HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.924 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs in O.S.No.126 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Kurnool, are the appellants herein. 2. The suit was one filed for declaration of 1/4th share of the plaintiffs in suit schedule property and for possession. 3. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the suit land was originally Panchapalavati Dhobi Service Inam land granted to the plaintiffs’ father, defendant No.1’s father and some others and they were enjoying the property by doing service. After the abolition of the Inams, a Ryotwari patta was granted by the revenue authorities granting 1/4th share to the plaintiffs’ father and others. The plaintiffs’ father was Chakali Chinna Naganna, who is also known as Venkata Swamy and Naganna. The original inamdars are (1) Chakali Sunkanna @ Pedda Naganna @ Chapalanna (2) Venkatamma W/o. Linganna, (3) Naganna @ Chinna Naganna @ Venkateswar and (4) Kallur Maddileti. The father of 1st defendant Hussainappa was substituted in the place of Linganna and the father of 2nd defendant Venkatanna was substituted in the place of Kallur Maddileti even though they are not the legal representatives. The plaintiffs’ father was a Peon in the Taluk Office and they have no personal cultivation and the defendants, who are close relatives, were cultivating on his behalf and continued till 1985 by giving share. The plaintiffs’ mother was the elder sister of the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant’s mother was plaintiff’s father’s sister. The wife of the 2nd defendant is the plaintiffs’ mother’s sister’s daughter. The plaintiffs have demanded the defendants for partition of the properties and deliver 1/4th share and for profits, but the defendants failed to do so and hence the suit. 4. The 1st and 2nd defendants filed a written statement contending that the land was an inam land but the claim of the plaintiffs that a Ryotwari patta was given to their father and that they are entitled for 1/4th share is disputed. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs have suppressed the truth and twisted the allegations to suit their unjust claim. The real facts are that the suit land is an inam land, which was in possession and enjoyment of these defendants’ fathers and uncles and after abolishing the Inams Ryotwari patta for the plaint schedule land the same was granted in favour of the defendants’ fathers and their brothers i.e., Chakali Hussaini, Sunkanna, Naganna and Venkanna. But, the plaintiffs are wrongly claiming that one of the Ryotwari Pattadars viz., Naganna is their father. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 submit that plaintiffs’ father is “Chinna Naganna” but not “Naganna”. Hence plaintiffs’ father was never an inamdar in regard to plaint schedule land much less a joint Pattadar in regard to the said land. The plaintiffs’ father was never in joint possession of the plaint schedule land along with the defendants’ fathers and hence he had no joint 1/4th share in the plaint schedule land. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father were at any time in possession or joint possession of the plaint schedule land and the said land has been in exclusive, continuous possession and enjoyment of these defendants and their fathers alone in their own right. The plaintiffs are not entitled to 1/4th share or any share in the plaint schedule land and the suit is barred by time. There is no cause of action and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. The 4th defendant filed a written statement contending that the ryotwari patta for the Sy.No.263/1 measuring Acs.5.08 cents was grnated in favour of four brothers viz., Hussainaiah, Venkanna, Naganna and Sunkanna. Sunkanna and Naganna died issueless. Defendant No.1 is the son of Hussaianaiah and the 2nd defendant is the son of Venkanna. The fathers of the defendants were inamdars and after abolition of the inam, patta was granted to them. As the legal heirs of the pattadars, the defendants have been in enjoyment and possession of the land in question from the beginning. The father of the plaintiffs is nothing to do with the patta granted to the ancestors of defendants Nos.1 and 2. He was also not an inamdar of Sy.No.263/1. He was never in possession of the said land. The plaintiffs are also not having title or interest in the suit land. At no time they were in possession either constructive or actual. The suit was initiated at the instance of 4th plaintiff. 6. The 8th defendant filed a written statement contending that he is not a necessary party to the suit and defendants Nos.6 to 12 were also not necessary parties to the suit. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following necessary issues have been framed by the trial Court, for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiffs are sons of Chinna Naganna alias Venkata Swamy? 2) Whether Ryotwari patta was grnated in favour of plaintiffs father, defndnats father and some others are pleaded by plaintiffs? 3) Whether the plaintiffs and their father allowed the defendants fathers for cultivating the plaint schedule land and receiving their share of produce till, 1985? 4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property as prayed for? 5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 6) To what relief? 8. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.29. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1, who is defendant No.2, was examined and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.12. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 9. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the father of the plaintiffs has got any share in the schedule properties? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the partition and separate possession of the properties? 10. POINTS: The claim of the plaintiffs is basically on the ground that the suit schedule property was a service inam property and it belonged to his father and others and a Ryotwari patta was said to have been granted in the year, 1954 in the name of his father and others. The land in dispute is evidently in Sy.No.263/1. On the other hand, the defendants contend that the father of the plaintiffs was not at all an inamdar and no patta was granted to him and on the other hand, the property was granted in the name of father of defendants Nos.1 and 2 and his brothers viz., Hussainaiah, Venkanna, Naganna and Sunkanna. Sunkanna and Naganna died issueless and the 1st defendant is the son of Hussainaiah and the 2nd defendant is the son of Venkanna. Therefore, they became entitled to the property. The claim of the plaintiffs is based on the fact that the name of Naganna was shown as a pattadar and their father is therefore person entitled to the patta as mentioned in Ex.A.1 and therefore, they have succeeded to his right. 11. In order to substantiate this issue, evidently, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that the person, who was refered as Naganna in the patta Ex.A.1 is their father. Evidently, in the original plaint, the particulars of the pattadars were not mentioned and in the amended plaint the names of four persons as pattadars were mentioned and the father of the 1st defendant was said to have been substituted in the place of Linganna and the 2nd defendant’s father was substituted in the name Kallur Maddileti. This is a developed pleading after filing of the suit. Therefore, the relationship between the parties and the fact that the father of the plaintiffs or his ancestors were inamdars and cultivated the land by doing any service have to be proved by the plaintiffs. 12. When a dispute about the relationship is in issue, naturally it is for the plaintiffs to prove the said relationship. Such a relationship can be proved only by examining the family members or the relatives. But, in this case, except interested evidence of PWs.1 and 2, there is no other evidence. So also to prove as to who were the original inamdars and as to how the names of defendants Nos.1 and 2 were substituted, there is no evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiffs. Merely because with reference to the land in Sy.No.284/2, an agreement of sale was said to have been set up by the defendants and executed by the plaintiffs, it does not mean that their title to Sy.No.263/1 is also true by relying upon Ex.A.1 or Ex.A.2. So also Ex.A.12 certificate, which is said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot be taken into consideration since the father of the plaintiffs was employed in revenue as Peon and such certificate can easily be obtained. As such, the above document has to be excluded. Merely because the plaintiffs’ father is Naganna is does not mean that the person, who was referred in Exs.A.1 and A.2, is the same person. It has to be proved that there was a grant and service was rendered and patta was granted. As can be seen from the record and the evidence on record, there are several persons by name Naganna and therefore, it is necessary that the relationship has to be established. So also, reliance is placed on Ex.A.29, which is a Mortgage deed said to have been executed by paternal grandfather of defendants Nos.1 and 2 and it reveals that he has got three sons by name Hussainaiah, father of defendant No.1, Kesanna and Venkanna, father of defendant No.2. But the name of Naganna is said to be not found and therefore, the contention has been raised that Naganna referred to in Exs.A.1 and Ex.A.2 is not the brother of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. I think this is an argument, which cannot be accepted. The reasons as to why he did not join in execution of the said document may be different. By that time, he may be minor or may not be available. The non-inclusion of the schedule property is also of no avail to prove the case of the plaintiffs. Even though for a moment Exs.B.4 to B.11 are to be excluded as being obtained during the pendency of the suit, it does not establish the case of the plaintiffs unless and until they show that Naganna and their father was the same person, who was referred in Ex.A.1 or Ex.A.2. There is also no evidence to support the claim of the plaintiffs that at the instance of their mother the names of fathers of defendants Nos.1 and 2 were added. So also Exs.A.13, A.14, A.18 and A.19 have no relevancy as it does not relate to the suit land 263/1. In fact, there is no evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiffs to show independently by any other witness that their father cultivated the land or the predecessor of his father cultivated the land. 13. In fact, no document from the service of the plaintiffs’ father was filed to show that he was also called as Naganna alias Venkata Swamy alias Chinna Naganna, which is now sought to be canvassed. When he is in employment of the Government, if there are any such names they would have been definitely mentioned. It is interested to note that during the pendency of the suit, affidavit has been given by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 to the effect that their father had no interest in the suit survey number and he was not granted any patta and one such affidavit is marked as Ex.B.1 belonging to 3rd plaintiff. The 3rd plaintiff was examined as PW.2 and according to him defendant Nos.3 and 4 obtained the signature promising to give him, share in the schedule property and that Ex.B.1 is not a correct one. It is also in the evidence of PW.2 that after filing of the suit, the 1st plaintiff entered into a compromise with defendants Nos.3 and 4 and the suit was dismissed against them. In fact, when the pattadar passbook was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 1986, the certificate said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.A.12 can have no evidentiary value. The revenue records continuously shows defendants 1 and 2 are the persons entitled for the land. Therefore, the lower Court after consideration of the material evidence on record, came to the right conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that their father was the pattadar as mentioned in Exs.A.1 and A.2 and consequently, the suit has been rightly dismissed and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Accordingly, the points are answered. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:06.09.2011 INL