MAIDI BHIKASHMIAH Vs. VENUGOPALRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants are the plaintiffs, whose suit to recover possession of lands bearing S. Nos. 1035 and 1063 in Dharmapur village has been dismissed by both the Courts. The claim was filed against three persons; but the second and third defendants were mere servants of the first defendant, who is the real contestant in the case. The plaint was originally one for declaration and for injunction; but the possession of the properties was given to the 1st defendant under an order of the Revenue Minister which is dated 8-11-1952 and thereafter the plaintiffs have added the relief for the properties being delivered to them. In order to appreciate the several arguments urged in the appeal, it is necessary to state first certain admitted and proved facts in the case.

(2.) The mother of the 1st appellant had sold the lands to one Viswanathani in 1330 Fasli (1920-21); when the 1st appellant was a minor. She had then executed a document transferring the lands in consideration of Rs. 95 which amount was mentioned as being due to the purchaser. Ex. 9 is the certified copy of the sale deed whose original is alleged to have been lost on Khurdad 11, 1346 Fasli ( 15/04/1937) the 1st appellant filed a petition before the Collector asking for the possession of the lands on the ground that Viswanatham was originally cultivating them as tenant, after the death of the pattadar he illegally got the possession and had not been since paying any money. The Tahsildar of Miriyalguda to whom the petition was sent for necessary enquiries on Dai 2], 1347 Fasli (25-11-1937) found in favour of the petitioner and directed possession of the two lands to be given to the applicant. The certified copy of the Tahsildars order is Ex. 2. The Collector however took a different view: and came to the conclusion that as Viswanathams possession was for a long time, Section 74 of the Hyderabad Revenue Act did not justify any order to restore possession. In this connection it may be mentioned that the proceedings to restore under the aforesaid Section could be ordered only where wrongful possession be of one years duration. The 1st appellant filed a revision petition before the Subedar, who on Isfandar 14, 1350 Fasli (16-1-1941) allowed it and upheld the order by the Tahsildar. The judgment is Ex, 1. The dispute was continued in the Revenue Department, where the view taken by the Collector was found correct. A copy of the final order is Ex. A-21 and is dated Farwardi 15, 1351 Fash (16-2-1942).

(3.) It appears that while the aforesaid dispute was being continued in the Revenue Department Viswanatham had alienated the lands to two persons. On Shehrewar 24, 1344 Fasli (31-7-1935) he had sold them to one Cheruku Subbiah and the certified copy of this sale deed is Ex. 6. Again he conveyed the lands to the 1st defendant in this case on Azur 8, 1350 Fasli (13-10-1940) for Rs. 1,000.00. The relevant document is Ex. A-20.