Talari Venkatarayappa and Others vs Madumuri Venkataramana and Others

Eswara Prasad, J.—Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 105/88 on the file of the District Munsif, Tamballapalli, filed for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of the suit lands.

They also filed an application for a temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. The said application was dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioners in CMA No. 35/90 was also dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Madanapalli. The petitioners are assailing the said order in this revision.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the Courts below failed to consider the documents filed by the petitioners and arrived at erroneous conclusions regarding prima facie case of title and'' possession. He submitted that the petitioners derived title to the suit lands under registered sale deeds executed in their favour in the year 1962, that it was for the respondents to establish as to how they claim possession of the suit lands, and that the burden of proof lay on the respondents. It was further contended that the alienations made in favour of the petitioners were valid, as they are small farmers and that the. alienations were not hit by the provisions of Act 9 of 1977.

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the alienations in favour of the petitioners were prima facie invalid, as rightly held by both the courts below. He further contended that the courts below relied on documentary evidence in arriving the conclusion that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit lands and hence the petition for injunction was rightly dismissed.

Both the courts below have concurrently found that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in Exs. A-1 to A-3 are invalid, that the petitioners have failed to aver or prove that they were landless poor persons in order to substantiate their contention that the transactions in their favour, are not hit by Act 9 Of 1977. Both the Courts have concurrently found that Ex.A-4 cist receipt-does not held the petitioners to prove that they are in possession of the suit lands, and that the petitioners have not filed any cist receipts, evidencing their possession of the suit lands from the year 1962 onwards.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the cist receipts were filed before the Sub-Collector, Madanapalli, and that the cist receipts should have been summoned from the Sub-Collector, is of no avail to them. The petitioners could have taken steps for summoning the cist receipts from the Sub-Collector by pressing for orders on the applications said to have been filed by them in that regard. Having failed to do so, the petitioners cannot now complain that they had no sufficient opportunity to produce the cist receipts.

It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was for the respondents to prove that they are in possession of the suit lands, when the petitioners derived title as long ago as in the year 1962 and he relied on Section 103 of the Evidence Act, in support of the said contention. It is for the petitioners to establish prima facie, that they were in possession of the lands on the date of suit. Having failed to do so, they cannot complain that the respondents failed to prove their possession. It is for the petitioners, who were plaintiffs in the suit, to establish that they were in possession of the lands on the date of suit.

The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Osmania University rep. by Registrar vs. Dr. V.Rajeshwara Rao, 1989 (2) APLJ 273 and contended that this Court can interfere with the order of the Court below, u/s 115(c) of CPC, that the lower court failed to take into consideration the crucial documents and their legal effect on the question of possession. In the present case, the courts below have rightly found, prima facie, that the title of the petitioners is not valid. When that was so, the possession of the petitioners cannot be presumed. The courts below have referred to the relevant documents relating to possession and found that the petitioners have failed to establish their possession on the date of suit. When there is no defect in the approach of the Courts below, there is no warrant for interference u/s 115(c) of CPC.

It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision of the Civil Courts, though prima facie, at the interlocutory stage, may influence the Revenue authorities before whom the issue is pending. The apprehension of the learned counsel is not well founded. It is well settled that any observations made by the courts at the interlocutory stage, are only confined to proceedings at that stage and there is no binding effect on any future proceedings or in the proceedings before any other authorities. Any observations made by the courts below or by this court in respect of title or possession of the parties, will not be taken into account either during the trial or during the proceedings before the Revenue authorities.

I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below on a consideration of the material before them. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.