Chethula Mallaiah vs Thalluri Dharma Rao

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.294 of 2018 in O.S.No.304 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam.

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.

O.S.No.304 of 2018 is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the proceedings the plaintiff filed I.A.No.294 of 2018 in the suit seeking for temporary injunction. The trial Court observed that the Tahsildar, Sujathanagar, physically verified the suit schedule property and found that respondents-defendants are in possession of the property. The trial Court further observed that on verification of the records and also deposition of the Tahsildar including the report, it is revealed that the petitioner-plaintiff is not in possession of the property and as such the trial Court held there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff would contend that his client filed Mee Seva Pahanie before the trial Court, which proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Learned counsel would further argue that the trial Court ought not to have called for the report of the Tahsildar with regard to the status of the suit property and no notice was issued to the petitioner at the time of conducting enquiry by the Tahsildar and it is against to the principles of natural justice and hence the report of the Tahsildar, which was submitted behind the back of the petitioner, cannot be considered and it also amounts to collection of evidence. Learned counsel would also submit that the matter has to be decided only basing on the material produced by both the parties to the lis, but not by way of collecting evidence and it is prohibited. Learned counsel would also assert that e-patta pass book was cancelled, though the order of cancellation of e-patta pass book was under suspension in I.A.No.12 of 2018 in W.P.No.27345 of 2019 dated 10.12.2019.

Perusal of the order under revision would reflect that the plaintiff argued that he is the pattadar and possessor of dry land in an extent of Ac.5.34 guntas in Sy.No.298 situated at Singabhupalem Village, Sujathanagar Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, and that the Revenue Department issued pattadar pass book and title deed with Khata No.328 and pass book No.T27210010156. As per the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2017 the petitioner-plaintiff is the pattadar and was in occupation of the land and that he raised cotton and green gram crop and the setwar of the land stands in the name of his mother. As the mother of the plaintiff died, he applied to the revenue department for incorporation of his name as pattadar and accordingly his name was mutated and the defendants are no way concerned with the land. The defendants got false entries in the pahanies by managing the revenue authorities and that the defendants have no right over the suit schedule property. The defendants submitted that the schedule property originally belongs to Thalluri Kasaiah father of the first defendant and father-in-law of the second defendant and he is in possession of the suit property more than seventy years. After the death of Kasaiah, the property was succeeded by his sons – Thalluri Dharma Rao and Thalluri Venkateswara Rao, the defendants herein.

The trial Court without considering the documents filed by both the parties and totally relying upon by the report of the Tahsildar, which is un-called for, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff and that the Tahsildar has not conducted enquiry before both the parties. Therefore, the report of the Tahsildar cannot be considered for arriving to the conclusion that who is in possession of the land and it clearly amounts to collection of evidence, which is prohibited. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is patently illegal and is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. However, the status quo granted by the trial Court shall be continued till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed in the light of this final order.