THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH A.S.NO.93 OF 1994 J U D G M E N T Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.12.1993, passed by the court of Subordinate Judge at Nuzvid, in O.S.No.62/1985, in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the present first appeal is filed. 3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that he is the exclusive owner of the schedule property bearing R.S.No.78 included in patta no.650 and he was granted patta by the landholder. In the survey and settlement, after the advent of the A. P. Estates Abolition Act, ryotwari patta was granted to him. The plaintiff has been staying at Madras and he entrusted the affairs of the suit land to his brother P.Venkateshwara Rao. He came to know that the first defendant approached the local revenue officials and got the suit land sub-divided without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. The changes so effected, will not bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff then got issued legal notice to the Tahsildar, Nuzvid dated 28.1.1985 with a copy of the same to the District Collector, Krishna, questioning the subdivision and the changes made in the revenue records, but no action was taken. He got issued a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on 14.8.1985 to the District Collector. The plaintiff came to know that the second defendant obtained two registered sale deeds from Sanchi Dharma Rao, Sanchi Chettemma, Sanchi Venkata Rangaiah etc. From the sale deed dated 16.9.1985, the second defendant is purported to have purchased an undivided 1/3rd share in the suit land from the vendors for Rs.18,000/-. The second defendant purported to have purchased anothe 1/3rd share in the suit land under a registered sale deed dated 23.9.1985 for Rs.24,000/- from Sanchi Venkata Rangaiah, Sanchi Babu Rao and Sanchi Ramarao, son of Gopala Rao. The case of the plaintiff is that the said vendors have no right in the suit land and the sale deeds are collusive and not supported by consideration. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property from 1.7.1959 as pattadar, whose name is shown in the revenue records. The sale deeds does not bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff also perfected the title by adverse possession. The first defendant is the son of the step brother of the plaintiff’s father. So the vendors of the second defendant are either the step- brothers of the plaintiff’s father or persons claiming through the step brothers. As a cloud is cast on the title of the plaintiff by the changes effected in the revenue records and also by the execution of sale deeds, the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died and his legal heirs defendants 3 to 10 were brought on record. The defendants no.1 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 3 to 10. The second defendant also filed written statement. 5. Their written statements is to the effect that the suit schedule property originally belong to one Sanchi Ramaiah, who is the great-grandfather of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Sanchi Ramaih, owned 420 sq. yards of house site in 10th ward of erstwhile Nuzvid Gram panchayat, besides owning the schedule property. Sanchi Ramaiah had a son by name Rangaiah, who is the father of the plaintiff, through his first wife Rangamma. Sanchi Ramaiah married again one Lakshmi Devi alias Rangamma and begotten five sons namely 1. Pattaiah, 2. Venkata Rangaiah, 3. Ranga Rao, 4. Gopala Rao and 5. Dharma Rao. All the six sons of Sanchi Ramaiah, were members of Hindu Joint family. The 2nd defendant came to know that Zamindar of Yelamarruy granted the schedule property to Sanchi Ramaiah and in the revenue records, sons of Sanchi Ramaiah are shown as pattadars. No patta was granted to the plaintiff and even if there is any patta, the same will not cloth the plaintiff with any right and that only Sanchi Dharma Rao had possession and enjoyment of the suit land prior to the sale in favour of the 2nd defendant. Sanchi Dharma Rao never claimed exclusive right or possession over the suit schedule property, though he alone was in possession. The payment of land revenue by the co-owners will not bestow any right over the plaintiff to claim adverse possession. All the heirs of Sanchi Ramaiah, including the plaintiff sold away their 1/6th undivided share in 420 sq. yards of house site to Yerramsetti Rama Krishna son of Venkayya. After selling the house site, all the legal heirs of Sanchi Ramaiah kept the suit property jointly as co-owners. Under a registered sale deed dated 16.9.1985, he (2nd defendant) purchased the undivided 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property from Sanchi Dharma Rao and Sanchi Chittemma after paying the entire sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-. The 2nd defendant also purchased the undivided 1/3rd share in the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 23.9.1985 from Sanchi Venkata Rangaiah, Sanchi Babu Rao and Sanchi Rama Rao, by paying total consideration of Rs.24,000/-. Thus, in all he purchased 2/3rd undivided joint right in the plaint schedule property. Thus as a vendee, the 2nd defendant is the entitled to joint possession along with the plaintiff and first defendant. The 1st defendant is entitled to 1/6th right only in the schedule property. His vendors under the registered sale deed are the co-owners of the plaint schedule property and they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. With these averments, the suit was sought to be dismissed. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief? Additional issues: 1. Whether the court fee paid is proper and correct? 2. Whether the suit is bad for jon-joinder of vendors of the defendant and of plaintiff? 7. In support of the case of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-17 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.Exs.B-1 to B-9(a) were marked and Ex.X-1 was marked. 8. Appreciating the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court answering all the issues, except the additional issue no.1, against the plaintiff, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present first appeal is filed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he further reiterated the plaint averments. He contended that without properly appreciating the documentary evidence and without considering the fact that the defendants got changed the entries in the revenue records without the consent and knowledge of the appellant, dismissed the suit and the same is contrary to the evidence on record. He further contended that the documents produced by the plaintiff would clearly prove his possession and title, but the court below failed to appreciate the same. He contended that once the ryotwari patta is granted under the statute and when no appeal has been preferred against the said patta, the patta attains the finality and as such the court below ought not have dismissed the suit. With these averments, he sought to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decree the suit as prayed for. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel supporting the impugned judgment and decree and taking this court through the entire evidence and the impugned judgment, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arises for my consideration are: (1) Whether the plaintiff proved his exclusive title and possession over the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court warrants any interference? 12. In order to consider the first issue, it is necessary to first note the case of the respective parties. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the exclusive owner of the plaint schedule land and he was given ryotwari patta under the A. P. Estates Abolition Act and that as he was residing at Madras, he entrusted the affairs of the land to his brother P.Venkateshwara Rao and that he came to know that the 1st defendant got the land sub-divided by approaching the revenue officials without his consent and knowledge and that 2nd defendant obtained two sale deeds on 16.9.1985 and 23.9.1985 from Sanchi Venkata Rangaiah, Sanchi Babu Rao and Sanchi Ramarao, son of Gopala Rao. The vendors have no right over the suit schedule land, the sale effected by them is not valid and, therefore, he is seeking declaration of title and for permanent injunction. 13. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the suit schedule property originally belong to one Sanchi Ramaiah, who is the great grandfather of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff and that he begot the plaintiff from his first wife and after her death, he again remarried one Lakshmi Devamma and begot five children, and that the plaintiff along with the said five children are the joint owners of the suit schedule property. The Zamindar of Yelamarru granted the schedule land to Sanchi Ramaiah and his sons are shown as pattadars in the revenue records. The 2nd defendant purchased 2/3rd of the joint family property from the co-owners under registered sale deed and that the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner 14. The plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1, had admitted the relationship between the parties, as stated by the defendants in the written statement, that Sanchi Ramaiah is their grand father. He further admitted that he has three sisters and that his brother Ramachandra Rao, had one daughter and one son by name Prasada Rao and the wife of his brother is alive. In the cross-examination, he also admitted that it is true that his mother, his brother’s wife and his children have right in the suit land. But the said persons were not made as parties. 15. As noted above, the case of the plaintiff is that the patta for the suit land was given in his name. But in the cross- examination, he stated that patta was granted in the name of his father by the Zaminder and later to resurvey, a ryotwari patta was granted to him. The plaintiff produced Ex.A-9 ryotwari patta issued in the name of the plaintiff for the suit land as pattadar. But the trial court found that there is neither seal of the office, nor authentication of ay type. Therefore, the said document was disbelieved by the court below. Further, Ex.A- 17 is the certified copy of fair adangal for R.S.No.78, patta no.650 bearing the name of Sanchi Rangaiah, the name of the father of the plaintiff as pattadar. The case of the defendants is that Sanchi Ramaiah was the pattadar and owner of the suit property and not the plaintiff and his father as claimed by him. As the documents produced by either parties, contain interpolations, the court summoned the original register under Ex..X-1 and marked as Ex.B-7. The court below found that a careful reading of Ex.X-1 and B-7, disclose that the pattadars column is totally struck off with an obscure endorsement that patta was granted in S.R. u/s 17(1) 683 Nuzvid. Why the entries were struck off and what were the reasons for such corrections, is not mentioned. In view of the admissions brought out by the defendants through P.W.1, about the relationship of parties and the name of Sanchi Ramaiah, is the grand father, and his name is appearing in these documents as pattadar, these circumstances would support the case of the defendants. 16. The plaintiff also produced Ex.A-1 which is the settlement register, where under it is shown that plaintiff is the pattadar. From the material on record it could be seen that the petitioner has not produced any iota of evidence to support his case that he was granted patta. Further, the case of the defendants that the suit land belonged originally to Sanchi Ramaiah and after his death, it belongs to all his legal heirs, and this circumstance is amply proved by the admission of the plaintiff and the documents on record. Further the plaintiff has not produced the ryotwari patta granted in his name or in the name of his father. Therefore, the trial court rightly disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that patta was exclusively granted and further there are clear interpolations appearing in Ex.X-1, which are reflected in Ex.B-7 and Ex.A-1. Therefore, Ex.A-1 was disbelieved by the court below. 17. The plaintiff produced land revenue receipts under Exs.A-4 and A-5. The trial court found that they are paid on one day on 17.4.1995 and rightly observed that for a person who claims that he has been paying land revenue continuously and regularly and also even prior to 1976, it is strange to pay on one day for the said period and rightly disbelieved the same and also rejected the claim of the plaintiff for adverse possession. 18. For the foregoing reasons the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was granted ryotwari patta to the entire suit land under Section 17(1) of the Act and that he is in possession of the schedule property. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the said finding of the trial court. 19. As the plaintiff failed to prove his case and on the other hand, admitted the version of the defendants, the trial court rightly held that the plaintiff cannot lay claim to the exclusive title and possession over the schedule property, except for his right and share in the suit schedule property together with the other legal heirs of his father to the extent they are entitled to. 20. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the suit and I do not find any justification or any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence and both the issues are answered against the plaintiff. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and decree of the trial court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- --- 08—10— 2010