CHOUTUPALLI VEERA REDDY Vs. RAMASWAMY DEVASTANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri P.C. Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner claims that one Vankadari Venkataramayya was the owner of Survey No. 468/2, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa Taluk and he was succeeded by his son Subbaiah. The petitioner claimed the said Subbaiah to have gifted an extent of 45 cents subdivided as Survey No. 468/2 A-1 under an unregistered gift deed dated 18-09-1960 to Perrala Ramaswamy, son of Perrala Pedda Rama Swamy. Perrala Balakondaiah, his son, succeeded Ramaswamy and Perrala Krishnaiah succeeded his father Perrala Balakondaiah. Perrala Krishnaiah executed a registered gift deed dated 29-03-2007 in favour of his son Perrala Ramakrishna and the said Ramakrishna sold the land to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 27-05-2008. The petitioner claimed that while he is in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner, the 1st respondent put the property to public auction of its leasehold rights on which the petitioner immediately went to the 1st respondent and showed his documents. The 1st respondent did not pay any heed to his request and hence, the writ petition questioning the impugned public auction notice dated 12-06-2012 putting the leasehold rights of the said land to auction.

(2.) The 1st respondent in its counter affidavit through the Executive Officer stated that Vankadari Venkataramayya is Vysya, while Perrala Ramaswamy is Yadava and Vankadari Venkataramayya whether he had any issues or not, had endowed the property to the 1st respondent temple during his lifetime. The 1st respondent asserted that Vankadari Venkataramayya had no issues and the unregistered Gift deed dated 18-09-1960, the gift deed dated 29-03-2007 and the sale deed in favour of the petitioner were fabricated to create evidence of title and possession and regarding the same land, one Dasaripalli Subbanna, son of Subbaiah executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of his sons Srinivasulu and Ravi Kumar and Ravi Kumar was not his own son as mentioned in the Gift deed and thus documents are sought to be fabricated in respect of the temple property. The petitioner or his predecessors-in-title are never in possession and the performance of pujas in the temple by Sri Perrala Ramakrishnaiah and his forefathers was taken advantage by the petitioner in collusion with Perrala Ramakrishnaiah for creating of these documents. The copy of Adangal shows the land to be standing in the name of Buddayapalli Ramaswamy and hence, the 1st respondent desired the interim direction granted by this Court to be vacated and the writ petition to be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner in his reply affidavit contended that the Executive Officer could not have made the statements made in the counter affidavit without verification of facts and the alleged Endowment had absolutely no documentary evidence to support its claim. The petitioner further stated that he is paying the land revenue in respect of the land since number of years. Even the Adangals filed by the temple do not show the temple to be the owner of the property. The temple did not file any documentary evidence to show its title or interest in the property and the very registration of the gift deed and the sale deed gave notice to the entire world about the transactions. The petitioner further claimed that Buddayapalli Ramaswamy is none other than the grandfather of Perrala Krishnaiah and the reference to his name in the Adangal as deity of the temple is admitted and hence, he desired the writ petition to succeed.