LAKSHMI BAI Vs. CHINNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 90 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereafter called, the Tenancy Act) against the order of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in case No.F1/1113/2003, dated 15.05.2005, whereby and whereunder the appellate authority, namely, the Joint Collector, disposed of the appeal filed by Peda Laxman (father of respondents 1 and 2 herein) and the third respondent in their favour, while setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), dated 07.12.1998, by which the claim of the respondents for ownership certificate under Sections 35 and 37 of the Tenancy Act was rejected.

(2.) The factual matrix necessary to appreciate the contentions raised in the Civil Revision Petition may be noticed. The land admeasuring Acs.17.08 guntas in survey Nos.25, 148, 192 and 341 situated at Rampoor village of Bodhan Mandal in Nizamabad District (hereafter called, the petition schedule land) was the absolute property of Narsa Reddy, father-in-law of the petitioner. After death of Narsa Reddy, the petitioner's husband Vithoba succeeded to the property and died issueless sometime in 1950. He had a widow sister Rukma Bai. They were staying together. Along with her, Narsu Bai, daughter of Peda Narsa Reddy (brother of father-in-law of the petitioner) was also staying with them. At that time, the father of respondents 1 and 2 herein was Patwari of the village. It appears during settlement survey and preparation of Khasra Pahani, the name of the petitioner, Rukma Bai and Narsu Bai were entered in the owner/possessor column. Narsu Bai died in 1967. But, the Patwari allegedly interpolated the entries in the Pahani. The petitioner was dispossessed by reason of such entries. She filed a suit for possession in O.S.No.14 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, which was decreed. On 30.03.1974, in reply to a legal notice, Patwari Peda Laxman claimed that Narsu Bai had executed a Will, dated 14.06.1967 bequeathing petition schedule property to him. The petitioner therefore filed another suit being O.S.No.24 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Nizamabad for declaration and recovery of possession. In the said suit, Peda Laxman and third respondent were defendants. They opposed the suit inter alia alleging that Sayanna, father of Peda Laxman and China Laxman, was assisting Narsu Bai, the alleged owner of the lands, that she executed Will on 14.06.1967 and that they perfected the title by adverse possession having been allegedly in possession for over thirty years. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on 24.10.1978.

(3.) The petitioner herein preferred appeal to this Court being A.S.No.632 of 1979. This Court while allowing appeal on 10.06.1997 came to the conclusion that Narsu Bai had no pre-existing right, title and interest in the property and could not have executed a Will in favour of Peda Laxman and China Laxman. This Court also observed that the plea of adverse possession cannot be accepted and accordingly reversed the Judgment of the lower Court decreeing the suit in favour of the petitioner herein. The third respondent and father of respondents 1 and 2, further carried the matter by filing an appeal being L.P.A.No.1 of 1988 before the Division Bench. At this stage, they filed two miscellaneous applications, one seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that they are protected tenants of the land and the other miscellaneous application for filing documents - protected tenancy certificates - as additional evidence. By Judgment, dated 23.08.1995, the Division Bench dismissed L.P.A.No.1 of 1988 as well as two miscellaneous applications observing that it shall be open to the respondents therein to pursue remedies available under the Tenancy Act. The respondents then filed application before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 29.01.1996 under Sections 35 and 37 of the Tenancy Act for petition schedule land.