M.SATYANARAYANA Vs. ASIF JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff who lost the litigation in both the Courts below filed the second appeal. As the matter now stands, the suit filed by the plaintiff in the trial Court relates to one for perpetual injunction, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. He seeks perpetual injunction in respect of 121 Sq. yds of site in S.No.57 and Plot No.172 at Sultanvalva village, H/o.Champapet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He seeks mandatory injunction as well as delivery of possession of 11 sq. yards shown in B-schedule lying towards north-western side in plot No.172 in which the defendants have constructed a room. It is the plaintiff's case that he purchased A-schedule site of 121 Sq. yards under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 27.01.1993 from K.V.Ramachander, who obtained patta certificate for the said site from Tahsildar, Hayatnagar in the year 1982. According to the defendants, the first defendant is owner and possessor of plot of 100 Sq. yards having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 19.03.1996. It is further contended that the alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has no value in the eye of law. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit and on appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

(2.) The appellant's counsel seeks to put forth substantial questions of law in this second appeal to the effect that there is no bar of alienation of assigned land by K.V.Ramachander in favour of the plaintiff after a period of 10 years of its grant, even as per terms of Ex.A-3 patta certificate and that therefore, the Courts below erred in non suiting the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff's sale deed Ex.A-1 is illegal. Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 27.01.1993 executed by K.V.Ramachander in favour of the plaintiff was in respect of 121 Sq. yards in plot No.172. It was sold under Ex.A-1 with a specific averment in Ex.A-1 that the land is not an assigned land within the meaning of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act No.9 of 1977(in short, the Act). In Ex.A-1 the vendor did not trace as to how he got title for 121 Sq. yards of site in Plot No.172. He simply stated that he is absolute owner and possessor of the said land and nothing more. The plaintiff filed Ex.A-3 patta certificate for the site assigned to his vendor K.V.Ramachander as Ex.A-3. It shows that it is Form-D patta issued in favour of K.V.Ramachander for plot No.172 measuring 100 Sq. yards in S.No.57 of Sultanvalva village. Though the lower appellate Court commented that plot No.172 is interpolated in Ex.A-3, for naked eye observation, there was no such interpolation of plot number. Ex.A-3 was stated to have been issued by Tahsildar, Hayatnagar Taluk in file No.B6/4753/80. Date of issue of patta is left blank not only on the top column but also under signature of Tahsildar. Boundary columns in Ex.A-3 are left blank. It was claimed to have been issued to Ramachander in the year 1982. Ramachander was not examined. No records or registers from office of the Tahsildar were summoned to show date of such issue and authentication of the said patta. It is not known how Ramachander acquired 121 Sq. yards when Ex.A-3 stated to have assigned only 100 Sq. yards to him.

(3.) Apart from the said contentions and suspicious features found in Ex.A-3 patta certificate, it is contended that the site is inalienable as per terms of the said patta. On the other hand, it is contended by the appellant's counsel that the site is alienable after 10 years of its issue in view of condition No.8(i) contained therein and that after a period of 10 years, the provisions of the Act have no application to this land. If the appellant's submission on this aspect is to be accepted, the appellant has to prove that Ex.A-1 sale deed was executed after 10 years of issue of Ex.A-3 patta. When Ex.A-3 is silent as to the date of its issue and when no evidence aliendi was let in by the plaintiff/appellant to prove date of issue of Ex.A-3 in favour of K.V.Ramachander, the plaintiff may not be entitled to rely on condition No.8(i) of the patta.