It is also the case of the plaintiff society that it has purchased the total extent of Ac.11-04 guntas covered by Survey No.61 from its vendors Rama Reddy and others. 11. The court below held that the suit is valuated @ Rs. There is no dispute whatsoever that the said village was not in British India. The defendant in his written statement, apart from the formal, objections to the maintainability of the suit, denied that Sulakshana executed, any sale deed with respect to the suit house in favour of the plaintiff. 9. ( Log Out / The plaintiff society got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A85 through PW1. On the basis of its findings, the trial court held that the plaintiff, had valid cause of action and it, accordingly, decreed the suit by judgment, 11. Rama Reddy as pattedars. paying small Court fee on twelve month alleged rent of the Rama Reddy.PW4, the Special Deputy Collector, Industries in categorical terms stated in his evidence that the land acquired belongs to the private individuals. It is applicable to the Hyderabad area (Telangana Area) of State of Andhra Pradesh until its repeal by the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. ( Log Out / 756 P.C. Cal. The, defendant too, apart from raising the objections based on limitation, and res judicata and similar other formal pleas mainly stuck to the, same story as in the previous case. Such record is required to be prepared after due enquiry.
In Pardip, Singh Meredith J., speaking for the division bench of the court observed as, 1 Corporation of Bangalore City V. M.Papaiah7, State of Himachal Pradesh V. Keshav Ram9. As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax Declaration No. 100. Section 6 of the 1358 Fasli Regulation deals with mutation and enquiries thereof and publication of records. Survey No.445, classified as B-4 land in their records. The slight variation, if any, is always attributable to the errors in survey. The court further pointed out that the suit before it was neither for, declaration of title nor the plaintiff had paid ad valorem court fee. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Standing Counsel for the defendants strenuously contends that there is no proof with regard to the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property except the entries made in the revenue records, which in no manner, by themselves, confer any title upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff was accordingly directed to submit a fresh application deleting the said area. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on the pleadings, prayer . In Kasturchand V. Harbilash20, the Supreme Court found fault with the courts below as well as the High Court for their not having placed any reliance on the entries in the khasra prepared and maintained under the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act of 1950 and held: "The entries in the annual village papers create a presumption albeit rebuttable in favour of a person whose name is recorded.We find that a procedure is prescribed to challenge the entries made in the annual village papers.
It in no manner runs counter to the evidence and earlier panchanama prepared by PW3. The Cantonments Act, 1924 applied only to British India.Hyderabad was a princely State and the provisions of the Cantonments Act do not ipso facto are applicable to the Hyderabad State. The learned counsel has gone to the extent of submitting that the plaintiff society has no objection whatsoever even if the suit schedule land is acquired by the defendants since they have already made constructions in the suit schedule land at their own costs.These proposals are worth consideration by the first defendant. decree regarding title passed in Title Suit No.36 of 1973 (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench observed that "transfer of a right of occupancy or a patta of a holding in so far as the Land Revenue Act (Hyderabad Act 8 of 1317 F) is concerned, would equally be a transfer of all that is necessary to effectually transfer agricultural land and vest a title in the person to whom it is transferred. 30. But in Ex.B10 General Land Register of 1933 there is nothing to show that the present G.L.R.No.445 is correlated to G.L.R.No.581 marked as Ex.B11 in Ex.B10 General Land Register. and undisturbed possession of the disputed property for over 12 years. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff itself deleted the suit land from the layout plan and only after such deletion the layout was sanctioned in the year 1987. Lukman, seeking declaration of title over the property and recovery of its, possession from the defendant.
of India15, a Division Bench of this Court observed that "the pahanies are prepared in the usual course of official business of preparation of Records of Rights and hence there is a due presumption that the entries made therein have been made in due performance of official duties.They are hence to receive weightage in evidence particularly when there is no other rebutting evidence to the contrary.".
"Where a court grants declaration of title to land or makes an order for injunction in respect of land, the land the subject of that declaration should be clearly identified so that an order for possession can be executed without difficulty and also if the order for injunction is violated the person in contempt can be punished. The decision in Shamim Akhtar arose from U.P. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Rama Iyengar V. Kasinivenda Iyengar21 observed that "transactions by a party dealing with the property to which he lays a claim, are important evidence of his title and sometimes they constitute the only evidence available.". 2. The defendant did not vacate the house forcing her to go to the court. He constructed a boundary wall around the land and, a house consisting of five rooms, etc. In my opinion, you must go for suit for permanent injunction as you are in possession and file police complaint and go for registration of FIR against culprits if any forged and fabricated document w.r.t. 16 October 2021. Declaration of title suit without recovery of pocession, Interpretation of clause mentioned in passport app, Is government aided school teacher is government e, My Resignation on personal ground not being accep. These powers were recognised by the Nizam's Government as exercisable by the Cantonment authorities all these years without any curtailment by reason of the notification dated 28-8-1906........It transpires that the notification conferring only Criminal and Police jurisdiction was superseded in 1956 and consequently full control passed to the Cantonment Board" (Emphasis is of ours). The regulations and the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act are inter-related. The High. 1 Ins. 106. 11, herein), allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the. 22. The necessary sale deeds were executed by the original owners/pattedars in favour of the plaintiff society as early as in the year 1981-82, both in respect of the land situated in Survey No.60/1 and as well as Survey No.62. Sethwar Ex.A3 shows that Pulla Reddy and others are the pattedars of Survey No.60 and the land is assessed to Rs.12.88 paise. Mt. The entries made in Columns 1 to 19 of the pahani patrikas shall be deemed to be the record of Rights prepared and maintained by a public servant in discharge of his official duties. 7, declared and possession of the suit house recovered after paying 2. In the registered family settlement and partition dated 11-12-1939 which was effected after the death of Anna Reddy, the land in old Survey No.53 was allotted to the share of B.M. He stated that, Sulakshana had transferred the suit house in his favour in 1950, by Hiba 5, his side as DW11. plaintiff and the defendant? property. At all events, the High Court ought not to have recorded a finding of fact on a.the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is 10. Be that as it may, this court, having regard to the controversy as to whether the suit land, on which about 300 quarters have been constructed by the Defence Accounts Department, forms part of the land covered under G.L.R. The said award has become final. It is thus clear that even the Secunderabad and Aurangabad Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930 do not apply to Kakaguda village. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Jaya Rao V. Cantonment Board, Secunderabad25. The remaining part of Ac.8-20 guntas was demarcated as Survey No.60/1. 79. to the Court with a false story. The submission in this regard is unexceptional. ), where the question of title was directly decided In Ch. Rama Reddy. 31. She had lost her senses and she, was not in a position to execute any sale deed. PW3 is the Surveyor working in the office of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad. It was sanctioned on 10-10-1985 and was released on 16-2-1987. 120. It is action by which a person not in possession of land can recover both possession and title from the person in possession if he or she can prove his or her title.
Facts posted suggest that you are trying to be wiser than the Law. The defendants having encroached into the land made some constructions on it.
It is the further case of the plaintiff that during the pendency of the application of the plaintiff for releasing of the certificate under Section 19 (5) of the ULC Act, the officers of the Garrison Engineer under the directions of the third defendant illegally occupied an extent of Ac.2-29 guntas in Survey No.60 and Ac.4-01 gunta in Survey No.61.Thus, a total extent of Ac.6-30 guntas belonging to the plaintiff was encroached. May be, there are deeper issues! In our considered opinion, the Courts below committed serious error of law in declaring plaintiffs' title on the basis of the aforesaid order of correction and the consequential entry in the Revenue papers. The burden, undoubtedly, lies upon the plaintiff. Civil Procedure Code, Sec.47 Or.21, Rules 95 & 96 First respondent, Auction purchaser filed suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and also for mandatory injunction for removal of constructions Appellant, purchaser of suit property contends that suit not maintainable and is barred u/Sec.47 CPC and first respondent . of the Cantonment, the said land is classified as B-4 and placed under the management of Defence Estate Officer (defendant No.3). year 1950 and since then he was coming in possession over it.
Whether he is in possession of the land or not is responsible for the Government for payment of land revenue. Ex.A7 is certified copy of pahani patrika for the year 1971-72. It is thus clear that Ex.B10 General Land Register has no statutory basis. 80. 4. 62. You provide goods or a service, the client exchanges goods to a value (usually money) for those goods or service. The trial Court found the title of the plaintiff upon consideration of various aspects; viz., family partition deed dated 11-12-1939 vide Ex.A1 whereby the suit land which formerly had the old Survey No.53 was allotted to the plaintiff's predecessor in title. ”, The trial court considered issue nos. Survey No.445 of the Cantonment, which is a part of Survey Nos.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village belongs to the first defendant. Have you produced any Yes Sir, as per list. 63. The plaint does not contain a map or even the boundaries. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants throughout this judgment. The genuineness and validity of the documents referred to hereinabove is not put in issue. The declaration was valued as Rs.500/- and the court fee of Rs.60/- was affixed whereas for the purpose of evaluation, the suit land was valued @ Rs.18 lakhs. As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax Declaration No. It is for that reason; the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the green marked portion of Ac.6-30 guntas in Survey No.60/1 and 61 after removing the structures and for mesne profits. PW2 the Deputy Inspector of Survey produced the said document and gave evidence to the effect that the present Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 were carved out of the old Survey No.53. Whether there is any other evidence available on record to reject the evidence of the plaintiff? The case of the plaintiff is that some persons claim to be from Military Department, all of a sudden, have started making some markings on a portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff alleging that a substantial portion of the land purchased in Survey Nos.60/1 and 61 belongs to the Defence Department and treated as B-4 land in the records maintained by them. No. It is specifically admitted that the suit land forms part of Revenue Survey Nos.60 and 61. "The Privy Council observed that "dual requirements that the document should not only in fact be available for public inspection, but that it shall also have been brought into existence for this very purpose...... A document to which the public can have no access and which the Crown can refuse to produce under a subpoena could by any possibility be described as a public document.". A suggestion was made to him in the cross-examination that there is an extent of Ac.7-51 cents of land in Survey Nos.60 and 61 belonging to the defendants.He categorically denied the said suggestion and stated that there is no defence land at all in Survey Nos.60 and 61 according to the Sethwar of 1353 Fasli. Shah decided that no declaration of title can be sought by any individual on the basis of . In support of the rival claims of title over the suit property, both the, plaintiff and the defendant led their respective evidences, both oral and, documentary. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel is a some sort of technical objection raised during the course of hearing of this appeal without there being any proper pleading and evidence. into a declaratory or possessory suit which is of altogether a different nature. The plaintiff claims to have been put in possession of the same on the dates of the sale.
18. There is no dispute before us that the said rules alone were applicable to the Cantonments of Secunderabad and Aurangabad. Such entries were held to be the statements for revenue purposes. 477 of 1999 is preferred by the defendants in O.S. The entries in Ex.A3 - Sethwar of 1353 Fasli of Kakaguda village also disclose the entire land in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62, admeasuring Ac.13-08 guntas, Ac.11-04 guntas and Ac.17-20 guntas respectively to be a private land owned by the pattedars, viz., Prakash Reddy, Pulla Reddy and Rama Reddy.Ex.A4 is translation of Ex.A3.It is the case of PW1 that after the acquisition of Ac.4-28 guntas by the defendants themselves on 29-11-1971, the petitioner-Society has purchased the remaining extent of Ac.8-20 guntas from the owners of the land. No relief as such could be granted as against defendants 4 to 6 and the suit is liable to be dismissed against them. 86. Jan from The plaintiff society is entitled for recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule land from defendants 1 to 3 and 7 after removal of the structures made therein. ", 59. We, thus, find no merit in the appeal. That expression is only used with reference to relationship between landlord and tenant in respect of vacant lands."
Register and if so whether the said Register will effect the rights of plaintiff? It is pertinent to notice that 1836 Regulations expressly provide that the title to the land in Cantonment areas cannot be transferred. These entries would show that the State has been collecting the land revenue in respect of those lands. In this case, plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title to the suit property and recovery of possession of the suit property from the Defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff got prepared a lay out for the whole of the land purchased by them. It is the specific case of the defendants that the suit schedule land forms part of Ac.7-51 cents located in G.L.R. On the strength of the said entry, it is sought to be contended that the said land at all points of time remained with the Defence Estate Officer.
The trial court found, that the suit property was vacant land and not a house (the case of the, plaintiff was that the suit property was a piece of land 3 kathas and 5 dhurs, in area with a fallen down house). Amina further claimed that Sulakshana sold the. In view of the rival submissions, the first and foremost question that falls for consideration is as to whether the evidence let in by the plaintiff at all could be considered as the evidence in proof of title? 2 Subs. It had no authority or, jurisdiction to decide disputes of title and hence, any finding recorded by it, on the larger issue of title could not be binding on a court under the Code of. The Internal remedies are provided to correct the errors, if any. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision [2] dated June 7, 2013 and the Resolution [3] dated January 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. declaration of title and recovery of possession were between the same parties. Nooman & Ors. It is also submitted that the members of the plaintiff society started to raise constructions in respect of which the society obtained layout.The men of the first defendant acting under the instructions of the Garrison Engineer started interfering with the construction activity in Plot Nos.72 and 52 situated in Survey No.61 and Plot Nos.138, 139, 140 and 141 situated in Survey No.60/1 and began peg marking and to erect their pillars advancing claims to those plotted areas claiming the same as being a part of G.L.R. The title of the predecessors in title of the plaintiff has been recognised as early as in the year 1358 Fasli. It is certified that as per the settlement records, Survey Nos.60 and 61 are the patta lands. 5. 2,3 and 4. Pattadar is one whose title to the land has been recognised. In B.S.V. In Anthya V. Gattadu4 a Division Bench of Hyderabad High Court made an analysis of the ingredients of the patta right and held to comprise four rights and one liability. Hence this appeal. 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to consequential perpetual injunction as prayed for? 13, Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and the, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and it was on a totally different set, of facts. 1. It is the specific case of the defendants that the land admeasuring Ac.7-51 cents comprising G.L.R.No.445 forming part of Revenue Survey Nos.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village of Secunderabad Cantonment is the property of the Ministry of Defence classified as B-4 vacant land placed under the management of the third defendant. Therefore, it is just and necessary to examine the case set up by the plaintiff in somewhat detail and the evidence available on record in support of the plea of the title in respect of the suit schedule land. However, in view of the notification (Ex.A82) referred to hereinabove issued by the Nizam of Hyderabad some of the provisions relating to constitution of the Cantonment Board etc., were made applicable for limited civic purposes. The learned trial Judge accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for, both for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with that portion of the suit schedule land, which continued to remain in possession of the plaintiff. Change ). In all those sale deeds, the original owner - B.Rama Reddy's name is mentioned as the owner of land. In our considered opinion, the submission has no merit. 16. The learned trial Judge accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for, both for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with that portion of the suit schedule land, which continued to remain in possession of the plaintiff. 27. The In the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and 137. Rama Reddy and Anna Reddy's son Prakash Reddy. It is not possible to reject the case of the plaintiff only on the strength of the entries made in G.L.R. (Retired employee.) The first defendant has its A.O.C. No.Suit for recovery of possession and injunction - Suit for recovery of possession without prayer for declaration in not maintainable.In fine, the second appeal is allowed, and the judgments of the courts below are set aside. was entitled to a declaration of title in respect of half portion of the suit premises, recovery of possession of the said half portion of the suit premises and also to recovery of income from the said half of the suit property owned by the Respondent and/or charges for use, enjoyment and/or occupation thereof.
Ex.X1 is Classer Register. .suit for permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title was not maintainable on the facts of the case.
He. entries may have to be appreciated in the context of the history of the Secunderabad Cantonment. Defendants 5 and 6 (Government of Andhra Pradesh and the District Collector, Hyderabad) did not file any written statement. Rama Reddy sold an extent of Ac.4-35 guntas 89 square yards in Survey No.61, old Survey No.53, with the specific boundaries to the plaintiff society. 2. The public in general and the interested persons in particular are required to be heard. 58. The nature of the documents and the entries made therein are not dealt with in any one of those judgments. 34. The First Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and held that being the owner of a portion of the said premises, he was entitled to a declaration of title in respect of the said portion of the suit property owned by him, but not to the recovery of possession since the defendant had been enjoying the suit property for a long time. title unless the question of title had to be decided, was expressly The land may be owned by private individuals or by the Nizam's Government, it may be Revenue paying land or waste land used for grazing or otherwise. (See: P.Ramanatha Aiyar's the Law Lexicon - 1997 Edition). 12, 14. of a sale deed executed by Sulakshana in her favour in the year 1950. No. for recovery of possession. is the legal and beneficial owner in fee simple in possession [or as the case . The compensation amount has been deposited by the Military Estate Officer with the Special Deputy Collector under Ex.X10. When compared to the extents of the land of old Survey No.53, there is an excess of Ac.8-20 guntas and that is almost equivalent to the land that is being claimed by the plaintiff. Ex.A11 is the award dated 16-7-1982, which has become final where under compensation has been awarded to the plaintiff's vendor towards acquisition of Ac.4-28 guntas of land out of the very same Survey No.60. Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act makes an interesting declaration that all public roads, lanes, paths, bridges, ditches, dikes, rivers, streams, tanks, ponds, canals, lakes and flowing water and all lands, wherever situated, together with all rights appertaining thereto are the property of the Government excepting those belonging to persons or class legally capable of holding property and to the extent so far as their such rights are established; and those in respect of which any other order under any law may have been given. It is thus recognised that transfer of a patta of a holding would amount to transferring of all that is necessary to effectually transfer agricultural land and vest a title in the person to whom it is transferred. The defendants have also admitted that the Government of India vide its letter dated 23-9-1980 has granted permission for registration of an extent of Ac.24-24 guntas of land in Revenue Survey Nos.60, 61 and part of Survey No.62/1 in Kakaguda village. The said land is styled as Survey No.60/A.Under the said Award, compensation has been paid to B.M. Section 16 of the old Act (XXIII of 1871) laid down that entries in the record of rights made or authenticated at a regular Settlement shall be presumed to be true. The General Land Register and the entries made therein are at the most can be construed as a record maintained by the Defence Estate Officer for its own purposes. According to the plaintiff Amina Khatoon, the suit property originally. In the case on hand, we are concerned with the evidentiary value of the entries made in pahani patriks. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Rs.10/- per month. G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J. S.A. No. © 2021 LAWyersclubindia.com. The said document reveals that the lands in Survey Nos.60 and 61 are registered in the name of Metturama Reddy, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. It then took up issue nos.5 and 6 (about the plaintiff’s entitlement to a, decree of eviction) together and came to hold and find that the relationship, of landlord and tenant between the parties had not been proved. office being classified as D-4.Out of the total extent of Ac.7-51 cents of land, Ac.6-00 has been handed over to the Defence Accounts Department for construction of staff quarters and the quarters were accordingly constructed during the years 1985 to 1987. Given the said, a question to ponder is when a person having no title, merely on the strength of possessory title can maintain a suit for recovery of possession and ejectment of a trespasser and . 1978 also between the same parties, show that the plea taken by Click here to Login / Register. Rama Reddy, Son of Venkata Narasimha Reddy in the registered settlement and partition deed dated 11-12-1939 (Ex.A1).The entries in Ex.A6 sesala pahani for the years 1955-58 reveal the entire extent of the land in Survey Nos.60 and 61 as patta land and is in possession of B.M. 40. Counter claim for declaration of right, title and interest by way of adverse possession, cancellation of gift deed and the deed of relinquishment, injunction alongwith other The. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge. In this suit, her claim of title over the, suit property was exactly the same as in the previous suit. 3. G.R. No. 195834 - GUILLERMO SALVADOR, REMEDIOS CASTRO ... 83. Para 11.3- Where the Plaintiff is in possession but his title to the property is dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also thereat of dispossession from the defendant, the Plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the said evidence is not sufficient in order to establish the plaintiff's title to the schedule land? In such cases, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has . Section 45 of that Land Revenue Act specifies that khasra, jamabandi or khatauni and such other village papers as the Government may from time to time prescribe shall be annual village papers.Section 46 enjoins preparation of annual village papers each year for each village of a district in accordance with rules made under the Act. 52. In this regard, it is relevant to notice the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. "The first is the reversionary right to the estate of the shikmidar on his dying without any heir, the second is pre-emption, the third is to have the monetary payments by the shikmidar increased, and the fourth is to recover from the shikmidar the amount of the revenue in case he pays less, and these rights relate to immovable property and arise because the pattadar is responsible to pay its revenue to the State. G.R. In the, High Court, the second appeal was heard on the substantial question of law, “…whether the judgment and decree regarding title passed in Madhusudhan Rao, Deputy Director, Central Survey Training Academy, Hyderabad as the Commissioner to survey the suit land. There is no issue settled by the trial court. It is further observed that "the Nizam continued to exercise all the powers except the Criminal and Police jurisdiction in terms of the said notifications until it was superseded in the year 1956.". That this being a suit for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession, ad Valorem court fee is paid herewith.
How Many 147 Has Ronnie O'sullivan Made, Mark Johnson Obituary 2021 Nj, Positive Project Comments, Mississippi State Football Record, Klay Thompson Jersey Authentic, Upper Fells Point Restaurants, Electrolysis Hair Removal Before And After,