Case: Rutta Pedda Narasareddy &amp; Others Vs. Sughra Begum &amp; Others

1. The plaintiff and the 11th defendant purchased under the sale deed (Exhibit1 about 200 acres of land in Jagdeopur village in Siddipet taluq of Medak District and about 450 acres of land in Gandamalla in Bhongir taluq of Nalgonda District for a sum of Rs.. According to the plaintiff she borrowed Rs. 3,000/from the 11th defendant to enable her to make the purchase and the name of the 11th defendant was included in the sale deed in order to provide security for the amount so advanced by the 11th defendant. There was a oral agreement to that effect prior to the sale and this was reduced to writing under Exhibite amount due to the 11th defendant was repaid in 1944 and she was entitled to all the lands. Defendants 110 dispossessed the plaintiff of the suit lands during the disturbances preceding the Police Action in the old Hyderabad State in 1948.

Reasoning: 3. We think it hardly necessary to refer at length to the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the 11th defendant was not in possession of the suit lands but that only the plaintiff was in possession throughoutWe agree with their concurrent finding on this point4. As regards the lands in Gandamalla village, in view of the other findings already given above, the defendants case rests only upon Exhibit. The question of its genuineness was not seriously argued. The High Court has pointed out that interpolations and corrections have been made in Exhibit, the Permanent Register, for obtaining Exhibit. It has elaborately discussed the question of genuineness of Ex.0 and come to the conclusion that they have been brought into existence to support the case of the defendants. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that right or wrong since Ex.0 had been obtained, no Civil Court could question it. We agree with the High Court that when once Ex.0 is held to be not a genuine document at all there is no question of any rights that could be claimed on the basis of that document; nor could the jurisdiction of the Civil Court be shut out on the basis of a spurious document. We have dealt with the only two points argued.