M. Purnachander Rao vs Sri Nawab Mazaharuddin Khan (D) Thr. ...

3) According to the appellant, he purchased an extent of 4 acres of agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 46 of Raidurg Paigah Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh under a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1996. The appellant's title flows from Sri Mala Ramulu and others who have purchased land under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1962 from Sri Waliullah Hussaini. The said Sri Waliullah Hussaini derives title from his father Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini was given four villages by the then Paigah under the Nizam Rule somewhere in the beginning of the century. The said Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini, who was the estate holder, died in the year 1923. He was survived by his wife, three sons and four daughters. After his death, the Court of Wards (Revenue Department), constituted under the Hyderabad District Court of Wards Act, took custody of the property of Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. The Court of Wards will take custody of the property only if it is a private property. The land in Patta Raidurg was also taken over by the Court of Wards after the death of Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. In 1925, there was a compromise between the legal heirs of late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. The properties located in Yenkapally Maqta and Patta Raidurg were allotted to Sri Waliullah Hussaini and other sisters and brothers and Maqta Karimnagar was allotted to other members of the family. After the compromise, the other shareholders sold away their rights in favour of Waliullah Hussaini and two minors, namely, Sri Syed Akbar Nizamuddin and Sri Syed Aminuddin Hussaini, under registered sale deeds.

5) It is the further case of the appellant that he is a bona fide purchaser of land to an extent of 4 acres in Survey No. 46 of village Raidurg Paigah District Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed in the year 1996. The Civil Suit was filed on the original side jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.S. No. 7 of 1958. The suit was filed by the legal heirs who are the sharers of the property belonging to the estate as "Asmanja Paigah". A preliminary decree was passed on 06.4.1959 and in the list of properties shown in "A" Schedule to the preliminary decree, Item No. 234 is shown as Raidurg and in the preliminary decree item Nos. 230 to 254 have been excluded since the properties were under enquiry with the Board of Revenue as to the title and claim. Item No.234 shown as Raidurg is also excluded from the distribution in the preliminary decree. The legal representatives in the year 2002, after a lapse of 43 years, filed applications bearing Nos. 1144 to 1147 of 2002 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 claiming (1) recognition of the Assignments in favour of respondent Nos. 21 to 40; (2) implead the respondents (assignees) as respondents; (3) direct the Collector, R.D.O., M.R.O., to mutate the names of the Assignees in the Revenue Records pertaining to Survey Nos. 37, 39 to 43 and 45 to 49 in all admeasuring 143 acres 11 guntas of land situated in Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District and (4) direct the District Judge, Ranga Reddy to deliver possession of the above land to the Assignees. Without any enquiry, the learned single Judge, by order dated 09.10.2002, contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and other enactments like the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Registration and Stamps Act, Hyderabad Land Revenue Act etc., allowed those applications. The State Government which was a party in the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959 was not made a party in the abovementioned applications filed in the year 2002. Thereafter another application was filed bearing No. 1409 of 2003 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 for passing final decree and the same was allowed on 26.12.2003.

10) In the light of the above discussion, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and dismiss the above appeal. However, the appellant is at liberty to initiate separate proceedings before the appropriate Court to vindicate his grievance for which we express no opinion. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.