KADAGALA DAIVANUGRAHAM Vs. WIKA NAGESWAR RAO & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed assailing the impugned order at Annexure-5 passed by the Appellate Authority under Regulation-II of 1956.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner belongs to non-tribe. The predecessor of the petitioner purchased landed property over plot nos.443, 444 and 445 respectively from the predecessors of private O.P.1 by virtue of two unregistered sale deeds; one on 16.4.1914 for consideration of Rs.50/- for an area of Ac.0.50 cent of land and the balance land was purchased through an unregistered sale deed dated 24.6.1915 for consideration of Rs.25/-. It is claimed by the petitioner that while he was in possession of the disputed property, the predecessor of the private O.P.1 initiated a proceeding under Regulation-II of 1956, registered as R.M.C. No.248/89, which matter, after the concession by the son of the O.P. there that they have no interest over the property and finding that the petitioner was in possession of the property, was dropped. At a subsequent stage, suo motu proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner registered as R.M.C. Nos.27/98, 28/98, 30/98 and 32/98 involving the disputed property and the parties herein. It is urged that considering the petitioner's claiming his right over the property by virtue of unregistered sale deeds since 1914 and 1915 so also on the basis of his long possession over the disputed property, the original authority disposed of R.M.C. Nos.27/98, 28/98, 30/98 & 32/98 solely on the basis of long possession of the petitioner declaring his title by way of adverse possession. Against this order the present O.P.1 filed Regulation Appeal No.29/98. The appeal proceeding was decided against the petitioner holding that for the settled position of law, no right in favour of a non-schedule person can be declared by virtue of adverse possession.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had two supports in his case, one by virtue of purchase of the property from the predecessor of the private O.P.1 way back in 1914 and 1915 and further he had also a stand with regard to right in favour of the predecessor as well as in favour of the present petitioner by virtue of adverse possession. Petitioner in view of the above contended that it was thus incumbent upon the appellate authority to take a decision on the purchase of the petitioner on the basis of unregistered sale deeds. Learned counsel also raises a question as to when the Regulation-II proceeding being initiated by the predecessor of O.P.1 was dropped on contest the 2nd proceeding is maintainable applying the principle of res judicata and thus sought to set aside the order under Annexures-4 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays for setting aside the orders under Annexure-4 and 5.