BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 1 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

APHC010081412017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

FIRST APPEAL NO: 767/2017

Between:

Ravilla Lokanatha Naidu ...APPELLANT

AND

Smt Muneppagari Jamuna ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. O UDAYA KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY

The Court made the following:

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 2 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

A.S.No.767 OF 2017

Between:

Ravilla Lokanatha Naidu,

S/o.Ravilla Doraiswamy Naidu,

Hindu, Aged 57 years, Business,

R/o.D.No.19-9-5D, Kakateeya Nagar,

Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati,

Chittoor District. …. APPELLANT

Versus

Smt.Muneppagari Jamuna,

W/o.Vijaya Kumara Reddy,

Hindu, Aged 55 years, Land Lady,

R/o.D.No.10-10-374,

Kaipla Theertham Road,

Tirupati, Chittoor District. …. RESPONDENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 19.03.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

____________________________

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 3 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ A.S.No.767 OF 2017

% 19.03.2024

# Between:

Ravilla Lokanatha Naidu,

S/o.Ravilla Doraiswamy Naidu,

Aged 57 years, Business,

R/o.D.No.19-9-5D, Kakateeya Nagar,

Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati,

Chittoor District. …. APPELLANT

Versus

Smt.Muneppagari Jamuna,

W/o.Vijaya Kumara Reddy,

Hindu, Aged 55 years, Land Lady,

R/o.D.No.10-10-374,

Kaipla Theertham Road,

Tirupati, Chittoor District. …. RESPONDENT

! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri O.Udaya Kumar

^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2024 (1) ALD 106

2. 2014 (2) SCC 269

3. 2019 (6) SCC 82

This Court made the following:

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 4 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

A.S.No.767 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T:

Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant/plaintiff and Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for

the respondent/defendant.

2. This appeal filed U/s.96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’) by the unsuccessful plaintiff

challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2016 delivered in

O.S.No.8/2007 on the file of IV Addl.District Judge, Chittoor District,

at Tirupati.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as parties

before the Trial Court.

4. The suit was filed to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute

owner of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, and for permanent

injunction restraining the defendant, and her men from interfering

with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint

schedule properties, and for costs of the suit.

5. ( a ) The case of the plaintiff is that the land in an extent of

Ac.0-98 cents in S.No.86/2 of Tirupati belonged to Sr Chintam Setty

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 5 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

Srinivasulu Setty; He had a son by name Sri Ankanna Setty and five

daughters; They are 1) Sundaramma, 2) Venkataratnamma,

3) Kuppamma, 4) Kanthamma and 5) Savithramma; Sri Chintam

Srinivasulu Setty executed a registered Will dated 24.01.1962

bequeathing his properties to his son and daughters; He bequeathed

Ac.0-98 cents in S.No.86/2 of Tirupati to his daughters; Sri Chintam

Srinivasulu Setty died 40 years ago; Therefore, his five daughters, who

are the beneficiaries under the Will become owners; By 1995, Ac.0-29

cents, out of Ac.0-98 cents remained with the daughters;

Smt.Sundaramma was no more; Her legal heirs got Ac.0-05 cents out

of Ac.0.29 cents of the land; The other four sisters retained Ac.0-24

cents; Smt.Venkataratnamma and other three sisters alienated

Ac.0-11 cents out of Ac.0-24 cents to the defendant under a registered

sale deed dated 28.04.1995; They retained the remaining Ac.0-13

cents; The legal heirs of Smt.Sundaramma alienated Ac.0-05 cents to

the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 31.07.1995; Thereby,

the defendant became owner of Ac.0-16 cents in S.No.86/2 of Tirupati;

( b ) The plaintiff purchased remaining Ac.0-13 cents of the land

from Smt.Venkataratnamma and others under two registered sale

deeds dated 19.12.2006 and 20.12.2006 respectively; The plaint ‘A’

and ‘B’ schedule properties are covered by the two sale deeds;

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 6 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

( c ) On 03.02.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. the plaintiff getting the

land levelled for construction; The defendant and her men tried to

trespass into the suit schedule property i.e., ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule

properties; Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title over

plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, and permanent injunction

restraining the defendant and her men, from interfering with the

possession of the plaintiff.

6. The defendant filed written statement contending that she

purchased Ac.0-11 cents vide registered sale deed dated 28.04.1995

from Smt.Venkataratnamma and her sisters; She also purchased

Ac.0-05 cents from the legal heirs of Smt.Sundaramma vide registered

sale deed dated 31.07.1995; thereby, the defendant became owner of

Ac.0-16 cents in S.No.86/2 of Tirupati; The plaintiff purchased land

running from east to west 105 feet length and north to south 20 feet

width from Sri. A.Venkataramana Prasad and others; The vendors of

the plaintiff had no title to sell the said land; The plaintiff and his

vendors created the sale deed dated 20.12.2006 to grab the property of

the defendant; Therefore, the plaintiff has no title to the suit schedule

property.

7. The trial Court basing on the pleadings, settled the following

issues for trial:

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 7 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’

schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed for?

3. To what relief?

8. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W-1, and

another witness was examined as P.W-2. Five documents were marked

as Exs.A-1 to A-5 respectively. Ex.A-1 is the copy of the registered will

dated 12.01.1962 executed by Sri Ch.Srinivasulu Setty. Ex.A-2 is

registration extract of the sale deed dated 28.04.1995 executed by

Smt.A Venkatratnamma and others for Ac.0-11 cents in favour of the

defendant. Ex.A-3 is the registration extract of the sale deed dated

31.07.1995 executed by Sri V.Venkataramana Prasad and others for

Ac.0-05 cents in favour of the defendant. Ex.A-4 is the registered sale

deed dated 19.12.2006 executed by Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and

others in favour of the plaintiff (plaint ‘A’ schedule) and Ex.A-5 is the

sale deed dated 20.12.2006 executed by Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and

others in favour of the plaintiff (plaint ‘B’ schedule).

9. On behalf of the defendant, she was examined as D.W-1 and

examined another witness as D.W-2. Three documents were filed for

the defendant. They were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3 respectively.

Ex.B-1 is the registered sale deed dated 28.04.1995 executed by

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 8 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others in favour of the defendant for

Ac.0-11 cents. Ex.B-2 is the registration extract of sale deed dated

31.07.1995 executed A.Venkataramana Prasad and others in favour of

defendant for Ac.0-05 cents, and Ex.B-3 is a rough sketch.

10. The learned Trial Judge considering the evidence, on issue No.1

held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration. On

issue No.2 held that the plaintiff also not entitled to the relief of

permanent injunction, and dismissed the suit without costs.

11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of trial Court, the plaintiff

preferred the appeal on the following grounds:

1. The judgment and decree of trial Court is contrary to law, and

weight of evidence;

2. The trial Court failed to appreciate properly the contents of

Exs.A-1 to A-5 and oral evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2;

3. The trial Court failed to see that the defendant purchased

only Ac.0-16 cents, out of Ac.0-29 cents in S.No.86/2 held by

the daughters of Sri Ch.Srinivasulu Chetty and that the

remaining land of Ac.0-13 cents was later sold to the plaintiff

vide Exs.A-4 and A-5, covering plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule

property;

12. The learned counsel for plaintiff would submit that there is no

dispute about the fact that Sri Chintam Setty Srinvasulu Chetty

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 9 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

bequeathed Ac.0-98 cents of land in S.No.86/2 of Tirupati in favour of

his five daughters under Ex.A-1 will; Out of Ac.0-98 cents, the

daughters of late Sri Srinivasulu Chetty retained Ac.0-29 cents by

1995, Ex.A-2 sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant and

Ex.A-2 sale deed would further established that the defendant for

Ac.0-11 cents only, out of Ac.0-24 cents by Smt.A.Venkataratnamma

and her three sisters; Ac.0-05 cents of land was retained by the legal

heirs of another daughter Smt.Sundaramma; Therefore,

Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and other three sisters were having Ac.0-13

cents in S.No.86/2; The defendant purchased Ac.0-05 cents of land in

S.No.86/2 from the legal heirs of Smt.Sundaramma represented by Sri

A.Venkataramana Prasad and others; vide Ex.A-3 sale deed dated

31.07.1995; Therefore, the defendant was in possession of Ac.0-16

cents; Ex.A-2 would establish that the southern boundary is the land

of Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others i.e., remaining Ac.0-13 cents of

land. The plaintiff purchased the said land from

Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others vide sale deeds dated 19.12.2006

and 20.12.2006 respectively, and thereby, he is in possession of the

suit schedule land i.e., plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, and

therefore, the plaintiff proved his title and possession over the suit

schedule land.

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 10 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

13. He would further submit that the learned trial Judge

erroneously ignored admission of D.W-1 in the cross-examination that

the land belonging to her vendor i.e., Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and

others is situated towards south of the property purchased by her

under Ex.A-3, and she also admitted that the recitals including

boundaries covered by Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 are correct; In those

circumstances, the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge to

dismiss the suit are contrary to the evidence.

14. The learned counsel for defendant would submit that the

plaintiff clandestinely brought Exs.A-4 and A-5 into existence

colluding with the vendors of the defendant to grab the land of the

defendant, though the vendors of the plaintiff had no land as described

in Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 sale deeds. He would further submit that the

plaintiff did not examine the vendors to establish that his vendors had

title and possession over the land covered by Exs.A-4 and A-5 sale

deeds. He would further submit that in a suit for declaration of title

and permanent injunction, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish

the title and possession, and cannot rely on the weaknesses in the

case of the defendant, and the suit cannot be decreed basing on the

weaknesses in the case of the defendant; In the case on hand, the

plaintiff failed to establish his title and possession over the suit

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 11 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

schedule land, and therefore, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed

the suit.

15. In the light of above contentions, the points that would arise for

consideration in the appeal are as under:

1. Whether the plaintiff is having title and possession over plaint

‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of

title and permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

16. POINTS No.1 & 2:

The contention of the plaintiff is that one Sri Chintham Setty

Srinivasulu Chetty is the owner of Ac.0-98 cents of land in S.No.86/2

of Tirupati. He bequeathed the same to his five daughters namely

Sundaramma, Venkataratnamma, Kuppamma, Kanthamma and

Savithramma vide a registered will dated 24.01.1962. Ex.A-1 is copy of

will executed by Sri Chintham Setty Srinivasulu Chetty. Perusal of

Ex.A-1 would show that Sri Chintham Setty Srinivasulu Chetty

bequeathed Ac.0-98 cents of land in S.No.86/2 of Tirupati to his five

daughters.

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 12 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

17. It is the case of the plaintiff that the daughters of Sri Chintham

Setty Srinivasulu Chetty left with Ac.0-29 cents of land in S.No.86/2 of

Tirupati by 1995. The pleadings or evidence on record do not throw

any light on the details of alienations made by them with respect to

Ac.0-69 cents. The plaintiff relying on Ex.A-3 sale deed executed by

Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others in favour of the defendant to say

that the daughters of Sri Chintham Setty Srinivasulu Chetty were

having only Ac.0-29 cents of land on the date of Ex.A-2 i.e, 1995. The

defendant admits that she purchased Ac.0-11 cents of land in

S.No.86/2 from Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others on 28.04.1995

vide Ex.A-2/Ex.B-1, which is original of Ex.A-2.

18. The case of the plaintiff is that Ac.0-05 cents of land was given

to the legal heirs of Smt.Sundaramma and they executed sale deed in

favour of the defendant vide Ex.A-3. The defendant also admits that

she purchased Ac.0-05 cents of land from Sri A.Venkataramana

Prasad and others under Ex.A3/B-2. Ex.A-2/Ex.B-1 executed by

Smt.A.Venkataratnamma, L.Kanthamma and R.Kuppamma in favour

of the defendant would show that the vendors acquired title to the

property under will dated 24.01.1962 executed by Sri Chintham Setty

Srinivasulu Chetty and under a sale deed dated 06.09.1985 executed

by Smt.K.Savithramma. The extent of land as per schedule is Ac.0-29

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 13 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

cents including share of Smt.Sundaramma, and the joint share of

vendors is Ac.0-24 cents towards 4/5 share. It would further show

that the vendors alienated Ac.0-11 cents to the defendant, out of Ac.0-

24 cents and they retained Ac.0-13 cents of land. As per schedule, the

land on southern boundary was retained by the vendors.

19. But, coming to Ex.A-3/B2, it would show that it was executed by

Sri A.Venkataramana Prasad and others in favour of the defendant on

31.07.1995. The said property is located in S.No.86/2 of Tirupati and

came to the vendors towards share of Smt.Sundaramma out of Ac.0-29

cents. The recitals pertaining to boundaries would show that land on

Northern side belongs to the defendant i.e land covered by ExA2/B1;

Southern side land belongs to Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others.

The extent of land alienated is Ac.0-05 cents. Therefore, the land

alienated under Ex.A-3 must locate towards south of the land

alienated under Ex.A-2/B1. Therefore, question of the plaintiffs

vendors possessing land on southern side of land alienated under

ExA2/B1 is not possible. It is not the case of the plaintiff that

boundaries mentioned in that sale deed are wrong.

20. The plaintiff case is that he purchased the remaining Ac.0-13

cents of land from Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and her two sisters. The

plaintiff examined himself as P.W-1. In the chief-examination he

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 14 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

restated the plaint averments. In the cross-examination, he admitted

that the defendant purchased property under Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 sale

deeds. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased property under Ex.A-4

and Ex.A-5. The plaintiff also admitted that the defendant purchased

Ac.0-11 cents under Ex.A-2 and Ac.0-05 cents under Ex.A-3. He also

admitted that there is no dispute with regard to Ac.0-11 cents, and

that dispute is only about the Ac.0-05 cents purchased by the

defendant. This is statement is the crux of the issue. The plaintiff case

is that his vendors retained land on south of ExA2/B1. Where as

ExA3/B2 falsifies said contention. ExA3/B2 is a later to ExA2/B1. It

shows that northern side property belongs to the defendant. It means

the property covered by ExA2/B1. The defendant purchased property

of 0.05 cents in 1995 from legal heirs of Smt Sundaramma. This was

not questioned by vendors of the plaintiff. On the other hand the

plaintiff in the chief-examination stated as under:

“It is worth mentioning that the owner on the southern side in the

said sale deed was shown as Venkataratnamma and others; the

defendant by virtue of said document, took possession of the said

extent of Ac.0-05 cents and became the owner for entire extent of

Ac.0-16 cents on the northern side which formed contiguous block

and there remained the balance extent of Ac.0-13 cents on the

southern side which absolutely belonged to

Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and her sisters.”

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 15 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

21. The plaintiff by above statement made attempt to say that the

land covered by Ex.A-3 sale deed is located on the northern side of the

land covered by Ex.A-2 sale deed and that the land on the south side

of Ex.A-2 sale deed belongs to Smt.A.Venkataratnamma i.e., Ac.0-13

cents of land. As already stated above, the plaintiff categorically

admitted that the dispute is with regard to Ac.0-05 cents of land

purchased by the defendant under Ex.A-3. Therefore, the plaintiff shall

explain how the legal heirs of Smt.Sundaramma alienated Ac.0-05

cents of land to the defendant located on the southern side of Ac.0-11

cents of land purchased by the defendant, when it belongs to

Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others.

22. The contention of the plaintiff is that he purchased land located

on the southern side of Ex.A-2 from Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and

others and as such, claiming title over plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule

properties, as if it is Ac.0-13 cents of land retained by

Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others. But, Ex.A-3 contents under

which, the defendant purchased Ac.0-05 cents in the year 1995, are

against the case of the plaintiff. In those circumstances, the plaintiff

shall prove his title and possession over the plaint schedule properties.

He cannot rely on the weaknesses in case of the defendant.

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 16 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

23. In a suit for declaration of title, the burden is always on the

plaintiff to prove his title to seek a decree for declaration. The plaintiff

has to establish not only his title, but also the title of his vendors,

particularly, when it is in respect of item of immovable property.

24. Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K.Patkar

1,

held that in a suit for declaration of title for permanent injunction, the

burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his title. In Union of India

and others Vs. Vasavi Co-operaive Housing Society Limited and

others

2, Hon’ble Apex Court at para 12 held as under :

“In a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff

to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a

declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the

defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.”

In Jagadish Prasad Patel (dead) through L.Rs. and another Vs.

Shivnath and others

3, Hon’ble Apex Court at para 41 held as under:

“In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the plaintiffs-

respondents could succeed only on the strength of their own title

and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants-

appellants. The burden is on the plaintiffs-respondents to

1

2024 (1) ALD 106

2

2014 (2) SCC 269

3

2019 (6) SCC 82

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 17 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are

entitled for a decree for declaration.”

25. The plaintiff did not choose to examine his vendors to establish

their title and possession in respect of the property covered by Exs.A-4

and A-5 sale deeds executed by them in favour of the plaintiff. The

vendors of the plaintiff are the best witnesses to depose about their

title and possession over Ac.0-13 cents of land and to explain the

recitals of Exs.A-2 and A-3 sale deeds, as to how the legal

representatives of Smt.Sundaramma executed Ex.A-3 sale deed for

Ac.0-05 cents of land located on the southern side of the land covered

by Ex.A-2 sale deed or its location. It appears that plaintiff for the

reasons best known to him, in the year 2005 obtained sale deeds

Exs.A4 and particularly Ex.A5, covering the land under Ex.A3/B2

already alienated in the year 1995 in favour of the defendant, and then

filed the suit to nullify the same.

26. In the absence of best evidence, i.e., his vendors, the stray

admission of defendant that in Ex.A-2 that southern boundary is

mentioned as land of Smt.A.Venkataratnamma and others, would not

improve the case of the plaintiff to establish his title, in the view of

specific recital in Ex.A-3 that the northern land belongs to the

defendant. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession over the

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 18 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to for the relief of

declaration and permanent injunction as prayed. There are no grounds

to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court. Accordingly,

the points are answered.

27. POINT No. 3: To what relief?

In the light of findings on points No.1 and 2, the Appeal is liable

to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered. In the result, the

Appeal Suit is dismissed, by confirming the judgment and decree dated

03.09.2016 delivered in O.S.No.8/2007 on the file of learned IV

Addl.District Judge, Chittoor District, at Tirupati. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J

L.R. Copy is to be marked.

B/o. psk

19.03.2024

psk

BVLNC,J A.S. 767 OF 2017

Page 19 of 19 Dt: 19.03.2024

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

A.S.No.767 OF 2017

Note: Mark L.R. Copy

psk

19

th

March 2024

psk