NAME RAMA MURTHY Vs. RAVULA SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs 1 to 9 filed a suit against defendants 1 to 8 for declaration and injunction. The claim of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 was that they along with defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of land in survey No.4 and 5/2 measuring Ac.31.16 guntas situated at Village Rayadurg Panamaktha, Hyderabad west taluq now in Serilingamapally Municipality, Rangareddy District with the owners and pattedars of the said survey numbers under an agreement of sale dated 14th June, 1967. They had paid earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- on the date of agreement of sale and balance of Rs.47,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Thereafter the plaintiffs with the defendant No.1, father of defendants 2 and 3 jointly paid a further sum of Rs.36,900/- to the owners of the land and obtained joint physical possession of the said land in survey No.4 and 5/2 under a written document of delivery of possession on 16.1.1969. The plaintiffs and the defendants are in actual physical possession of the said land and they continued to be in possession even on the date of filing of the suit. The major portion of the sale consideration had already been paid to the owners and pattedars of the land and the sale deed could not be executed and registered due to non-completion of legal formalities by the pattedars. In the meanwhile some third parties claiming to be protected tenants of the said land initiated proceedings before the revenue authorities and they are pending. It was further contended that while the matters were pending before the revenue authorities the defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.7 was trying to sell away the suit land by drawing a layout plan without obtaining necessary sanction and bermission from defendants 4 and 5 behind the back of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.7 kept the plaintiffs in dark and advertised in local newspaper i.e., Deccan Chronicle on 8.11.1989 the sale of plots of land in the suit land. The plaintiffs had also learnt that the defendant No.7 had received advance amounts from the intending purchasers by misleading them. The defendants 1, 2, 3 and 7 had no right or authority to sell, alienate or encumber the suit land to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had equal rights in title and possession along with defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 being in joint possession of the entire suit land were entitled to separate possession of their shares. The protected tenants filed OS No. 192/87 against the defendants No.l claiming title over the suit land and the plaintiffs are taking steps to get themselves impleaded in the suit. Defendant No.1 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs initiated certain legal proceedings before the revenue and civil Courts behind the back of the plaintiffs styling himself as the sole owner of the land and brought some changes in the revenue records to that effect. The defendant No.l also obtained a decree in OS No. 156/84 on 27.4.1984 from Addl. Sub-Court, Rangareddy District in respect of the suit land. The decree is collusive in nature and does not confer any rights over the defendant No.1 as against the plaintiffs. Whatever rights have accrued to the defendant No.1 by virtue of the said decree also accrue to the plaintiffs and other co-purchasers. Mere mutation in the patta and the revenue records in the name of defendant No.1 on the basis of a decree does not confer exclusive right of ownership on the defendant No.1 over the suit land. The plaintiffs claim shares in the suit land and therefore sought partition and separate possession of their respective legitimate share in the suit land.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 7 contested the suit, D3 supported the plaintiffs, D2 remained absent and did not contest the matter, D8 who was a purchaser from defendants 1 and 7 was also impleaded and he filed written statement, defendants 4 to 6 did not file any written statement. Defendant No.1's case was that, there was no concluded contract between the plaintiffs along with father of D2 and D3 with the land owners and pattedars in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs and father of D2 and D3 had not consented to the said transaction and did not communicate consent to the owners of the land. D1 also denied that the parties had jointly paid Rs.10,000/- as earnest money to the land owners. He also denied that the plaintiffs had paid along with him Rs.36,900/- to the pattedars before obtaining possession. The positive case of the D1 was that he was owner and real purchaser and he had paid initially advance amount as well as subsequent amount as consideration to the pattedars. He denied joint possession of plaintiffs, D3 and D4 over the suit land at any point of time. He also stated that plaintiffs had no right to question his authority in dealing with the suit land. The defendant No.1 in his capacity as full absolute owner had entrusted the land to defendant No.7 and in pursuance thereof D7 spent some amount and developed the land and the process of laying the roads and pipelines are almost at the stage of completion. It is also stated that the advertisement which was issued by D7 was issued on 8th November, 1989 but the plaintiffs kept quiet for three months and filed the suit only on 6.2.1990. Dl alone was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land continuously and uninterruptedly and even to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, D2 and D3 for the last 20 years. The alleged protected tenants filed false and baseless suit being OS No. 192/87, the plaintiffs, D2 and D3 remained absent, they were set ex parte and D1 alone contested the suit. D1 with his own right filed a suit OS No. 156/84 for declaration of title and grant of patta in his name which was decreed, patta was also transferred in the name of Dl in the revenue records. It is further stated that the plaintiffs were known people and close relatives and friends Dl asked them to join in the purchase of the suit lands and thus the agreement of sale dated 14.6.1967 was drafted in the name of plaintiffs along with D1. At the time of concluding the agreement the plaintiffs expressed their doubt about the legality of sale by pattedars as there were some alleged protected tenants in the suit lands as recorded in the revenue records and the plaintiffs refused to sign the agreement of sale despite various assuring clauses put forward by the sellers in the agreement. Finally the defendant No.1 alone signed the agreement in the last minute and he paid the consideration to the pattedars.

(3.) Defendant No.3 accepted the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.7 filed a written statement stating that he entered into agreement with Dl on 6.1.1990 to develop the suit land to an extent of Ac.22-33 guntas. He also stated that the layout for the land was sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat and the approval by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority was awaited. The land was divided into 190 plots by Name Estates Pvt. Ltd., and as per the terms of the agreement, the developer has to lay the roads, demarcate the plots, lay the drainage and sewerage system and provide water supply lines and electricity. In pursuance of the agreement the developer had advanced Rs.5.00 lakhs under various cheques in favour of the owner of the land between 20.6.1989 and January, 1990. Defendant No.7 had already allotted the plot bearing No.27 and had also given allotment letter and thexsaid allottee had already constructed the house. The plaint was amended and a relief of partition and separate possession was included. Thereafter additional written statement was also filed.