The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Second Appeal Nos.1278 & 1489 of 2011 Date: 11th November, 2011 Common Judgment: In both these Second Appeals, the parties are common and they also arise out of common judgment, dated 16-04-2011, in Appeal Suit Nos.13 and 14 of 2003. Hence, they are heard and disposed of together. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suits. OS.No.1080 of 1991 was ﬁled in the Court of District Munsif, Nalgonda, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule properties. On transfer, the said suit was renumbered as OS.No.18 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Nalgonda. It is the case of the plaintiﬀs that Gade Ramaiah is their ancestor, who owned and possessed land admeasuring Ac.22-06 guntas in Survey Nos.341, 344, 347, 331, 338, 339 and 340 of Chandanpally Village, Nalgonda District. When the defendants, who are their agnates, sought to interfere with the plaintiﬀs’ possession, the latter have ﬁled OS.No.1080 of 1991 for permanent injunction (renumbered as OS.No.18 of 1998). During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiﬀs ﬁled OS.No.37 of 1992 for cancellation of the judgment and decree, dated 14-02-1985, in OS.No.81 of 1985, on the ﬁle of the District Munsif Court, Nalgonda, on the ground that the defendants have obtained the same by fraud. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiﬀs that their ancestor- Gade Ramaiah died on 14-08-1975 and that, by the time the defendants ﬁled OS.No.81 of 1985, he was not alive. It is their further pleaded case that the purported consent decree, dated 14- 02-1985, in O.S.No.81 of 1985, was obtained by playing fraud on the Court as Gade Ramaiah, who is shown as consenting party to the decree, was not alive by that time. The defendants have ﬁled written statements in both the suits wherein they have denied the allegations made by the plaintiﬀs. It is their specific case that Gade Ramaiah was very much alive when OS.No.81 of 1985 was ﬁled by them and also when the consent decree was passed. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has conducted joint trial of both the suits wherein common issues were framed, which are as follows: “1. Whether the plaintiﬀs are in possession of the suit schedule lands in both cases ? 2. Whether the decree in OS.No.81 of 1985 passed by DMC, Nalgonda, is valid and binding on plaintiﬀs or it is liable to be cancelled ? 3. Whether the defendants are in possession of A, B and C schedule lands as mentioned in the written statement ? 4. To what relief ?” In support of their case, in OS.No.37 of 1992, plaintiﬀ Nos.2 and 3 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and the son of plaintiﬀ No.1 was examined as PW.3 besides examining PWs.4 to 9. They have also marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on their side. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 besides examining DWs.2 to 9 and marking Exs.B.1 to B.37. In OS.No.18 of 1998, plaintiﬀ Nos.2 and 3 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on their side. No evidence was let in on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court has, on the main issue viz., Whether the judgment and decree, dated 14-02- 1985, in OS.No.81 of 1985 was vitiated by fraud or the same is valid and binding on the plaintiﬀs, considered the oral and documentary evidence. As regards the oral evidence, the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 i.e., plaintiﬀs 2 and 3 respectively was sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW.6, who, being a purohit, was stated to have performed the 10th day ceremony of Gade Ramaiah. While it is the case of the plaintiﬀs that Gade Ramaiah died on 14-08-1975, PW.6- Purohit has deposed that he has participated in the 10th day ceremony of Gade Ramaiah on 14-08-1975. In view of this inconsistent stand taken by the witnesses, the trial Court has rightly discarded their evidence. Apart from the oral evidence of plaintiﬀ Nos.2 and 3 and P.W.6- purohit, the only documentary evidence, on which the entire claim of the plaintiﬀs was based, was Ex.A.1- Death Certiﬁcate, dated 20- 11-1991, stated to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned on the application of one Ashok Reddy, who is not a party to the suit proceedings. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, who issued the said Certiﬁcate, was not examined as a witness. Nothing is brought on record by the plaintiﬀs the basis on which the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has issued the said certiﬁcate. The trial Court has observed that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Act’), came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 01-04-1970; that under Section 8-A of the said Act, where a birth or death occurs in a house, the head of the house shall give information of the same to the Registrar appointed under the Act; that under Section 13 (3) of the Act, any birth or death, which has not been registered, can be registered within one year and; that thereafter, it shall be registered only on the order of the Magistrate of First Class or Presidency Magistrate. The Court below observed that the Certiﬁcate issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is not supported by the authenticated document or the Register maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths and that in the absence of such documents, Ex.A.1- Death Certiﬁcate does not stand scrutiny of the Court and the same has no eﬀect in the eye of law. The reasons assigned by the trial Court for discarding the said evidence, in my opinion, are very convincing. The trial Court also summoned the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to its aid to accept Ex.A.2- judgment and decree, dated 14-02-1985, in OS.No.81 of 1985 as true and valid. The lower appellate Court has endorsed the reasoning of the trial Court. On a careful consideration of the reasons assigned by both the Courts below after a thorough analysis of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that no interference with the ﬁndings of fact rendered by the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, is called for in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For the above-mentioned reasons, both the Second Appeals fail and they are, accordingly, dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 11th November, 2011 LUR