IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S. No.909 of 2003 Between: Meenakshi Steel Rolling Mills Private Ltd., Secunderabad … Appellant And: Hyderabad Electricals & Electronics, Kukatpally … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.909 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 25.03.2003 in OS No.65 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, wherein the said suit filed by the respondent herein for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the schedule land of 1129 sq. yards in Sy.No.731 part, Ac.1.28 guntas in Sy.No.733 Part, Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.735/Part i.e., total extent of Ac.5.00 in Kukatpally village, was decreed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The averments in the plaint in brief are as follows: The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the schedule land, having purchased the same from Bio-Chemical and Synthetic Private Ltd., Balanagar, under un-registered sale deed dated 19.06.1974 and subsequently, got the same revalidated and registered by the District Registrar of Ranga Reddy district. The plaintiff’s vendor was owner of an extent of ac.26.12 guntas having purchased the same from Mahaboob Begum under registered sale deed dated 22.04.1962 and out of the said extent, the schedule land was purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s name has been mutated in the revenue records as pattedar in respect of the suit lands. On 06.12.1999, the defendant got issued legal notice claiming that the suit land belong to them, for which the plaintiff gave a reply dated 18.12.1999. On 12.02.2000 when the plaintiff’s labourers were removing bushes and shrubs in the schedule land, the defendant’s men tried to interfere with the said work. The plaintiff gave a report to the police, but they did not take any action. Hence, the suit for injunction. 4. The defendant filed written statement contending in brief as follows: The alleged sale deed, which is said to have been subsequently regularized by the Revenue Authorities in 1999, does not confer any right or title on the plaintiff. The plaintiff played fraud on the Revenue Authorities and obtained orders of mutation by deceitful means. The defendant is not a party to the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff for regularizing the sale deed. The defendant came to know that the plaintiff created false and forged documents and so, the defendant is taking necessary steps to get the deed cancelled by filing appeal against the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar. The plaintiff is neither a owner nor is in possession of the suit land. In fact, the defendant has been in continuous possession of the extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.Nos.731, 732, 733, 735, 736 and 737. When the plaintiff was trying to encroach upon the defendants land, the defendant gave a notice. There is a boundary dispute between the defendant and M/s Sri Venkateswara Cooperative Industrial Estate. M/s V.S. Engineering filed suit OS No.14 of 1992 against the defendant in respect of 1200 sq. yards in Sy.No.731 and the same was dismissed on 23.04.1998. In respect of the same extent, one Narayana tried to interfere with the defendant’s possession and defendant filed suit OS No.217 of 1993 and the same was decreed on 23.11.1995. When the said Narayana again tried to interfere with the defendant’s possession, they initiated proceedings before the Tribunal under Land Grabbing Prohibition Act and the same is pending. One SA Razack filed OS No.76 of 1998 and obtained injunction and thereafter, the same was vacated. The said Razack filed CMA No.47 of 1999 before the I Additional District Judge, R R District and it was also dismissed. The said Razack also claimed right and title on the basis of the document, allegedly regularized by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 29.11.1999. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and so, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction prayed for. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 6. PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.28 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.18 were marked on behalf of the defendant. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has proved the possession over the suit schedule land as on the date of the suit as also interference by the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for injunction prayed for. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant would contend that the plaintiff has not filed the certificate issued under section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act’) and in the absence of the said certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in Form XIII-B, which operates as title deed, mere filing of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 29.10.1999 under Ex.A.12, does not establish the plaintiff’s claim of title over the suit land. He would further contend that consequential order Ex.A.12 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, directing the name of the plaintiff to be entered as pattedar and possessor is of no avail, as the original order of revalidation under Ex.A.4 is itself invalid. He would further contend that the pahanies Exs.A.13 to A.19 and cist receipts Exs.A.5 and A.6 filed by the plaintiff to show their possession are not reliable, as they do not relate to the suit land. He would further contend that the plaintiff has failed to establish the identity of the suit land and there is nothing to show that the extent of Ac.5.00 claimed by the plaintiff is contiguous. He would finally submit that as the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands, the plaintiff is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand would contend that the land claimed by the plaintiff and the defendant are distinct and separate and the same is admitted by DW.1 also in the evidence and the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.A.4 validating the unregistered sale deed dated 09.06.1974 and the subsequent proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.A.12 dated 29.10.1999 effecting mutation of the plaintiff’s name in the revenue records, have become final, as the appeal filed by the defendant against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.A.12 was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella and further revision filed by the defendant was also dismissed by the Joint Collector, R R District. He would further contend that during the pendency of this appeal, the defendant filed a separate suit OS No.56 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy district, for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the same property and in the said suit, the defendant herein filed IA No.1889 of 2004 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, by deleting the prayer for recovery of possession and the said application was dismissed by order dated 04.07.2005 and the revision filed by the defendant herein in CRP No.5741 of 2005, was also dismissed by this Court on 07.11.2005. He would therefore contend that various contentions raised by the defendant in the present suit and the appeal pertaining to the dispute regarding title raised by the defendant would arise for consideration in a comprehensive suit i.e., OS No.56 of 2004 filed by the defendant herein for declaration and for recovery of possession. He would further contend that the very fact that the appellant/defendant sought for recovery of possession also in OS No.56 of 2004 would support the plaintiff’s claim of possession over the suit land and so, the defendant cannot resist grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff, especially, when the evidence on record establishes the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land. He would further contend that the issuance of certificate in Form XIII-B is only ministerial act and non filing of the certificate would not vitiate the original orders Exs.A.4 and A.12, especially when the appeal filed by the defendant against the order under Ex.A.12 was dismissed and revision thereon was also dismissed. He would further contend that the documents Exs.B.1, 10, 16 and 17 filed by the defendant pertaining to some other suits filed by or against the defendant herein are not binding on the plaintiff, who is not a party to those proceedings. 9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the points which arise for consideration in this appeal are, 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction prayed for? 10. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for mere injunction restraining the appellant/defendant and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. The suit land is of an extent of Ac.5.00 comprising, Ac.1.12 guntas in Sy.No.731/Part, Ac.1.28 guntas in Sy.No.733/ Part and Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.735/Part situate in Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal. The boundaries of the suit land as described in the plaint schedule are, North and South – Nala, East – 30 ft. road and West – land of Bio-Chemical & Synthetic Products Ltd. 11. According to the plaintiff, the suit land, which forms part of total extent of Ac.26.12 guntas, originally belonged to one Smt. Mahaboobunnisa Begum and others and the same was purchased by the plaintiff’s vendor Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., under a registered sale deed dated 24.12.1962 and subsequently, plaintiff purchased the same from Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., under registered sale deed dated 19.06.1974 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- per acre. The survey numbers and boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.1 tally with those mentioned in the plaint schedule. The defendant would contend that the identity of the suit land has not been duly established by the plaintiff and the extent of Ac.5.00 out of the total extent is not shown to have been duly demarcated and in the absence of the same, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction. According to the plaintiff, there are fixed boundaries on three sides of the suit land i.e., nala on two sides and road on the third side and the remaining extent of the vendor-Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., on the 4th side i.e., on the western side and so, there cannot be any dispute regarding identity of the property. 12. In the evidence, PW.1-Managing Partner of the plaintiff company has stated that the land claimed by the defendant is different from the suit land. In the schedule appended to the plaint filed by the defendant in OS No.56 of 2004, which was filed during the pendency of this appeal for declaration of title land for recovery of possession, the extent of Ac.5.00 situated in Sy.Nos.731, 732, 733, 735, 736 and 737 is mentioned. DW.1-Additional General Manager of the defendant company in the chief examination stated that the lands purchased by them under Ex.B.1 from the same vendor i.e., Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., and the suit lands are one and the same. In the cross-examination, DW.1 however admitted that he is not aware of the boundaries of the land claimed by the plaintiff. After going through Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.1, DW.1 stated that the boundaries of the property purchased by the plaintiff and the boundaries of the property purchased by the defendant are different. Ex.A.4 proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 22.01.1991 for revalidation of the unregistered sale deed Ex.A.1 would show that the pahanies of the year 1991 of Kukatpally village was verified and it was found that the pattas stood in the name of Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., for an extent of Ac.4.27 guntas in Sy.No.731, Ac.8.38 guntas in Sy.No.733 and Ac.15.07 guntas in Sy.No.735 and the plaintiff claimed revalidation in respect of Ac.1.12 guntas in Sy.Nos.731 Part, Ac.1.28 guntas in Sy.No.733 and Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.735 Part, admeasuring Ac.5.00. Ex.A.12 proceedings dated 29.10.1999 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in pursuance of Ex.A.4 directing mutation in the name of the plaintiff also shows that on verification of the village records, it was found that the name of the claimant i.e., plaintiff was recorded as possessor in respect of the suit land. Ex.A.12 also shows that the Deputy Tahsildar, Additional Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer, Kukatpally, were directed to inspect the suit land and submit a report and after inspection, they submitted a report regarding the local enquiry conducted by them and found that it was kept fallow and it was under the possession of the plaintiff. 13. The evidence on record, thus prima-facie shows that the land claimed by the plaintiff is distinct and identifiable and the Revenue Authorities after conducting local enquiry found the same to be in possession of the plaintiff and accordingly, the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records. However, as the defendant herein filed a separate suit in OS No.56 of 2004 subsequent to filing of this appeal for a comprehensive relief of declaration of title and also recovery of possession and in the said suit, the defendant herein has shown Ac.5.00 of land as subject matter of dispute and situate in Sy.Nos.731, 732, 733, 735, 736 and 737, the question as to whether or not there is any overlapping of the land, which is subject matter of the present suit and OS No.56 of 2004 and whether or not, the suit land herein also forms part of the plaint schedule in OS No.56 of 2004 and if so, to what extent are left open to be considered in the said suit OS No.56 of 2004. 14. In the plaint filed in OS No.56 of 2004 while referring to the present suit, the defendant herein has pleaded as follows: “….The plaintiff submits that the judgment and decree in OS No.65/2000 obtained by the defendants, clearly indicates that the issue regarding the title of the party was left open. The suit being one for injunction simplicitor, investigation into the title was relevant only to the extent it probablised the possession in favour of the defendants, and nothing more. The learned Judge appears to have gone into the title, incidentally, in respect of the suit schedule land, but did not take into consideration the absolute right and title of the plaintiff as against the false claim of title of the defendants. It is therefore open to the plaintiff, to file a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.’ 15. Thus, even according to the defendant, who is the plaintiff in OS No.56 of 2004, present suit being one for bare injunction, the investigation into the question of title is only incidental and the said dispute regarding title has been left open. As the suit OS No.56 of 2004 is filed by the defendant herein for comprehensive relief of declaration of title and also for recovery of possession, all aspects pertaining to the dispute relating to the title to the property would therefore arise for consideration in the said suit and hence, roving enquiry into the said issue relating to the title is not called for in the present suit. 16. The defendant questions the validity of Ex.A.4 proceedings dated 22.01.1991 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar, under which, the purchase of the suit land by the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 unregistered sale deed was validated. In Ex.A.4 it is stated that on 22.01.1991, the Managing Partner of Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., was present and his statement was recorded, wherein he stated about the sale of the land in favour of the plaintiff and delivery of possession. According to the defendant, Mr. Neol Lawrence Ignatius Mathias, Managing Director of Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., died on 28.07.1989 as can be seen from Ex.B.11 extract of Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies and therefore, the question of the said Mr. N.L.I. Mathias appearing before the Mandal Revenue Officer and giving a statement on 22.01.1991 does not arise. Ex.A.4 does not however disclose the name of the Managing Director of Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., who has given statement before the Mandal Revenue Officer on 22.01.1991. Ex.A.4 does not make any reference to Mr. N.L.I.Mathias as the Managing Director of Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., or the person, who gave statement. The defendant would further contend that the plaintiff failed to establish that the prescribed procedure for revalidation has been complied with before passing the orders under Ex.A.4 and the certificate required to be issued in the prescribed Form XIII-B under section 5-A of the ROR Act, which alone operates as title deed, is also not filed and in the absence of the certificate, the plaintiff’s claim of title over the suit land cannot be upheld. The plaintiff on the other hand would contend that issuance of the certificate is only a ministerial act consequential to the orders of the revalidation passed under Ex.A.4 and the said order, coupled with Ex.A.12 having become final, non-filing of the certificate does not defeat the claim of the plaintiff, which is otherwise established and it is not open for the defendant now to question the validity of the proceedings, having exhausted the statutory remedies, though unsuccessful. 17. In pursuance of Ex.A.4 proceedings of revalidation, the plaintiff applied for mutation, of course, with some delay and the Mandal Revenue Officer by orders Ex.A.12 dated 29.10.1999 ordered implementation of the name of PW.1 as pattedar and possessor in respect of the suit land. Ex.A.4 shows that the notice in Form Nos.XI and XII were issued fixing the date of hearing and the notices were also published and in response to the notification, no objection was received. On verification of the pahanies and on being satisfied that patta for the lands stood in the name of Biochemical & Synthetic Products Ltd., and that the land was not hit by the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act or A.P. Assigned Lands Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer has ordered revalidation of the unregistered sale deed Ex.A.1 and directed the plaintiff to remit the stamp duty and registration fee as fixed by the Registration Department. On being demanded, the plaintiff has paid the said amount vide demand notices Exs.A.7 and A.8 and challans Exs.A.9 to A.11. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for implementation of the proceedings Ex.A.4 and the Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings Ex.A.12 dated 29.10.1999 directing the name of PW.1 to be entered. In Ex.A.12 also it is reiterated that the proceedings Ex.A.4 were issued after complying with the requisite procedure and the Joint Sub Registrar has assessed the stamp duty and registration fee and the same was remitted by the plaintiff on 29.01.1998 and the Joint Registrar, confirmed about the genuineness and assessment of the challans. In Ex.A.12, it is further stated that the Deputy Tahsildar and the Additional Revenue Inspector, have inspected the land and submitted a report, after conducting local enquiry and stated that the land was kept fallow and was in possession of the plaintiff. After verifying the village records showing the name of the plaintiff as possessor, the Mandal Revenue Officer has ordered implementation of the names of the plaintiff as pattedar and possessor in respect of the suit land. 18. It is not disputed that questioning the proceedings under Ex.A.12, the defendant filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 15.10.2001 under Ex.A.23. In the said order Ex.A.23 also, it was noted that the land claimed by the defendant is different from one claimed by the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant cannot dispute the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer. It was further noted that the defendant’s name was not found in the village records either as pattedar or occupant at the time of the passing of the orders by the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of the land claimed by the plaintiff and therefore, the question of issuing notices to the defendant, who are unconcerned with the land did not arise. Aggrieved by the said order Ex.A.23, the defendant filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, under Section 9 of the Act 1971. It is not disputed that by order dated 17.08.2004, their revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. The said order was passed subsequent to filing of the present appeal. Admittedly, no further steps were taken by the appellant herein/ defendant assailing the dismissal of the revision petition and therefore, the order under Ex.A.12 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Ex.A.23 has become final. 19. Section 6 of the ROR Act, states that ‘every entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act’. The presumption contained in section 6 of the Act, therefore prima-facie operates in favour of the plaintiff. It is, however, open to the defendant to rebut the said presumption, to adduce evidence and prove the contra. 20. Thus, Ex.A.1 unregistered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A.4 proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 22.01.1991 validating the sale deed and subsequent proceedings Ex.A.12 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 29.10.1999 implementing the earlier orders and effecting mutation in the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land, would prima-facie establish the plaintiff’s claim of ownership over the suit land. As the present suit being one for bare injunction, the question of title can be gone into only incidentally, but not in a full-fledged manner, especially, when the defendant herein has subsequently filed a separate suit in OS No.56 of 2004 for comprehensive relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession and as the said suit is stated to be pending, it is open to the appellant/defendant to adduce evidence and establish his claim of title over the property, which is subject matter of OS No.56 of 2004. 21. Apart from Exs.A.1, A.4, A.12 and A.23, the plaintiff seeks to rely upon the cist receipts Exs.A.6 and A.7 and pahanies Exs.A.13 to A.19 in support of his claim of possession over the suit land. Ex.A.1 recites that possession of the land was delivered on the date of the said sale i.e., 19.06.1974. Ex.A.4 also refers to physical possession of the land with the plaintiff. Ex.A.12 further states that on local enquiry and also on verification of the village records, the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the suit land and his name was also entered as possessor. Exs.A.5 and A.6 are the land revenue receipts, showing payment of non-agricultural tax by the plaintiff for the period from 1985-86 to 1996-97. The said amounts were paid in the year 1996, which is long prior to filing of this suit. Ex.A.2 is the land revenue receipt, showing payment of land revenue by the plaintiff on 15.07.1975 for the period 1975-76 and Ex.A.3 is the land revenue receipt for 1983-84. Exs.A.13 to A.19 pahanies would show the name of the plaintiff as possessor of the suit land for the period from 1975-76 onwards. Exs.A.13 and A.14 pahanies would show that Sy.No.730 to 737 was included in the suit survey numbers also. Exs.A.15 and A.16 are in respect of Sy.Nos.733 and 737. Ex.A.17 is for Sy.Nos.733, 734, and 737. Ex.A.18 is for Sy.Nos.733, 734, 735 and Ex.A.19 is for Sy.Nos.731, 733 and 735. Ex.A.19 makes a reference to the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer in Ex.A.12. Ex.A.19 relates to 1998-99, which is also prior to filing of the suit and shows that the plaintiff was in