GUNJI CHITTEMMA Vs. KAKI IMMANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 13-09-2002, the Second Appeal was admitted in view of the following substantial question of law. Whether a civil Court has got power to go into the correctness of the patta granted by the Revenue Authorities?

(2.) Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, the learned counsel representing the unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below-appellant submitted that apart from the substantial question of law, on the strength of which, the Second Appeal was admitted, the other substantial questions of law to be decided in the present Second Appeal are as hereunder: (1) Whether the judgment and decree of the appellate Court are not vitiated not being in conformity with Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (2) Whether non-consideration of Exs.A-9 and A-10 by the Courts below can be said to be in accordance with law?

(3.) The learned counsel while elaborating the submissions, had pointed out that in the light of the evidence of D.W.1, it is clear that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property as on the date of institution of the suit. The learned counsel also had pointed out that Ex.A-9 dated 10-12-1991 is the temporary patta issued in the name of the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karamchedu and it is stated that the said patta was cancelled by Mandal Revenue Officer on the ground of misrepresentation. The learned counsel would maintain that the said cancellation made by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer is without jurisdiction since Mandal Revenue Officer is not competent to make such an order under the Board Standing Orders. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would maintain that as against the said order, an appeal was preferred and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, had allowed the said appeal and the order passed by him Ex.A-10 had become final. The validity, or otherwise of Ex.A-10, cannot be gone into in the present civil proceeding and the same had attained finality since the respondents-defendants had not questioned the same. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and also the evidence of C.W.1, the Court witness and certain admissions made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants. The learned counsel also would explain that in the light of Ex.A-10, Ex.B-2=Ex.X-2, the statement given by P.W.1 before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karamchedu would be of no consequence. The learned counsel also contended that it is no doubt true that a concession was made by the learned counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff before the appellate Court that the party is not relying on Ex.A-1 the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated 24-10-1983. However, the learned counsel would contend that even if the said sale deed is to be held to have been brought into existence in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, Act 9 of 1977 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Acf"for the purpose of convenience), till the procedure contemplated by the provisions of the Act is followed, the possession of the plaintiff cannot be disturbed. The learned counsel also would contend that the relief of perpetual injunction cannot be negatived on the ground of such a statutory infraction unless the procedure as contemplated by the provisions of the Act had been complied with. Till then, definitely, the appellantplaintiff is entitled to be in possession, unless her possession is disturbed by taking due recourse to law as provided by the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel made elaborate submissions how the appellant is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction at least to this limited extent both against the 1st and 2nd respondents, the husband and wife-defendants 1 and 2 in the suit on the strength of prior possession by virtue of Ex.A-1 and subsequent thereto in view of Exs.A-9 and A-10 and especially in the light of Ex.A-10 attaining finality and the 2nd respondent-2nd defendant not questioning the same.