APHC010059592024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO: 106/2024 Between: 1. KURIDI BALANNA, S/O.SANYASI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA VILLAGE, CHINTALA VEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 2. KURIDI NAGARAJU,, S/O.BALANNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA VILLAGE, CHINTALA VEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 3. KURIDI KONDABABU,, S/O.SANYASI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA VILLAGE, CHINTALA VEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 4. KURIDI VIJAYA,, W/O.KURIDI KONDABABU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA VILLAGE, CHINTALA VEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THAMARBA TIRUPATHI RAJU PADAL TIRUPATHI RAJU, S/O.LATE POTHURAJU PADAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.SANYASAMMAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDUMANDA POST, HUKUMPETA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 2. KURIDI SUMAN, D/O.BALANNA, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA, CHINTALAVEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 3. KURIDI PADMA, , D/O.BALANNA, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA, CHINTALAVEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 2 4. KURIDI ESWARARAO, S/O.KONDABABU, AGED 19 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA, CHINTALAVEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 5. KURIDI DHANA LAKSHMI, D/O.KONDABABU, AGED 18 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA, CHINTALAVEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 6. KURIDI SIMHACHALAM, (DIED). 7. KURIDI MANJULA, D/O.SIMHACHALAM, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA, CHINTALAVEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 8. KURIDI SUIYAKALA, D/O.SIMHACHALAM, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA, CHINTALAVEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 9. KURIDI BALARAJU, S/O.SIMHACHALAM, AGED 19 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA, CHINTALAVEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 10. KURIDI MADHAVI, D/O.SIMHACHALAM, AGED 18 YEARS, R/O.ADARIMETTA, CHINTALAVEEDHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Present this Memorandum of Regular Appeal to this Honble Court against the Judgment and decree passed in A.O.S.No.6/2023, dated 27-1-2024 on the file of Addl. Agent to Government-cum- Joint Collector, Alluri Seetharamaraju District, at Paderu, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, 3 the High Court may be pleased to pass stay of operation of the Judgment and Decree A.O.S.No.6/2023, dated 27-1-2024 on the file of Additional Agent to Government -cum- Joint Collector, Alluri Seetharamaraju District, at Paderu, pending disposal of the above appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT No.106 of 2024 JUDGMENT: This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in A.O.S.No.6 of 2023 dated 27.01.2024 on the file of the Court of Additional Agent to Government-cum-Joint Collector, Alluri Seetharamaraju District at Paderu (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”). 2. The defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, before the Trial Court, are the appellants herein. The respondent No.1 herein is the 4 plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 10 are the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 7 to 13. 3. The respondent No.1 herein instituted the suit against the appellants as well respondent Nos.2 to 10 for ratification of the sale deed i.e., ratification of Schedule A property in the place of Schedule B property in the registered doc.52/2004 of Agency Sub Registrar, Paderu within the time fixed by the Court on a duly stamped paper supplied by the plaintiff as well to grant permanent injunction directing the defendants, their men and servants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule B property by the plaintiff and for costs. 4. Before adverting the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the Trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court. 5 6. The case of the plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows: i). The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property under sale deed dated 17.10.2000 pertaining to Sy.No.9/3 of Adarimetta Village and got registered the same vide Doc.No.52/2004 dated 08.09.2004 for consideration of Rs.3,000/- from the five vendors including defendant Nos.1, 5 and 9 by obtaining permission from the Agent to Government cum District Collector at Visakhapatnam vide L.Dis.No.2572/2001 F5 20.06.2001 and since the date of purchase, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by raising dry crops to the knowledge of the villagers including defendants. ii). But the plaint B schedule property under Sy.No.10/8P 3 of Adarimetta Village, in which the 6 plaintiff was in actual possession and enjoyment since the date of purchase. Taking advantage of the same, the defendant Nos.5 and 6 demanded the plaintiff to leave the plaint schedule property and made attempts to occupy the same. iii). Furthermore, the defendant No.5 in collusion with the other defendants trying to sell away the B schedule property to his friends nominally to cause loss to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for ratification of the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff as well permanent injunction against the defendants. 7. The defendant No.5 denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 by filing a memo, as follows: i). The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property with their own 7 right since time immemorial. The Government recognized their right, title, possession, and enjoyment of the over the plaint B schedule property and mutated their names in all the revenue record, issued title deed passbook, in web- land issued 1B and Adangal. The plaintiff has no right, title, possession, and enjoyment over the plaint B schedule property. ii). The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 are totally denied the execution and passing of consideration under the alleged sale deed dated 17.10.2000, which is nothing but forged one. The suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties since the daughter and grandchildren of Kuridi Sanyasi are alive and they are necessary parties to the suit. iii). The plaint A schedule property has specific boundaries with survey number and katha number and the plaint B schedule property has specific 8 boundaries with survey number and no katha number was mentioned in the schedule. iv). The only grounds to entertain a suit for ratification of revenue record are ‘Any fraud carried out by the registrar, error in registration, non- payment of stamp duty for registration and false entry made’. Thereby, there is no cause of action for the suit. The suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. Admittedly, the Trial Court did not frame any issues based on the said pleadings. Even, it is an admitted fact that none of the witness was examined, and no document was marked on either side to adjudicate the matter on merits. 9. The Trial Court by relying upon the enjoyment report dated 19.01.2024 submitted by the Tahsildhar concerned, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of land Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.10/8 of the Chinthalaveedhi Village since its purchase and he purchased 9 the same from Kuridi Sanyasi, Kuridi Pandanna and their legal heirs, thus, granted permanent injunction in his favour directing the defendants, their men and servants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property i.e., Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.10/8 in Chinthalaveedhi Village of Paderu Mandal. 10. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellants/defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 preferred this appeal. 11. Heard Sri Bolla Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.Ramgopal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. 12. Sri Bolla Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property and the plaintiff is not having any right over the same; that there is no existence of sale deed dated 08.09.2004 vide Doc.No.52/2004, on which the plaintiff claiming right over the said property; that the Trial Court without considering 10 the same granted relief of injunction; that the plaintiff did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence to establish his case, but the Trial Court granted relief of injunction, which is contrary to ‘The Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924’; that unless the plaintiff proves his title and possession over the schedule property, the Trial Court cannot grant any relief of injunction against the defendants; that the Trial Court only based on the alleged report dated 19.01.2024 submitted by the Tahsildar concerned gave finding that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute from its purchase, but the said report either placed on record or exhibited as material document; that the Trial Court without appreciating the any material, erroneously decreed the suit, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 13. Per contra, Sri G.Ramgopal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 17.10.2000 vide document 11 No.52/2004, dated 08.09.2004 from the date of purchase itself and the said fact was confirmed by the Tahsildar concerned by his report dated 07.08.2023, thereby, the plaintiff established his prima-facie case and balance of convenience to get the relief of injunction; that the other vendors of the plaintiff have never objected the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property; that the Trial Court by considering the material on record rightly granted relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, which requires no interference of this Court, thereby, the present appeal has no merits and liable for dismissal. 14. 14. It is against this backdrop, the point that arises for determination need consideration now; “whether the Trial Court erred in granting the relief of injunction in favour of plaintiff against the defendants over the plaint B schedule property in the eye of law without examination of any witness or documentary evidence before the Court concerned?” 12 15. POINT: Primarily the suit is filed by the plaintiff for ratification of his sale deed document No.52/2004, dated 08.09.2004, pertaining to survey No.9/3 of Adarimetta Village since he alleged to have been in possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.10/8 from the date of purchase. Based on the said document, the suit is filed and 1st and main relief is sought for. But the Trial Court did not give any finding over the said aspect and granted other relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 16. Admittedly, on perusal of the entire judgment of the Trial Court, none of the witness was examined or no documentary evidence was adduced. It is the prime contention of the contesting defendants in the written statement itself that they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property. But the impugned judgment does not contain the contents of written statement field by the defendants. On the other hand, the 13 defendants relied upon the endorsement vide Rc.No.687/2023/Ju.Sa. dated 02.12.2023, which was obtained under the Right to Information Act, given by the Tahsildar concerned that they verified the registered documents in register relating to the year 2004 for Savantasaram, Paderu Mandal and found that no document was registered on 08.09.2004 and said Regd.Document No.52/2004 is not available in the register. As per the contention of the defendants, the said document was also placed before the Trial Court, but the same is not considered. 17. The Trial Court, only based on the Enjoyment report submitted by the Tahsildar concerned, gave a finding that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.10/8, thereby, he is entitled for the permanent injunction. Admittedly, the said document is also not exhibited/marked. As stated supra, before the Trial Court neither any witness nor any document was exhibited to decide the matter on merits. The Trial Court proceeded with 14 the suit only on the bare contention raised by the plaintiff and decided the suit by granting relief of permanent injunction which is consequential relief without deciding the main relief and not appreciating the any material on record. 18. At this juncture, now it is relevant to refer to Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924, which reads as follows: “16.The rules prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure for examination of witness in appealable cases shall apply to all trials of original suits and proceedings of civil nature held before the Agency Courts in cases in which a witness may reside at a considerable distance, or may be unable from sickness or other causes to attend the court, the court may issue a commission for his examination on interrogatories or otherwise by the nearest Agency Divisional Officer or Agency Munsif or any other suitable person or, if his residence be outside the Agency, by the nearest district Munsif.” 19. The above rule fortified the contention raised by the appellants that the Trial Court erred in granting relief without 15 appreciating the material on record, which pellucid the requirement of Trial Court to adjudicate the matter on merits. Admittedly, in the present suit the defendants have raised their objections by filing written statement as well as producing the material to disprove the case of the plaintiff. But the Trial Court, admittedly, failed to consider any material to adjudicate the matter on merits, on the other hand, proceeded to decide the matter only basing on the bare report of the Tahsildhar, which has absolutely no sanctity in the eye of law without any supporting material on record, when the defendants raised their objections with supporting material, thereby the judgment of the Trial Court is nothing but clandestine in nature. This Court is not known what is pestering the Trial Court to proceed with a civil matter in such a whimsical manner. 20. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the Trial Court is absolutely proceeded with mechanically to decide the matter 16 without appreciating any material on record as well failed to examine any of the material witness, which is necessary to decide the matter on merits and it is nothing but circumvent the Rules, thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mater requires fresh adjudication before the Trial Court with a direction to decide the same on merits as per the law. 21. In the result, the appeal is disposed of by setting aside the decree and judgment, dated 27.01.2024 passed in A.O.S.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Additional Agent to Government-cum-Joint Collector, Alluri Seetharamaraju District at Paderu, consequently, directing the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh on merits by considering the material on record as per the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Registry is directed to return the entire material part of the record to the Trial Court concerned as well, to proceed 17 with the matter; both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court as and when required for expeditious disposal of the suit. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 05.01.2026 Krs 18 296 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT No.106 of 2024 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 05.01.2026 Krs