Union Of India & Ors vs Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors

1. The Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., the first respondent herein instituted a suit No.794 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration of title over land comprising 6 acres 30 guntas in Survey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village and recovery of the vacant possession from Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, the appellants herein, after removal of the structure made therein by them. The plaintiff has also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the above-mentioned land and also for other consequential refliefs. The City Civil Court vide its judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed the suit, as prayed for, against which the appellants preferred C.C.C.A. No.123 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 6.9.2002, but noticed that the appellant had made large scale construction of quarters for the Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be given to the appellants to provide alternative suitable extent of land in lieu of the scheduled suit land, for which eight months’ time was granted from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and others have filed the present appeal. FACTS

4. The Plaintiffs, as already stated, had entered into various sale deeds with Rama Reddy during the year 1981-82 by which land measuring 13 acres and 08 guntas in Survey No.60, 11 acres and 04 guntas in Survey No.61 and 17 acres and 20 guntas in Survey No.62 were purchased, that is in all 41 acres and 32 guntas. Plaintiffs further stated that the land, which was purchased by it was vacant, but persons of the Defence Department started making some marking on the portions of the land purchased by the plaintiff, stating that a substantial portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff in Survey No.60/1 and 61 belonged to the Defence Department and treated as B-4 in their records. Plaintiff then preferred an application dated 12.09.1983 to the District Collector under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act for demarcation of boundaries. Following that, Deputy Director of Survey issued a notice dated 21.01.1984 calling upon the plaintiff and 3rd Defendant to attend to the demarcation on 25.01.1984. Later, a joint survey was conducted. The 3rd Defendant stated that land to the extent of 4 acres and 35 guntas in Survey No.60 and 61 corresponds to their G.L.R. (General Land Register) No.445 and it is their land as per the record. The Deputy Director of Survey, however, stated that lands in Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Kakaguda village are patta lands as per the settlement records and vacant, abutting Tirumalagiri village boundaries to Military Pillers and not partly covered in Survey No.60. Plaintiff later filed an application for issuing of a certificate as per the plan prepared by the Revenue Records under Section 19(v) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Plaintiff further stated that pending that application, officers of Garrison Engineers, on the direction of the 3rd Defendant, illegally occupied land measuring 2 acres and 29 guntas in Survey No.60 and 4 acres and 01 guntas in Survey No.61. Thus, a total extent of land 6 acres and 30 guntas was encroached upon and construction was effected despite the protest by the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff preferred the present suit, the details of which have already been stated earlier.

15. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.

23. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his title and possession of the suit land in question. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment of the trial court, affirmed by the High Court, is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.