5 are no way concerned with the acquired property as they are not real owners. In support of her contention, the brother of the 1st claimant was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 tax receipts, Ex.A-3-certified copy of decree in O.S.No.665 of 80 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kakinada, dated 20-11-90, Ex.A-4-registered sale deed executed in the name of the father of the 1st claimant, Ex.A-5- certificate of sale under Section 124 (2) in the name of the father of the 1st claimant. He also filed number of other documents to show that the said land belongs to the 1st claimant. On the other hand, it is the case of claimants 2 to 5 that the 2nd claimant purchased wet land to an extent of 38 cents out of Ac.0-81 cents in Sy.No.367/1 and also purchased dry land to an extent of Ac.1-62 cents out of Ac.4-82 cents in Sy.No.367/6 under acquisition from two muslim brothers under a registered sale deed and that she is the owner of the said acquired land to an extent of Ac.1-62 cents. It is further stated that on behalf of his three minor sons, the 3rd claimant purchased 43 cents of wetland in Sy.No.367/1 and Ac.3-07 cents in Sy.No.367/6 under acquisition from two muslim brothers under a registered sale deed. In support of their contention, RWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. The Reference Court found that all the documents filed by the 1st claimant relates to Sy.No.302 covered by patta No.107 and there is no record or document that has been filed by her to establish that Sy.No.302 co-relates to Sy.No.367/6, which was the land acquired for house sites. Therefore, it was held that in the absence of proof that the land covered by Sy.No.302 of Patavala village is very same land in Sy.No. 367/6, it cannot be said that she is having title to the suit property. Further, claimants 2 to 5 relied on the sale deeds Exs.B-1 and B-2 dated 12-09-1984 but they have not filed any link documents tracing out the title of their vendors and those sale deeds are subsequent to 4 (1) Notification dated 06-07-1984 and the certified copy of the partition deed in respect of their vendors, dated 02-09-1960, under which the property was fallen to the share of their vendors, was not filed and thus, it is stated that they have also failed to establish title of the suit property. Accordingly, the Reference was closed holding that neither of the claimants have established their title to the suit property. During pendency of these appeals, claimants 2 to 5 filed A.S.M.P.No.19479 of 1998 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to receive registration extract of registered partition deed, dated 02-09-1960 as additional evidence contending that title of their vendor would be established by the said partition deed. A counter has been filed on behalf of the 1st claimant stating the so- called partition deed has not seen the light till date and the same was not filed before the court below in support of their claim and the said registered partition deed, dated 02-09-1960 is not a valid document, as their vendors themselves have no title to the said land and the so-called partition in between the brothers of the vendors of the claimants did not create any right either in favour of the vendors of claimants 2 to 5 or claimants. The 1st claimant also filed A.S.M.P.No.1234 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive documents Exs.A-20 to A-23 as additional evidence in support of her stand that Sy.No.302 co-relates to Sy.No.367/6. We are of the opinion that unless the parties are examined, the same cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, instead of calling for a report with regard to the admissibility or otherwise of the said documents, we are inclined to remand the appeals to the Reference Court for giving another opportunity to both the parties to establish their respective claims. Accordingly, the order under appeals is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Reference Court, so as to enable both the claimants to adduce additional evidence relied on by them. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of remittance of these appeals, both the aforesaid applications are dismissed and the documents filed by both the parties may be returned to them, so as to enable them to file before the Reference Court. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 29-06-2010 Prv