IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4840 of 2008 BETWEEN: Smt Polavarapu Srivani … PETITIONER(S) And Sri Vemuri Appa Rao and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHAKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4840 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner, a lady, in this revision is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.272 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Gannavaram (trial Court). 2. She brought the said suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short Act) for recovery of possession of an extent of Ac.1-78cts (suit land) of agricultural land in Sy.No.597/2 situate in Vedurupavuluru village of Mustabada panchayat from original defendants 1 and 2 on the plea that they dispossessed her from the said suit land on 17.07.1998 i.e. within six months prior to the said suit. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 are admittedly the maternal uncles of the plaintiff. The third defendant who is a third party got impleaded by his application i.e. I.A.No.986 of 2001 to the said suit which was ordered by the trial Court on 13.02.2002. All the three defendants contested the suit. 4. The trial Court after considering the respective cases of the parties and the evidence let in by them dismissed the said suit by its judgment and decree dated 27.01.2006. As no appeal lies against the trial Court judgment under Section 6 of the Act, the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner came up with this revision questioning the said judgment and decree. As the trial Court discussed the matter at length and both sides also repeated the same contentions which were advanced before the trial Court it has become necessary to consider the cases of both sides and the findings given by the trial Court in detail. 5. The plaintiff’s mother Smt Lella Samrajyam who is the sister of defendants 1 and 2 died intestate on 17.11.1996. The plaintiff’s case is that her mother got the suit land under a registered Will dated 08.04.1992 of her maternal grand mother late Smt Nagendramma who died on 02.02.1993 and that earlier her mother (Samrajyam) was in possession of the suit land and that after her death she got possession of the suit land and her case is that defendants 1 and 2 (plaintiff’s maternal uncles and brothers of her mother) forcibly dispossessed her from the suit land on17.07.1998 and therefore she has been constrained to bring the suit. 6. The first defendant filed written statement and the second defendant adopted the same. The third defendant after having been impleaded filed separate written statement. Their common stand in substance is that the suit land originally belongs to the father of the third defendant and that it did not belong to the grandmother Nagendramma of the plaintiff. It is also their case that the first defendant has been cultivating it as a lessee of the third defendant or his father since 1986 and that plaintiff or her mother or her maternal grandmother were never in possession of it. 7. The plaintiff in support of her case herself gave evidence as P.W1 and she also examined P.Ws.2 to 8 and filed eight (8) documents which are Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendants the first defendant gave evidence as D.W1, the third defendant gave evidence as D.W3 and further they examined D.Ws.2 and 4 and filed Exs.B1 and B2 which are the pattedar passbook and title deed respectively of the third defendant. 8. It transpires from the evidence that plaintiff’s grandmother Nagendramma earlier filed a suit i.e. O.S.No.39 of 1977 in the trial Court for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11.12.1973 against the third defendant’s father and others in respect of the suit land and obtained a decree claiming its possession. The contention of the defendants is that Nagendramma never paid the balance sale consideration ordered to be paid as per the said decree i.e. marked as Ex.A8 to the vendors and therefore she was never in possession of the suit land and therefore the question of plaintiff’s mother and after her the plaintiff acquiring its possession does not arise. 9. The trial Court accepted the above case of the third defendant though title issue need not be gone into in a suit under Section 6 of the Act. However with regard to the possession also the trial Court discussed about Exs.A4 to A7 cist receipts filed by her and concluded that they are not helpful to her as they do not contain the survey number of the suit land. There is no reason to disturb the above conclusions of the trial Court as contended by the learned counsel for defendants (respondents in this CRP). The other documents namely Ex.A1 is said to be the Registered Will of Nagendramma, and Exs.A2 and A3 are said to be the death Certificates of Nagendramma and Samrajyam who are said to be the grandmother and mother of the plaintiff and they do not help the plaintiff to uphold her possession. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.39 of 1977 i.e. the specific performance suit referred to supra and they are also not helpful to the plaintiff. 10. Regarding possession, it is the version of the plaintiff that her mother died on 17.11.1996 and she came into possession on that date and that she was dispossessed from the suit land on 17.07.1998. The plaintiff did not file any cultivation account or any other document to show that her grandmother and her mother were in possession of the suit land earlier and that she was in possession from 17.11.1996 i.e. from the date of death of her mother to 17.07.1998. On the other hand basing upon Exs.B1 and B2 i.e. pattedar passbook and title deed of the third defendant, the trial Court upheld the case of the defendants. The trial Court discussed the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 8 elaborately and concluded that their evidence cannot improve the case of the plaintiff who is said to be staying at Vijayawada. 11. It should be mentioned here that the plaintiff also filed another suit O.S.No.310 of 1998 in the trial Court under Section 6 of the Act seeking recovery of possession of one item of agricultural land and another item which is house property from defendants 1 and 2 herein. In that suit the plaintiff claimed that both the items therein belonged to her maternal grandfather and he bequeathed the said items to her under two registered Wills, one dated 06-02-1997 and 25-07-1997. She also pleaded that her maternal grandfather died on 26-04-1998 and she got possession of the said properties after his death. 12. In that suit she pleaded that she was dispossessed from the above two items on 19-07-1998 and 21-07-1998. In the present suit she says that she has been dispossessed from the present suit property on 17-07-1998 i.e., two days prior to 19-07-1998 and this dispossession on 19-07-1998 is found to be not acceptable on evidence in this matter as held by the trial Court. It appears that this suit and also the other suit mentioned supra are the result of internecine quarrel between the parties who are close relatives. She however succeeded in the other suit in the trial Court. Defendants therein filed C.R.P.No.6518 of 2005 against that judgment. That is allowed today by a separate order. Both that C.R.P. and this C.R.P. have been heard at the request of counsel and have been taken up for disposal separately. 13. Now coming to the present matter, it may be noted that in a revision this Court will interfere with the judgment of the trial Court in a case like this only where it is found to be patently erroneous on the evidence or suffers from any lack of jurisdiction or the exercise of a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. Added to this the question of title need not be gone into at all in a suit falling under Section 6 of the Act and the only criteria is to see whether the plaintiff is able to establish that she was in possession of the land/property within six months prior to the date of the suit. The trial Court discussed the evidence and concluded that the plaintiff must be held to have failed to establish her possession. The trial Court discussed all the aspects as mentioned supra and concluded against the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s counsel has not been able to show any defect in the trial Court judgment which calls for interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly it follows that this revision must fail and the same is dismissed with costs. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J 22nd February, 2011 CVRK