1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS.No.26 of 1988 dt.28.08.1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, wherein the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the suit for the clarity and better understanding of the case.

PLAINT AVERMENTS:

3. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff’s father and uncle purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring 1,400 square yards, consisting of a toddy shop, arrack shop, saw mill and open land, from the original pattadars before 1965 for Rs.1500/- and on payment of consideration, an unregistered/simple sale deed was executed, with an agreement to execute a registered sale deed later and accordingly, they have took possession and started business activities in the schedule property.

4. The plaintiff further averred that himself and his uncle conducted toddy business, later leased the said toddy shop to the Toddy Tappers Society, Bhongir, and also leased the saw mill portion to defendant No.2 in 1975 for Rs.100/- monthly rent. The plaintiff thus claims continuous possession over the schedule property and also payment of taxes and revenue charges, and assert that he perfected title by adverse possession through continuous, open and uninterrupted possession.

5. After the death of his father (1976) and uncle (1978), a family partition took place on 25.04.1979, in which the suit property fell to the plaintiff’s share. However, records were remained in the name of late Jadala Ramulu as the partition deed was not registered and mutation was not done incorporating the name of the plaintiff in the Revenue and Municipal records.

6. The plaintiff contends that defendant No.1 obtained a decree in O.S. No.35 of 1984 on 19.02.1988 for recovery of possession of 434 square yards of the saw mill property without impleading the plaintiff or legal heirs of Jadala Ramulu against defendant No.2, and that the said decree is not binding on him and further avers that the defendant No.1 is illegally attempting to dispossess defendant No.2 by virtue of the said suit being decreed in his favour.

7. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit claiming ownership and possession over the entire property, against defendant No.2, who is a lessee, who claims title and also against defendants Nos.3 to 6, who are the legal heirs of defendant No.1, who claims ownership by virtue of partition.

WRITTEN STATEMENTS :

By defendant No.1:

8. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement contending that the plaintiff has suppressed the true facts and put forth a false case to lay claim over the suit property. He denied that the plaintiff tobe either the owner or possessor of the suit land admeasuring 1,400 square yards comprising the toddy shop, arrack shop or the saw mill along with open land. He further denied the plaintiff's contentions that the saw mill portion was leased out to defendant No.2 by the plaintiff's father and late uncle in the year 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- and contends that he had filed O.S. No.35 of 1984 against defendant No.2 for eviction, and defendant No.2 pleaded that he had taken the premises on lease from Sardar Miya and not from the plaintiff herein or his predecessors. The defendant No.1 further contended that the plaintiff failed to produce continuous proof of payment of non-agricultural tax, land revenue or municipal taxes in respect of the suit property.

9. It is specifically contended by defendant No.1 that Yawar Hussain and Sardar Miya were never pattadars of the suit land and, therefore, they have no right, title or interest to convey the same to the plaintiff or Jadala Ramulu. According to him, he is the pattadar, owner and possessor of the suit property and his name has been recorded in the revenue records since the date of Kasra Pahani. He asserted that all relevant revenue records, including those relied upon by the plaintiff, stood in his name. He further contended that he had orally leased out an extent of 368 square yards covered by the toddy and arrack shops to Jadala Ramulu and Yellaiah on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-, which was paid till the year 1978, and as rent was not paid thereafter, he issued a legal notice dt.05.11.1982 to the plaintiff and defendants Nos.3 to 6 terminating the tenancy and calling upon them to vacate the premises, but they failed to comply with the same. He further stated that he subsequently obtained permission from the Municipality for construction of a compound wall in the open land admeasuring 312 square yards.

10. It is further contended by the defendant No.1 that the judgment and decree dt.19.02.1988 in O.S.No.35 of 1984 conclusively established his right, title and ownership over the suit property. According to him, the alleged sale in favour of Jadala Ramulu and Yellaiah is false, fictitious and unsupported by any valid document. He asserted that, since Yawar Hussain and Sardar Miya had no title over the property, the question of their conveying any right to the plaintiff's predecessors does not arise. He further alleged that the said persons were actively supporting the plaintiff and defendants Nos.2 to 6 in the present litigation.

11. It is also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as Yawar Hussain and Sardar Miya, who are the lessees of the toddy and arrack shops, and the wife and children of late Jadala Ramulu and Yellaiah were not impleaded. He further contended that the plaintiff failed to produce any registered partition deed or furnish particulars of the alleged partition. According to him, mere entries in municipal or revenue records and payment of taxes do not confer title. He also pleaded that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35 of 1984 operate as res judicata against the plaintiff.

12. It is the further case of defendant No.1 that, by setting up title adverse to the lessor, the plaintiff had violated the terms of the tenancy, and therefore he was entitled to initiate proceedings for eviction of the plaintiff and the sub-lessees occupying the toddy and arrack shop premises. He asserted that, being the pattadar and owner of Survey No.7, he had leased only an extent of 368 square yards to Jadala Ramulu and Yellaiah, where they had erected temporary structures and conducted business as tenants. According to him, except to that limited extent, neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors had any right, possession or interest in the remaining open land or the saw mill premises. He contended that the plaintiff could claim only the status of a tenant in respect of the leased portion until evicted in accordance with law. Lastly, he pleaded that the plaintiff has no cause of action, and that the suit is barred by limitation and undervalued, and therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.

By defendants No.7 to 15:

13. The defendants Nos.7 to 15, being the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2, filed a common written statement contending that the plaint is based on suppression of material facts and false allegations and that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit property. According to them, deceased-defendant No.2 had taken the saw mill portion, forming part of the suit property, on lease from Sardar Miya, son of Khalander Hussain Sahab in the year 1977 on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- and had been in possession and enjoyment thereof by establishing a saw mill and paying rent to the said landlord. After his death, defendants Nos.7 to 15 continued in possession and enjoyment of the saw mill premises as tenants under Sardar Miya. They specifically denied the plaintiff's allegation that defendant No.2 had taken the saw mill premises on lease from the plaintiff's father and late Jadala Ramulu in or about the year 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. They also denied that the plaintiff's father and his uncle had purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of Khalander Hussain Sahab and stated that the saw mill premises bears municipal Door No.1-4-10/E (old) and 1-4-9/A (new).

14. They further contended that, had there been any genuine sale transaction in favour of the plaintiff's predecessors as alleged, a registered sale deed would have been obtained and the plaintiff would have asserted his rights in O.S.No.35 of 1984 filed by defendant No.1 against defendant No.2. According to them, the plaintiff's failure to participate in the said proceedings itself demonstrates that he had no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit property. They further contended that, in view of the plaintiff's plea of adverse possession, Yawar Hussain and Sardar Miya are necessary and proper parties to the suit and, in their absence, no effective decree can be granted. They maintained that defendants Nos.7 to 15 are continuing in possession of the saw mill premises as tenants under Sardar Miya and that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between them.

15. The defendants Nos.7 to 15 further contended that the plea regarding loss of the alleged sale deed is false and intended to avoid production of the document. Reiterating that defendant No.2 had never taken the saw mill premises on lease from the plaintiff's predecessors, they asserted that the suit is false, frivolous and devoid of merit and, therefore, liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

By defendants No.16 & 17:

16. The defendants No.16 and 17, who were impleaded pursuant to the orders passed in I.A. No.349 of 1996 dt.15.09.1997, filed a common written statement substantially adopting and reiterating the averments made by defendants No.7 to 15. They specifically contended that they never executed any sale deed in favour of Jadala Ramulu and Jadala Anjaiah in respect of the suit property. According to them, defendants No.7 to 15 are continuing in possession of the saw mill premises as tenants under Sardar Miya and the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between them.

17. It is further contended that the suit property forms part of Survey No.7 situated adjacent to Nalgonda Road and that substantial portions thereof had already been sold by them to various purchasers after forming plots, and thus, the suit is false, frivolous and devoid of merit and, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs and compensatory costs.

ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT:

18. Basing on the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues.

               1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration over 1,400 Sq. Yards out of survey No.7 covered by Toddy shop. Arrack shop, Saw Mill and open place?

               2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

               3. Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title to the suit land by way of adverse possession?

               4. Whether the defendant No.1 is the lessee of plaintiff's father and Jadala Ramulu and still he is the lessee of plaintiff?

               5. Whether the plaintiff's father Jadala Ramulu purchased the suit properties from original pattedars Yawar Hussain and Sardar Miya before 1965 for Rs.1,500/-?

               6. Whether the suit land covered by Toddy shop, Arrack shop, saw mill and open place is allotted towards the share of plaintiff in the family partition effected on 25.4.1979?

               7. Whether the suit is not maintainable without seeking the relief to set aside the decree in 0.S.No.35/84 on the file of this Cour ?

               8. Whether the judgment and decree in 0.S.No.35/84 operates as res judicata?

               9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

               10. Whether the suit is not properly valued?

               11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rectification of entries?

               12. Whether the Yawar Hussain and Sardar Miya are lessors of Arrack shop and toddy shop and the daughters and wives of Jadala Ramulu and Yellaiah are necessary and proper parties to the suit ?

               13. To what relief ?

19. During the trial, the plaintiff besides examining himself as PW1 also got examined PWs.2 to 8 and got marked Exs.A1 to A60. On the other hand, the contesting defendants got examined DWs. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.B1 to B29.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT:

20. The learned trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the plaintiff failed to establish his title and lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The Court observed that the plaintiff did not produce the original sale deed or sufficient documentary evidence to prove ownership, and the documents relied upon by him were not sufficient to establish title. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged partition and the plea of adverse possession. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

21. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the defendant has filed the present appeal.

22. Heard Sri K.Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri Deepak Misra, learned counsel for respondents No.8,11,13, 14 & 15/defendants.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

23. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir in O.S.No.26 of 1988 dt.28.08.1999 is contrary to law, evidence on record and probabilities of the case, as the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the entire oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective, despite the evidence of PW1 to PW8, supported by Exs.A1 to A60, which clearly establishes the continuous, peaceful and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and his family since 1965.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence relating to the purchase, possession, leasing of portions of the suit property for toddy shop, arrack shop and saw mill, and payment of taxes. Further, the revenue records, municipal records, tax receipts and lease deeds produced by the Plaintiff corroborate his case and could not have been discarded without valid reasons.

25. He further contended that the evidence of the independent witnesses, particularly PWs.3 to 6, regarding the lease transactions and possession of the suit premises was not properly considered and that the admissions made by the defence witnesses and their failure to establish any valid title or right over the suit property were also ignored. Thus, contended that the findings of the learned trial Court on all the issu8es framed, including the alternative plea of adverse possession, are contrary to the evidence and settled principles of law and the trial Court failed to appreciate the long-standing possession and acts of ownership proved by the plaintiff. He therefore prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and to decree the suit of the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed for.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS:

26. Pending the appeal, the instant appeal suit was dismissed for default against respondents No.1, 3, 7, 10 & 12.

27. Sri Deepak Misra, learned counsel for respondents No.8,11,13, 14 & 15/defendants contend that the instant appeal suit is devoid of merits, as the plaintiff failed to establish his title and possession over the suit schedule property by producing any valid document. He further contended that the alleged purchase of the property was not proved, as the original sale deed was not filed and that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, such as tax receipts and revenue records, at the most show occupation and payment of taxes but do not confer ownership, that the evidence on record establishes that the defendants have right and interest over the suit property.

28. Learned counsel further contended that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and dismissed the suit, and thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court based on evidence on record, do not call for interference, and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

29. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel on either side and perused the material on record.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT:

30. In view of the above submissions made, and since the issues No.7 & 8 framed by the trial Court, as referred to above, were held in favour of the plaintiff, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:

               1. Whether the learned trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and rectification of revenue entries, and whether the finding that the plaintiff failed to establish his title and claim of adverse possession over the suit schedule property is sustainable in law?

               2. Whether the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, including the municipal tax receipts, non-agricultural tax receipts and revenue records relied upon by the plaintiff, and whether the finding that such documents do not confer title, is justified?

               3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference by the Appellate Court?

POINTS No.1 & 2:

31. The case of the plaintiff is that his father and late uncle Jadala Ramulu purchased the suit schedule property from the original pattadars Yawar Hussain and Sardar Miya for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- and that the property subsequently fell to his share in the family partition. The plaintiff also claimed that he was in possession of the property and relied upon various tax receipts and lease documents to establish his claim.

32. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and examined PWs.2 to 8. PW1 reiterated the pleadings and stated that the property was purchased by his father and uncle and that portions of the premises were leased out for running toddy shop, arrack shop and saw mill. However, in his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he had no document to show that he was the owner of the entire extent of 1400 square yards and that the alleged sale deed was not filed before the Court. He also admitted that the property was purchased in the name of his father and Jadala Ramulu and that he had not taken any steps before the revenue authorities for mutation of the property in his name.

33. The evidence of PWs.2 to 8 does not advance the case of the plaintiff regarding title. PW2 stated about the arrack shop being run by the plaintiff and execution of rental deed. PWs.3 and 4 deposed regarding toddy contracts and lease transactions, while PWs.5, 6 and 8 supported the running of toddy shop and execution of certain lease documents. Their evidence, at the most, proves occupation and business activities in the premises but does not establish ownership over the land.

34. The plaintiff mainly relied upon Exs.A1 to A60, including municipal tax receipts, non-agricultural tax receipts, land revenue receipts and lease documents. However, such documents are not documents of title and only indicate payment of charges or possession of the premises. The alleged sale deed, which forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim, was not produced before the Court. In the absence of proof of the alleged sale transaction or family partition, the plaintiff failed to establish a valid source of title.

35. On the other hand, DW1, on behalf of defendant No.1, deposed that the property in Survey No.7 stood in the name of defendant No.1 and relied upon the revenue records, including kasra pahani, showing defendant No.1 as pattadar. PW1 himself admitted the existence of patta in the name of defendant No.1. Thus, the evidence on record does not support the claim of the plaintiff.

36. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly relied upon the settled principle that revenue and municipal entries are not documents of title and held that the plaintiff failed to establish his title and consequently refused the relief of declaration. The said finding does not call for interference. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the appellant/plaintiff.

POINT No.3:

37. The plaintiff alternatively claimed that he perfected title by adverse possession by adding the possession of his father and uncle with his own possession. However, to succeed on such plea, the plaintiff was required to prove continuous, open and hostile possession against the true owner.

38. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to establish the nature of his possession as hostile. On the contrary, his own case is that he was in possession pursuant to the alleged sale transaction and family partition, which itself indicates that he claimed under a lawful source and not in denial of the title of the true owner. Further, PW1 admitted that he had not taken steps for mutation of the property in his name or issued any notice asserting hostile title against the defendants.

39. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly held that the plea of adverse possession was not proved. More so, it is trite law that plea of adverse possession and claim of title under a sale deed cannot be maintained simultaneously. Thus, the said findings recorded by the trial Court are based on evidence and there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference by the appellate Court. Accordingly, this appoint is answered against the appellant/plaintiff.

CONCLUSION:

40. In the above stated findings, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/plaintiff has not made out any grounds for interfering with the well-considered findings of the trial Court. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

41. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.26 of 1988, dt.28.08.1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.