ZAIBUNNISA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No, 5 is the appellant. Originally O.S. No. 27 of 1962 was filed by one Syed Afzal Hussain Abidi for declaration of his title to the suit land admeasuring Ac. 9-00 situated in Survey No. 162 of Mallepally village, Hyderabad, and for recovery of possession, or in the alternative, for compensation and mesne profits. The said plaintiff died pending the suit and his legal representatives- plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4, were brought on record. The suit was dismissed for default. However, defendant No. 3-Zaibunnisa Begum, got transposed herself as plaintiff No. 5 and prosecuted the suit.

(2.) The case of the original plaintiff is that one Smt. Zohra Begum was the pattedar of the land in Survey No. 162 having been declared as such under a consent decree in Case No. 83/1 of 1952 F. between herself and Yousuf Ali Mirza and others on 15-1-1951, and he obtained the said land from her under a perpetual registered lease deed dated 8-9-1952. After obtaining the land on lease, he obtained sanctioned-lay out from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under its letter No. 1041/MN dated 5-8-1953. The first defendant the Collector District Hyderabad started disputing the title of the plaintiff in the year 1953 and issued orders to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to cancel the sanctioned-plan. The plaintiff, therefore, issued notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and filed the suit, The third defendant purchased a portion of the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 6-4-1957 from the original plaintiff, and therefore, she was added as a party. As already stated she transposed herself as plaintiff No. 5, and she alone pursued the suit.

(3.) The first defendant in his written statement while denying the material allegations contained in the plaint stated that Zohra Begum had no title and she was never granted any patta for the suit land. The alleged compromise between Jagirdars and Hissedars of Mallepally was not binding on the Government. The Government records did not disclose the extent of Survey No. 162 in Mallepally village. The plaintiff did not produce the original order granting patta in favour of Zohra Begum. All the lands in Mallepally including the suit land were acquired by the Military Department, prior to disbandment after police action in 1950. Thereafter the lands were handed over to the Collector of Hyderabad, who in turn handed over the suit land to defendant No. 2, A.P. Housing Board. The Government was alone in possession of the suit land for more than 60 years prior to the suit. The decree obtained by Zohra Begum in O.S. No. 83/1/1352 F. is not binding on the Government as it was a collusive decree, and inasmuch as the Government was not a party to it. The request of Zohra Begum to include her name in the revenue records was rejected by the Collector after due enquiry as she was never in possession. As Zohra Begum had no title to the suit land, the alleged perpetual lease in favour of the original plaintiff does not confer any right or title in his favour.