LALITHA PERSHAD Vs. SHYAMSUNDERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiffs is against judgment and decree in O. S. No. 285 of 1983, dated 31. 03. 1989 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga reddy District. The journey of the suit started in 1959. Moving from original Court to appellate Court and then from original court to another, the case so far spent about fifty years in judicial system. There is no hope that this journey would stop with this judgment. Nevertheless, learned counsel for both sides argued with admirable effort leaving no point untouched. Plaintiffs' suit is for declaration and for consequent correction of revenue entries, which was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs' branch and defendants' branch are entitled to property. Case and counter case is stated infra by referring to parties as they are arrayed in the suit. From 1959 to 1989

(2.) PLAINTIFF Lalitha Pershad filed suit being o. S. No. 51/1/1959 on 17. 09. 1959 on the file of the Court of the Munsif Magistrate (West), hyderabad, seeking rectification of revenue records against first cousin Shyamsunderlal. The suit was dismissed on 13. 02. 1961. Appeal being A. S. No. 117 of 1961 by unsuccessful plaintiffs was dismissed with a direction to seek amendment of the plaint for declaration of the title. Questioning the same, a further appeal being S. A. No. 161 of 1963 was filed before this Court and judgment of the first appellate Court was affirmed. In consequence thereto, plaint was amended seeking declaration of title. Suit was again considered on the question of value as a preliminary issue. Ultimately, renumbered suit being O. S. No. 566 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, which was transferred to the Court of District Judge and marked as O. S. No. 201 of 1983. Yet again, matter went before Court of Principal subordinate Judge and ultimately renumbered and tried as O. S. No. 285 of 1983. Thus, this case was pending from 1959 till 31. 03. 1989 before lower Court (s ). Pleadings

(3.) IN 1324-25 Fasli, Gopilal, father of lalitha Pershad had obtained patta in respect of land admeasuring Acs. 100. 18 guntas in survey Nos. 1 and 3 to 8 situated at langerguda village in West Hyderabad district. He raised mango garden and cultivated till his death. After death of father, lalitha Pershad is in exclusive possession of suit schedule land and improved the lands by planting some more trees. He himself paid land revenue till 1959. The defendant, who has no concern with the land, however, in collusion with village officers, got his name entered in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 as joint pattadar in columns 13, 14 and 18 although the patta was not joint patta and it was never in the name of defendant or his father. Due to wrong entries in Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, defendant became Khatadar in the subsequent village records and based on such wrong entries, the defendant is claiming half share. He is also interfering with plaintiff's possession. If the village records are allowed to remain, the plaintiff would suffer prejudice, and therefore, the plaintiff prayed for declaration, that he is owner of suit schedule lands and that defendant's name in Khasra Pahani 1954-55 and other revenue records and subsequent years be struck off.