T GOPAL REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions are by the three declarants one of whom is the father and the other two are his major sons. They are directed against the common order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A. Nos. 344, 346 and 347/77 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Waragnal.

(2.) In these revision petitions, the findings of the Appellate Tribunal only on points 4, 5 and 6 urged before it are challenged.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that Acs. 4.38 guntas of land covered by S.No. 1716 is not in possession of any of the declarants. It was sold away in 1962 and the purchaser is in possession. The Appellate Tribunal held that "it cannot therefore be held that survey No. 1716 has been sold". It is the contention of the petitioners that even if the sale is not proved the very fact that another person claiming to be the alienee has been in possession in his own right for more than twelve years, that is sufficient to exclude the said land in computing the holding of the petitioners. In support of this plea the petitioners have filed the pahani patrikas for the years 1962-63 to 1973-74 which cover a period of twelve years. The entries in these pahanies are not doubted. All these pahanies, except the pahani of 1971-72 record the name of the alienee or his brother Narasimha Reddy. Only in column 16 of the pahani of 1971-72 the name of the alienee is not entered and it is left blank. However, from this pahani it cannot bs concluded that the person who was in possession in the previous years and also was in possession in the subsequent year had discontinued his possession in that year. In law the continuance of the possession of the person already in possession must be presumed unless it is proved to the contrary. It is nobody's case that after the said alienee entered into possession somewhere in 1962, he was dispossessed in the year 1971-72, and again put back in possession the following year. Even if it be so the possession of the said alienee would not be possession on behalf of the declarant or his family members; it is in his own right. The factum of possession of a third party cannot thus be disputed. From the evidence it would appear that he was in possession even on the notified date. Even the original Tribunat did not hold that he was not in possession. All that it observed was that it is not proved that he was in "continuous possession from 1962 to 1974 and therefore it cannot be said that the purchaser gained title over these lands". In view of the fact that a party other than the declarant is in possession of the lands on the notified date and from 1962 claiming to be the alienee though the alienation itself is not proved, the said person cannot be deemed to be holding the land for and on behalf of the declarant. That extent can be computed only in the holding of the person actually in possession. That extent shall therefore be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioners and their family members. The finding of both the Tribunals to the contrary is therefore set aside.