Ravilla Doraswamy Naidu and Another vs Aari Rangaiah Naidu

Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.—Defendants Nos. 2 and 6 are the appellants. They are aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi in A.S. 31 of 1986 by which the Judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit for injunction in O.S.313 of 1978/O.S. No. 208 of 1977 TPT have been reversed and decree for injunction has been passed.

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that Ac. 1.77 cents of land in Sy. No. 167 renumbered as Sy. No. 167/15 (for short Suit Land) was assigned to some other person by Tahsildar, Puttur vide order dated 4-6-1970 because the pattedar did not cultivate the land within three years from the date of assignment. The Tahsildar, Puttur cancelled the patta vide order dated 15-12-1976 including other pattas and assigned the suit land to the plaintiff through order dated 3-1-1977. He was in possession of the same and had started cultivating the same. All the defendants started disturbing his possession over the suit land and, therefore, he is entitled to obtain a decree for permanent injunction against them. The second defendant filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff in toto. The defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 5 adopted the written statement of the second defendant and subsequently added defendant No. 6 through his written statement alleging that the suit land was never allotted to the plaintiff and he was never in possession of the same. The Tahsildar, Puttur had granted a patta in favour of him in respect of the suit land vide order dated 4-6-1970 and since then the 6th defendant was in cultivating possession of the same.

The trial Court on assessment of documentary and oral evidence on record did not rely on the evidence of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that his evidence has been contradicted by his own witness P.W.2, that the entries in Ex. A-5 contradict his statement made on oath before it and that his statement is also falsified by his earlier statement on oath given before the Criminal Court in C.C. No. 155 of 1979, certified copy of which is at Ex.B-1. It also did not rely on the revenue records which are at Exs.A-6 and A-7 on the ground that the same has not been signed by the Tahsildar who was the competent authority to put the signature on the same. The Trial Court holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was the pattedar of the suit land and was in possession of the same on the date of institution of the suit, dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi.

The first appellate Court reassessed the evidence on record and disagreeing with the findings recorded by the trial Court held that after cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the 6th defendant, the Tahsildar had assigned the suit land through patta Ex.A-1 in favour of the plaintiff on 3-1-1977. He also relied on the adangal Ex.A-5 for the years 1977, 1978 and 1981 to 1984. The lower appellate Court did not attach any importance to the statement made before the Criminal Court that he had re claimed the suit property in the year 1979. He did not rely on the cist receipts which are at Ex.B-4 to Ex.B-7 on the ground that it evidenced payment of land revenue of the land shown in patta 513 whereas the patta granted to the plaintiff is numbered as 595. After reassessment of the evidence on record, the lower appellate Court accepted the claim of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit property by virtue of the patta granted to him which is at Ex.A-1 after due cancellation of the patta that had been granted to the 6th defendant i.e., second appellant vide proceedings Ex.A-3 dated 15-12-76. Holding so, the first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit for permanent injunction as prayed for.

The 2nd defendant and the 6th defendant have preferred this second appeal which has been admitted on ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the lower appellate Court has wrongly relied on the evidence of the plaintiff because his evidence has been contradicted by his own witness P.W.2 who has testified that no portion of the suit land was found for raising paddy crops and the plaintiff at no point of time had raised crops in any portion of the suit land, that the evidence of the plaintiff that he was cultivating the land from the year 1977 has been contradicted by his own statement on oath, a certified copy of which is at Ex.B-1 in which it is stated that he had reclaimed the suit property in the year 1977 only. It has been further urged on behalf of the appellants that patta granted in favour of the 6th defendant was not cancelled according to law because no notice was given by the Tahsildar to him before cancellation of the patta. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record that in pursuance of the alleged cancellation of the patta possession was obtained from the second appellant at no point of time as also there is no evidence on record that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land by the Tahsildar or his subordinates. It is lastly urged on behalf of the appellants that except adangal Ex.A-5 no other document shows that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit land and the entries made in Ex.B-5 appears to be true in the light of the evidence of ex-Karnam of the village who is examined as PW2 and, therefore, the findings of the lower appellate Court deserves to be set aside and the judgment of the trial Court deserves to be restored.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff has argued that the lower appellate Court has given sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the trial Court and no substantial question of law, is involved and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this count only. It has been further urged on behalf of the respondent that there is no material on record from which it can be said that until and unless the Tahsildar endorses the entries in the documents which are at Ex.A-2, Ex.A-4, Ex.A-6, Ex.A-7 and Ex.A-8 no reliance can be placed on them and the appeal has no merit and, therefore, it should be dismissed.

Ex.A-3 is the proceedings drawn by the Tahsildar, Puttur on 15-12-1976 through which the patta granted to the 6th defendant has been cancelled. A perusal of the same reveals that showcause notice was served on the 6th defendant i.e., second appellant also before the impugned orders had been passed. It is also mentioned in this order that the suit land was hollow and was not at all cultivated by the 6th defendant for a period of 3 years from the date of grant of patta in his favour in the year 1970. True that this order has been challenged before the Joint Collector who had passed a status quo order, but it is of no help to the second appellant for the simple reason that by that time, the trial Court had passed an order for temporary injunction as the plaintiff was in possession. The status quo order means that the possession as on that day is to be maintained. In other words, by virtue of the "stauts quo order" the plaintiff was to continue in possession of the suit land by virtue of the patta Ex.A-1 in his favour till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Joint Collector.

Until that order is set aside in appeal the say of the 6th defendant cannot be accepted that he was not served with a show cause notice before the patta was cancelled or that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land at the relevant time. As noted above, the lower appellate Court held and rightly so that the cist receipts Exs.B-4 to B-7 do not specifically show that the land revenue had been paid in respect of the suit land. There is no material on record from which it cannot be inferred that unless the Tahsildar signs on the documents which are at Exs.A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-8 they do not become valid documents. The entries in Ex.A-5 which is adangal in respect of Sy. No. 1 67/15 for 1387 Fasli, 1388 Fasli, 1391 Fasli to 1394 Fasli show that the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of a part of the suit lands. It is pertinent to note that P.W.2 who was the ex-Karnam of the village had prepared the adangal Ex.A-5 in which as noted above the plaintiff has been shown in possession of the suit lands. He has testified that the suit land was not fit for raising paddy crops and that the plaintiff has not cultivated even a part of the suit land. In view of the entries made in Ex.A-5 by himself, the evidence of P.W.2 does not inspire confidence and, therefore, it should be excluded from being considered. A bare perusal of the certified copy of the statement which is at Ex.B-1 itself is crystal clear that the plaintiff had stated to have reclaimed the suit lands i.e., to say he had made the suit land fit for cultivation again on 24-11-1979 on which day the defendants had tried to oust him from it. There is no whisper in this statement that he was not in possession of the suit land before 24-11-1979 and, therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that this statement made before the Criminal Court runs counter to his statement before the trial Court regarding the year from which he has been in possession of the suit land.

As noted above, from the proceedings drawn by the Tahsildar a copy of which is at Ex.A-3 it appears that the 6th defendant had never cultivated the suit land up to 15-12-1976 when his patta was cancelled and, therefore, the question of taking back possession from him does not arise, particularly, when there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the revenue authorities have ever put him in possession of the same. True that the plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the revenue authorities had put him in possession of the suit land in pursuance of the patta granted by the Tahsildar to him on 3-1-1977 vide Ex.A-1., but, his statement on oath supported by entries in adangal Ex.A-5 shows that he was in possession of the suit land after the suit land had been assigned to him vide patta Ex.A-1.

The findings of the first appellate Court are found on firm foundation and do not merit any interference. There appears to be no infirmity or illegality either in the approach or the eventful conclusion reached by the first appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has rightly not relied on the evidence of the appellants to reach the conclusion that they were in possession of the suit land on the date of suit and has rightly relied on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff to hold that he was in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit by virtue of the patta Ex.A-1 granted in his favour.

In result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, I order the parties to bear their own costs of appeal.