THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 194 OF 2004 Date: 07.06.2011 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh ......Petitioner AND Malireddi Venka Reddy and others ......Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 194 OF 2004 O R D E R: This revision is at the instance of the state questioning the order of the primary Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal upholding the claim of the 1st respondent herein and excluding the land covered by R.S.No.68 of the Chillaboyinapalli Village admeasuring Ac.15.91 cents, which was included in the holding of the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.1645/GDV/75. The petitioner contended before the primary Tribunal in I.A.No.1 of 1999 that the land in question was wrongly included in the holding of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was computed as holding excess land. When the 1st respondent came to know of the same, he filed the I.A. alleging that he had no notice of inclusion of his land. He also contended that the petitioner’s maternal grandfather, one Gadireddy Sastrulu, purchased the aforesaid land under registered sale deed dated 30.09.1939 and though the said purchased land was admeasured Ac.10.50 cents, during survey and settlement it was quantified as Ac.15.91 cents. The said Sastrulu had one son, Ramireddy, and one daughter, Annapurnamma. The said Annapurnamma was married to one Malireddy Padmanabha Reddy and the aforesaid land was given by Sastrulu to his son-in-law Padmanabha Reddy as a pasupu kumkuma and thereby the 1st respondent had succeeded and has been in possession and enjoyment of the land as successor. The 1st respondent also lead evidence both oral and documentary before the primary Tribunal and on consideration thereof, the Tribunal came to find that the very assumption of the petitioner- state that the said land belongs to 2nd respondent herein is not supported by any material and on the contrary, on the basis of the sale deed dated 30.09.1939 marked as Ex.P1, the said Sastrulu had the title with respect to the land in question. The same was further reinforced by Ex.P2 pasupu kumkuma gift deed dated 02.05.1961. In that view of the matter, the primary Tribunal allowed the objection of the 1st respondent and the same was confirmed by the appellate Tribunal. In this revision, learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy v. Mokkala Padmavathamma and others[1], for the proposition that the gift deed Ex.P2, which is pasupu kumkuma, must be by a registered document duly stamped. He therefore contends that Ex.P2 relied upon by the 1st respondent cannot be looked into. While the said legal position as settled by the Full Bench decision above undoubtedly supports the learned Government Pleader, he was however, being unable to explain the material on the basis of which the land in question is treated as land belonging to the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, there is no adequate document in favour of the 2nd respondent, who was the declarant. It appears from the oral evidence that he was the neighbour of the petitioner. The title document for the land in question in fact stands in the name of Gadireddy Sastrulu under Ex.P1. He is therefore prima facie titleholder of the land and as such the Tribunal below rightly considered the same to find that the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be holding the land. It is therefore apparent that the land belonging to Sastrulu was treated as belonging to 2nd respondent and computed accordingly. The 1st respondent herein, who had objected to the inclusion of the aforesaid land in the holding of the 2nd respondent was therefore justified in making his claim. The Tribunal below therefore have rightly appreciated the first aspect and came to the conclusion that the said land did not belong to declarant-the 2nd respondent and as such the further question under Ex.P2 i.e., pasupu kumkuma gift deed in favour of son-in-law of Sastrulu does not really arise for consideration. The said land had to be excluded as it did not belong to the declarant-the 2nd respondent. In that view of the matter, the orders of the Tribunal below warrant no interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 07.06.2011 Ivd [1] 2001 (5) ALD 402 (FB)