THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CMA Nos.1100 & 1083_of 2009 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: Goda Hanmantha Rao, Hyderabad and others. Appellants/Plaintiffs. And Jakkidi Vital Reddy, Medak and others. Respondnets/Defendants. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CMA Nos.1100 & 1083_of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the orders passed being I.A Nos.634 & 635 of 2008 in O.S.No.94 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak District. 2. Back ground facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by the petitioners are:- 3. One Goda Veeraiah @ Goda Veeramallaiah was the owner of Acs.12-02 Guntas, comprising Survey Nos.205, 337, 338, 339 and 340. He purchased the said lands under a registered sale deed in the year 1946. He died on 6.5.1980. The appellants/plaintiffs claim that they are the legal representatives of the Goda Veeramallaiah. They filed the suit being O.S.No.94 of 2008 against the respondents herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession and rectification of revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is their contention that their father never sold the property to Tirumal Reddy and Gopal Reddy. They also filed two interlocutary applications being I.A.Nos.634 & 635 of 2008 seeking injunction against the defendants not to alienate and also not to change the physical features of the property. The respondents/defendants filed counter resisting the application. It is the plea of the respondents/defendants that they purchased the property from Goda Veeramallaiah under a sale deed dated 11.4.1960 for Rs.4,800/- and got the sale deed validated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). They also pleaded that Goda Veeramallaiah delivered possession of the land to Tirumal Reddy and Gopal Reddy on the date of the sale deed and since then they continued to be in possession and after the death of Tirumal Reddy and Gopal Reddy, they are in occupation and possession of the suit lands being their legal representatives. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs marked 20 documents as Exs.A1 to A20 and whereas the defendants marked 64 documents as Exs.B1 to B64 in support of their respective contentions. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss both the applications by order dated 13.8.2009. The said orders are assailed in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. More precisely CMA No.1083 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 13.8.2009 passed in I.A.No.634 of 2008 in O.S.No.94 of 2008 and where as C.M.A.No.1100 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 13.8.2009 passed in I.A.No.635 of 2008 in O.S.No.94 of 2008. 5. The respondents 1 to 3 filed caveat and received notice in the appeal. Notice to R4 & R5 stated to be not necessary. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the father of the appellants/plaintiffs died on 6.5.1980 and the appellants/plaintiffs, being the legal representatives succeeded to the suit schedule properties. A further submission has made by the learned counsel that the defendants kept the appellants/plaintiffs in dark with regard to the proceedings initiated before the revenue authorities in respect of mutation of their names in the revenue records and these proceedings do not bind the appellants/plaintiffs. The learned counsel would contend that the appellants/plaintiffs came to know of the proceedings secured by the respondents/defendants in their favour, only in the year 2007, when the respondents/defendants started digging in the suit schedule property. He vehemently contends that the appellants/plaintiffs were not put on notice while mutation of the lands being affected in favour of the respondents/defendants by the revenue authorities. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in A. Sarojamma and another v. A.Parvath Reddy (died) rep.by his L.Rs and others[1], wherein it is held that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no power to adjudicate a dispute between parties in respect of a property and make declaration about rights of the parties while validating the document in relation thereto. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that Tirumal Reddy and Gopal Reddy purchased the property from Goda Veeramallaiah under a sale deed dated 11.4.1960 and subsequently, sale deed has been validated by invoking the provisions of the Act. A further submission has made that since the proceedings have been issued by the competent authority, till they are set aside, the validity or otherwise of said proceedings cannot be gone into in the suit. He would also laid much emphasis on the relevant portion of the recitals in the sale deed dated 11.4.1960, which reads as hereunder:- “I have sold the said lands in your favour on today for a sale consideration of Rs.48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Hundred Only) in Indian Currency. Out of the said amount of sale consideration, I have till this day received a sum of Rs.3800.00 (Rupees Thirty Eight Hundred Only) for which I have executed receipts separately in your favour. Therefore, from today onwards, you shall hold and enjoy the said lands. At the time of registration of Sale Deed, you shall make payment of the balance amount of sale consideration. I shall reimburse to you the expenditure of Rs.100.00 in connection with getting permission for sale.” By referring the sale deed, the learned counsel would contend that, if at all there is any amount due towards in the sale consideration, Goda Veera Mallaiah ought to have filed a suit for recovery of such balance sale consideration. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the parties. Indisputably, the Tirumal Reddy and Gopal Reddy initiated proceedings before the revenue authorities for mutation of the suit lands in their names basing on the sale deed dated 11.4.1960 and ultimately proceedings ended in their favour in 1994. The appellants/plaintiffs sought for the relief of declaration of title and the recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. They also sought for the relief of setting the entries effected in favour of the respondents in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents/defendants claim possession of the property since the year 1960. The appellants/plaintiffs resorted to filing a suit nearly after three decades of the alleged sale deed executed by Goda Veeraiah @ Goda Veeramalliah. In that view of the matter, the only relief at the most the appellant/plaintiff deserve is that in the event any sale of the suit schedule property by the respondents/defendants, they (defendants) must indicate in the sale deed as to the pendency of the suit proceedings and the sale is subject to the outcome of the suit proceedings. 11. Accordingly, these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the Trial Court or by this Court. No costs. _________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:29.12.2009 mrb [1] 2008 (4) ALT 431.