VURLAGADDA NANJAPPA Vs. B V MALLANARADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL defendants 2 and 3 in both the Courts below are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs -respondents filed the suit in the trial Court originally for permanent injunction, which relief was amended subsequently for declaration of title and possession. Originally the suit for permanent injunction was filed in respect of Acs. 5.15 cents in S. No. 264/4 of Bheemaganipalle Village, Punganur Taluk, Chittoor District, which is the suit land. After the amendment, the declaration was sought in respect of Ac. 1.90 cents out of the suit S. No. It is the plaintiffs' case that originally Gururajamma who is mother of the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 and grandmother of the 3rd plaintiff perfected her title for the suit land by adverse possession and that during survey and settlement operations, Gururajamma was granted patta by the settlement authorities for the suit land and that Gururajamma died intestate in the year 1971 leaving the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit land without any manner of right whatsoever. The defendants on the other hand contended that they have right and title as well as possession in the extent of Ac. 1.90 cents in the suit S. No. on northern side and that Jamindar of Punganur granted patta for Acs. 3.27 cents in Paimaish Nos. 18 and 28 in favour of the first defendant in the year 1944 and in addition to it, the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 1.00 therein on kanagi tenure and perfected his right and title to the suit land by adverse possession and that there is a demarcating ridge for the land of Ac. 1.90 cents in suit survey number. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs' right and title for the suit property and granting permanent injunction. On appeal by the defendants 2 and 3, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 approached this Court with this second appeal. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the then learned Judge of this Court found that substantial questions of law are raised in Ground Nos. 2 to 6, 17 and 21 of the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. They are as follows:

(2.) OUT of the above grounds, Ground Nos. 5 and 6 relate to purely questions of fact. The Courts below considered not only all relevant documents, but also all the documents filed by both the parties. Exs. B5 and B6 are documents post litem motam which have no bearing in determining rights and contentions of both the parties in the suit. The litigation under Section 56(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (in short 'the Act') was started by the appellants after filing of the suit in the trial Court and after decision of the trial Court herein. In any event, Exs. B5 and B6 do not support the defendants' case and the said proceedings ended against the defendants. Exs. C1 and C2 Commissioner's proceedings are not helpful in determining title and rights of the parties to the suit land. The Commissioner's proceedings at best may be useful to note physical features on the land as on the date of Commissioner's visit. The said proceedings are also not useful to determine as to who was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the date of suit or the Commissioner's visit or visits. Therefore, Ground Nos. 5 and 6 do not survive for consideration in this second appeal. For the same reasons, Ground No. 4 also fails. Ground Nos. 17 and 21 are connected to Ground Nos. 2 and 3. It is contended by the appellants' Counsel that the Courts below should not have relied upon Ex. A2 rough patta to find out title of the plaintiffs for the suit land of Acs. 5.15 cents in S. No. 264/4. He relied upon decision in R. Elumalai Chetty v. R. Rathnavelu Chetty,, 1971(2) An. WR 193, of Division Bench of this Court. The appellants' Counsel placed strong reliance on Para 18 of the said decision and contended that rough patta is not a document of title. After going through the provisions and the prescribed forms and the procedure to be followed by the settlement authorities after an estate was notified, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: 18. From the foregoing paragraphs and the form of rough patta, it is clear that the rough patta is only a notice issued to the registered holder with a view to enable him to make his representations with regard to the proposed revision of rate, taram and other particulars mentioned in the said rough patta. But it does not appear from the aforesaid paragraph that the settlement authorities could decide any matter excepting the matters which have a bearing upon the particulars mentioned in the several columns of the said form. The questions relating to title to or proprietorship of the holding are not within the purview of the authorities who carry out the resettlement operations. The rough patta, it will be seen in a mere notice calling upon the registered holder to prefer his objections with regard to the details mentioned therein. The rough patta cannot therefore, be terms as a document of title or as constituting evidence of title. The issue of rough patta is one of the steps taken in the process of carrying out resettlement operations in respect of a ryotwari area and it has no bearing at all on the question of title to the holding itself. After hearing the objections, no further grant of a regular patta is contemplated by the said instructions. It enables the settlement authorities to carry out the necessary changes in the land register and the rough chitta on the basis of the orders issued after hearing the objections and these accounts are again submitted to the appropriate authority for preparation of the resettlement register for the village concerned.

(3.) WHILE holding that the questions relating to title to or proprietorship of the holding are not within the purview of the authorities who carry out settlement operations, it was further observed by this Court that rough patta is only a notice issued to the registered holder to enable him to make his representations. Division Bench of this Court while specifically holding that rough patta cannot be termed as a document of title or as constituting evidence of title, it was further observed that issue of rough patta is one of the steps taken in the process of carrying out resettlement operations in respect of a ryotwari area and has no bearing at all on the question of title to the holding itself. In the case on hand, the Courts below did not declare the plaintiffs' title to the suit land merely on the basis of Ex. A2 rough patta which was given to mother of the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 by name Gururajamma. Ex. A2 is one of the several documents relied upon by the plaintiffs in their favour. Ex. A2 rough patta was given to Gururajamma in the year 1958 itself. The suit in the trial Court was filed in the year 1975. It is contended by the appellants' Counsel that though Division Bench of this Court contemplated conducting of enquiry after issue of rough patta, no such enquiry was conducted in this case. It is neither pleading nor evidence of the defendants to the above effect. In the absence of any such evidence, the presumption of regularity of all the official acts arises under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In any event, the Division Bench further observed that notice issued by way of rough patta to the registered holder was with a view to enable him to make his representations with regard to the proposed revision of rate, taram and other particulars mentioned in the said rough patta. The Division Bench further observed that it does not appear that the settlement authorities could decide any matter excepting the matters which have bearing upon the particulars mentioned in several columns of the said form and that the questions relating to title to or proprietorship of the holding are not within the purview of the authorities who carry out the settlement operations. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to contend that no detailed enquiry was made after issue of Ex. A2 rough patta to Gururajamma. It is not as if any of the defendants or their predecessors put in any application or objections before the settlement authorities to decide their claims for title to the suit property or any part thereof. Till disposal of the suit in the trial Court, any of the defendants did not raise his little finger in order to make claim to any part of the suit land. Even thereafter, the defendants are stated to have failed in their attempts before the settlement authorities.