Chitta Shyam Sundaer vs G.Suryanarayana Murthy and Others

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J

The present appeal has been filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.177 of 2013, dated 26.06.2019, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the suit filed by the appellant No.1-plaintiff against the defendants for declaration and recovery of possession came to be dismissed.

Sole appellant died during pendency of the Appeal, Appellant Nos.2 and 3 were brought on record as his legal heirs vide order dated 11.04.2025 in IA.No.3 of 2025 in AS.No.57 of 2020.

The appellant No.1 is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit, for convenience sake, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and possessor of the Plot bearing No.82 in Survey No.7A admeasuring to an extent of 316.5 square yards situated at Sriram Nagar Colony, Patelguda Village at Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.2669/1986, dated 03.04.1986. The plaintiff’s vendor is defendant No.2, who was in possession of the property in Survey No.7A. Defendant No.2 executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy (D1) on 25.06.1984 vide registered document No.80/1984 registered in the office of SRO, Sangareddy, Medak District. Defendant No.1 has developed the land in Survey No.7A into house plots along with the other adjacent lands and named as Sriram Nagar Colony at Patelguda Village, Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District, sold the plots to different persons and the plaintiff is one of the purchasers. The plaintiff is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property without interference of any one. In the month of July, 2012, when the plaintiff visited the suit schedule property, he was surprised to see that fencing laid around his property was removed. The plaintiff received information from the Tahsildar Office that defendant No.3 is in possession of Survey Nos.7 to 10. Defendant No.3 has no right in the suit schedule property in any manner to occupy and to enter his name in the concerned records and prayed to decree the suit.

Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 remained ex parte in the suit.

Defendant No.3 filed written statement and contended that Machkuri Pedda Kistaiah was the absolute owner of Ac.0.36 guntas in Survey No.7. Pratap Reddy and another purchased the said land for valid consideration. Machkuri Narsing Rao S/o. Late Narayana was the absolute owner of land in Survey No.7/AA to an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas. The wife of defendant No.3 has purchased the same through registered sale deed, dated 19.09.2018 vide document No.2810/2001. Survey No.7/E/1 to an extent of Ac.0-18 guntas belongs to Machkuri Narayana S/o. Ramaiah, defendant No.3 has purchased the same through registered sale deed from his legal heirs. Survey No.7/E/2, to an extent of Ac.0.17 gts., belongs to Machkuri Kistaiah S/o.Ramaiah. Defendant No.3 has purchased the same under registered sale deed. Survey No.7/EE to an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas originally belongs to Machkuri Papaiah S/o. Venkaiah. Wife of defendant No.3 has purchased the same through registered sale deed. Defendant No.3 and his wife are in possession of Survey No.7/AA, 7/E/1, 7/E/2 and 7/EE since the date of their purchase. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit plot at any point of time and prayed to dismiss the suit.

The Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the vacant possession from defendant No.3?

3) To what relief?

Plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Defendant No.3 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B28.

The Trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record found that the plaintiff failed to prove his case for declaration and recovery of possession from defendant No.3 and dismissed the suit.

It is stated in the cause title of the Appeal that respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are not necessary parties to the Appeal as they were set ex parte in the suit.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 and erred in passing the order without observing the documents filed by plaintiff and purely relied on Exs.B1 to B13 which are subsequent to Ex.A1. Exs.B14 to B24 are prior to Ex.A4 and prayed to allow the Appeal.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-defendant No.3 submits that the appellant No.1-plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled for declaration and recovery of possession from defendant No.3. The learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.

Now the points for consideration in the appeal are:

1) Whether the appellant No.1-plaintiff could able to prove that he is entitled to seek a declaration and recovery of possession from defendant No.3?

2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any illegality or perversity?

Point No.1:

The case set up by the appellant No.1/plaintiff in his plaint is that defendant No.2 is an agriculturist and he was in possession of the property in Survey No.7A, he executed a GPA in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy (D1) on 25.06.1984 vide registered document No.80/1984, defendant No.1 has developed the land, converted them into house plots in Survey No.7A along with the adjacent lands and named the area as Sriram Nagar Colony at Petelguda Village, Sanga Reddy Taluk, Medak District. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under Registered Sale Deed on 03.04.1986 vide Doc.No.2669 and raised fencing in order to protect the same from the encroachers. When he visited the suit schedule property in the month of July, 2012 he was surprised to see that fencing was removed and defendant No.3 has illegally occupied his plot.

Ex.A1 is the Registered Sale Deed dated 08.05.1986 bearing Doc.No.3751 of 1986 executed by G.Surya Narayana Murthy (defendant No.1) through his G.P.A. holder P.Sadanandam (defendant No.2) in favour of one Eranki Venkata Ramana in respect of Plot No.93 in Sy.No.7 at Patelguda Village, Sanga Reddy Taluq, Medak District. Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance Certificate in respect of Plot No.82, Ex.A3 is the Market Value Certificate and Ex.A4 is the Original Mutation Certificate, dated 07.03.2003 issued by MRO, Patancheru in respect of suit schedule property.

Appellant No.1-plaintiff has not filed the suit document i.e., Registered Sale Deed dated 03.04.1986 bearing Doc.No.2669 of 1986, for the best reasons known to him.

Appellant No.1-plaintiff stated in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge whether the plot purchasers from defendant No.1 made applications to MRO with a request to survey and identify their plots, he do not know the plot numbers which are forming part of Survey Nos.7/A. Witness adds that his plot number is in Survey No.7/A along with his brothers plot, and to his remembrance there is one document i.e., Ex.A1- sale deed obtained by him to show that the suit plot is falling in Sy.No.7/A. In the year 2012 when he visited the suit plot, the boundaries stones of his plot and fencing were removed and in the month of October, 2012, there were no plot existing on site at that time, he did not specifically show the location of the suit plot in Sy.No.7/A.

Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed, dated 03.10.2002 in favour of Smt.V.Neeraja w/o. V.Madhava Reddy (Defendant No.3) vide document No.6449/2002 which goes to show that Neeraja has purchased agricultural land in Survey No.7/ఈ, admeasuring Ac.0.36 gts., from its earlier owner and possessor i.e., Machkuri Papaiah s/o.Venkaiah. Ex.B2 is another sale deed executed by (1) Machkuri Narayana s/o.Veeranna (2) Machkuri Narsinga Rao s/o.Narayana in favour of V.Neeraja w/o.Madhava Reddy (D3) in Survey No.7/ఆ, admeasuring Ac.0.36 gts., through registered sale deed, dated 17.05.2001 vide document No.2810/2001. Ex.B3 is the original registered sale deed executed by M.Ramulu and two others in favour of V.Madhava Reddy (D3) vide document No.14558/2007, dated 12.07.2007, admeasuring Ac.0.9 gts., in Survey No.7/ఇ/1; Ac.0.09 gts., in Survey No.7/ఇ; Ac.0.17 gts., in Survey No.7/ఇ/2, in total admeasuring Ac.0.35 gts. Ex.B4 is the Ratification Deed dated 07.05.2013 for Ex.B2 document where under four other parties have joined the sale deed and executed the document. Exs.B5 and B6 are the registered sale deeds in respect of Sy.No.8. Ex.B7 is the registered sale deed in respect of Sy.No.10, Exs.B8 and B9 are Ratification Deeds. Ex.B10 is the Registered Sale Deed in respect of Sy.No.10 and Ex.B11 is the ratification deed. Ex.B12 is the RDO proceedings, dated 30.11.2012 for conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose in respect of Sy.No.8 admeasuring Acs.03-14 gts., Ex.B13 is the RDO proceedings, dated 28.10.2013 for conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose in respect of Sy.Nos.7/AA (0-36), 7/EE (0-36) admeasuring Ac.01-32 gts.

Exs.B14 to B24 are the Pahanies from 1983 till 2012, which goes to show that the suit schedule survey number is in the name of Machkuri’s family as pattadars and possessors till the name of defendant No.3 is recorded. The name of the plaintiff’s vendor is neither shown nor recorded in the pahanies. Ex.B25 is the Layout Map approved by Grampanchayath through proceeding No.GC/94, dated 25.01.2007. Ex.B26 is the Layout Map approved by Grampanchayath through proceeding, dated 22.12.2012. Ex.B27 is the Copy of Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.B28 is the Proceedings vide Lr.No.B/5654/2013, dated 23.01.2014 of Revenue Department.

The evidence of DW.1 (defendant No.3) is the replica of his written statement. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that the Land Grabbing Court has passed an order not to create any third party interest in respect of schedule plots on 19.11.2013.

As the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession against defendant No.3, the burden lies on him to prove the same.

The Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira AIR 1959 SC 31 observed that :

“20. … in a suit [for declaration] if the plaintiffs are to succeed they must do so on the strength of their own title.”

In Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh (1995) 3 SCC 426, the Supreme Court has observed that:

“ The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff-respondent. … In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit.”

In Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269, the Supreme Court has observed that:

“In a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. 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. Even if the title set up by the defendants is found against them, in the absence of establishment of the plaintiff's own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited”.

The plaintiff has relied on Exs.A1 to A4 documents as stated supra at Para No.16, he has not filed his title document, failed to examine the GPA holder or the owner of the property (Defendant No.1), so also he failed to examine any of the witnesses or produced any document to show that the vendor of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property. In the absence of any evidence or material from the plaintiff’s side, it is hard to believe that defendant No.3 has occupied the suit schedule property. Plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled for a declaration and recovery of possession from defendant No.3. Hence, point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

In view of the reasons in point No.1, I hold that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, point is answered accordingly.

In the result, Appeal is dismissed without costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, are closed.