1. Heard Sri Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. This appeal, filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Agent to Government in O.S.No.61 of 2020. By the said order, the Agent to Government decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, thereby granting a perpetual injunction in their favour, restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondents' alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

Plaint Averments (Respondents/Plaintiffs’ case)

3. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs, as set out in the plaint, in substance, is as follows:

               i. The respondents, who are own brothers and members of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) community, claim to be the owners, possessors and pattadars of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties situated at Garibpeta Village, Sujathanagar Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

               ii. According to them, the suit schedule properties are assigned lands originally granted by the Government in favour of their grandfather, late Yasa Mallaiah. Upon the demise of their grandfather and thereafter their father, they succeeded to the said properties by inheritance and have since been in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof.

               iii. It is their specific case that their names were duly mutated in the revenue records; 1-B Namoona, pattadar passbooks and pahanies were issued in their favour; and they have also been receiving benefits under the Rythubandhu Scheme in respect of the suit schedule properties.

               iv. The respondents further pleaded that neither they nor their predecessors-in-interest had alienated the suit lands in favour of any third party and that they had been cultivating cotton crops in the said lands.

               v. It is alleged that the appellants, having developed a greedy eye over the suit schedule properties, began unlawfully interfering with their peaceful possession without any manner of right or interest. A specific incident is alleged to have occurred on 24.02.2020 at about 8:00 a.m., when the appellants, along with their supporters and henchmen, attempted to dispossess the respondents and threatened to prevent them from enjoying the properties, necessitating the institution of the suit for perpetual injunction.

               vi. The respondents also pleaded that, being members of the ST community, they were exempted from payment of court fee under the applicable Government Orders.

Written Statement (Appellants/Defendants case)

4. The appellants/defendants filed their written statement resisting the suit, and contended as under:

               i. The appellants denied that the respondents are the owners, possessors or pattadars of the suit schedule properties or that the properties are assigned lands devolved upon them by succession. They also disputed the validity of the revenue entries and pattadar passbooks relied upon by the respondents, contending that the same are false, fabricated and obtained by misrepresentation.

               ii. The appellants pleaded that they belong to the Lambada community, a Scheduled Tribe, and asserted that they are the rightful and absolute owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

               iii. It is their specific case that the 1st appellant, Tejavath Poolya, purchased the suit schedule property from its original owner, Yasam Gopaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, on 03.04.2001 under an unregistered sale document and, ever since such purchase, has remained in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the property, carrying on agricultural operations thereon.

               iv. The appellants further pleaded that the name of the 1st appellant was entered in the revenue records as possessor in the relevant survey numbers; pahanies and Mee-Seva pahanies were issued in his favour; and on 17.08.2019 he submitted a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) seeking issuance of a pattadar passbook, which was forwarded to the Tahsildar for enquiry and appropriate action, though no action was ultimately taken.

               v. The appellants categorically denied the allegation of interference on 24.02.2020 and asserted that they had never threatened or interfered with the respondents' possession. On the contrary, it was alleged that the respondents are not in possession of any portion of the suit land and had attempted to interfere with the appellants' lawful possession by relying upon false and fabricated pattadar passbooks.

               vi. Accordingly, the appellants contended that the suit was devoid of merit, not maintainable either in law or on facts, and liable to be dismissed with costs.

Consideration by the Agent to Government

5. Before the Agent to Government, the respondents/plaintiffs adduced oral evidence by examining PW1 to PW5, while the appellants/defendants examined DW1 to DW4. The Agent to Government recorded that both parties had filed only Xerox copies of the documents relied upon by them and, consequently, no document was marked as an exhibit. Thus, the evidence before the Agent to Government comprised the oral testimony of the witnesses and unmarked photo copies of the revenue records, pattadar passbooks, pahanies and the unregistered sale document relied upon by the parties.

6. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the Agent to Government, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023, decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The principal reasoning assigned by the Agent to Government is contained in a brief paragraph of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

               “After a careful examination of the evidence presented, the following findings have been made:

               The suit scheduled properties, Item No.1&2, were originally assigned to Yasa Mallaiah, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs. Upon the demise of the grandfather and father, the plaintiffs, as successors, obtained ownership of the suit scheduled properties through inheritance. Their names were duly recorded in the revenue records as pattadars and employers for the pahani year 2017-18 in Garibpeta village, Sujathanagar Mandal.

               On the other hand, the defendants claim to have purchased a portion of the land from Yasa Gopaiah on 03.04.2001 through an unregistered stamp document. However, it has been determined that this transaction is null and void and cannot be considered as admissible evidence under Section 17 of the Registration Act read with Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

               Based on this finding, it can be concluded that the plaintiffs have a rightful claim to the suit schedule properties, while the defendants acquisition of a portion of the land is not valid.

               The relevant portion of law is mentioned below:

               3. Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands and the following conditions that are:

               • Where, before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed of transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.

               • No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise.

               • Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void.

               • The provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority.

               • Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement.

               • The transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 31.12.2017 subject to the condition that he/she is land less poor person, and is in occupation of the land by using the said for agriculture or as house site, as on the date of taking possession by eviction.

               In the result, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have got title and possession over the Item No.1 and 2 of the scheduled properties. The Injunction is made absolute in favor of the plaintiffs, hence the suit is decreed without costs.”

Submissions on behalf of the appellants (defendants)

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants assailed the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 passed in O.S.No.61 of 2020 and advanced his submissions as under:

               i. That the suit was one for bare perpetual injunction, wherein the burden squarely rested upon the respondents/plaintiffs to establish their lawful and settled possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of institution of the suit. Instead of adjudicating the issue of possession as on the date of the suit, the Agent to Government proceeded as though it was deciding a suit for declaration of title and granted the relief of injunction primarily on the basis of its observations regarding title.

               ii. That the Agent to Government failed to appreciate the well-settled distinction between a suit for injunction and a suit for declaration, resulting in a manifestly erroneous and perverse finding.

               iii. That the principal controversy between the parties concerned the competing claims over the suit schedule properties arising out of the appellants' purchase of the property from Yasam Gopaiah under an unregistered sale document dated 03.04.2001 and the respondents' claim through succession. According to the learned counsel, the Agent to Government summarily held the appellants' sale transaction to be “null and void” which issue was not before the Agent to Government without undertaking any meaningful analysis of the statutory provisions governing assigned lands or examining whether the transaction attracted any statutory exception. Such a cursory approach, it was submitted, rendered the judgment incomplete and unsustainable.

               iv. That although both parties had produced documentary material in support of their respective claims, the Agent to Government merely observed that the documents were Xerox copies and consequently declined to mark any document as an exhibit. Despite the absence of any exhibited documentary evidence, the Agent to Government proceeded to record findings on title and possession, placing reliance on the very same documents which were not marked as exhibits.

               v. That the Agent to Government ought to have first determined the admissibility of the documents relied upon by the parties, particularly the unregistered sale document, before drawing adverse conclusions against the appellants. The procedure adopted has caused serious prejudice to the appellants.

               vi. That the Agent to Government failed to distinguish between de jure title and de facto possession. While the respondents asserted title by succession, the appellants specifically pleaded long, continuous and uninterrupted possession from the year 2001 onwards, coupled with cultivation of the land and entries in the revenue records, and that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the decisive consideration is actual possession on the date of the suit and not the adjudication of title. The Agent to Government completely ignored the appellants' plea of continuous possession extending over two decades.

               vii. That the Agent to Government mechanically held the unregistered sale document to be inadmissible by referring to the provisions of the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act, without examining whether the document could nevertheless be looked into for collateral purposes, including the nature and character of possession, as provided for in the ‘proviso’ to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

               viii. That the impugned judgment is cryptic and bereft of proper reasoning. The Agent to Government neither analysed the oral evidence led by the parties nor considered the rival pleadings in their proper perspective. Apart from recording a brief conclusion that the appellants' transaction was void, the Agent to Government assigned no cogent reasons for decreeing the suit. It was therefore submitted that the impugned judgment does not satisfy the requirements of a reasoned judicial determination and is liable to be set aside.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents (plaintiffs)

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs supported the impugned judgment and decree and advanced the following submissions:

               i. That the Agent to Government rightly appreciated both the pleadings and the material available on record in holding that the suit schedule properties were originally assigned in favour of the respondents' grandfather, late Yasa Mallaiah, and that the respondents succeeded to the properties upon the demise of their predecessors. That their names were duly entered in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks were issued in their favour and they had also been extended the benefits of the Rythubandhu Scheme, all of which clearly establish their lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

               ii. That the appellants claim rights solely on the strength of an unregistered sale document dated 03.04.2001 allegedly executed by Yasam Gopaiah. Since the suit properties are assigned lands situated in a Scheduled Area, any transfer made in contravention of the applicable statutory provisions is void and confers no right, title or interest upon the transferee. The Agent to Government, therefore, rightly held that the appellants' claim was unenforceable in law and that the transaction relied upon by them was null and void.

               iii. That the revenue records, including the pahanies, 1-B records and pattadar passbooks standing in the names of the respondents, sufficiently establish their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The challenge mounted by the appellants to the said revenue records is wholly untenable and unsupported by any legally admissible evidence.

               iv. That both parties had admittedly produced only photo copies of the documents. In the absence of original or certified copies, the Agent to Government was justified in declining to exhibit the documents. The appellants, having failed to produce primary evidence in support of the alleged sale transaction, cannot now complain of any prejudice on that account.

               v. That the appellants had failed to establish any lawful right over the suit schedule properties despite claiming possession for several years. Their conduct, coupled with the inconsistencies in their case, disentitles them to any equitable relief. It was therefore contended that the appeal does not merit interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Agent to Government.

9. I have taken note of the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material available on record.

Consideration by this Court

10. In the present case, a careful examination of the impugned judgment discloses that the Agent to Government failed to adjudicate the real controversy arising between the parties. The defence set up by the appellants was not a mere denial of the respondents' possession. On the contrary, they specifically pleaded that the 1st appellant had purchased the suit schedule property from its original owner, Yasam Gopaiah, under an unregistered sale document dated 03.04.2001; that ever since the said transaction, 1st appellant has remained in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property; that his name was reflected in the revenue records as the person in possession; and that he had also approached the RDO seeking issuance of a pattadar passbook in his favour. Thus, the appellants asserted an independent and substantive defence founded upon the alleged transfer coupled with their long-standing possession, which warranted due consideration and adjudication by the Agent to Government.

11. The Agent to Government, however, disposed of the said defence in a brief paragraph by holding that the sale transaction was “null and void” on the ground that it was based on an unregistered document and by referring to the provisions of the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act. In doing so, the Agent to Government failed to undertake any meaningful examination of the rival pleadings or the legal implications arising from the appellants' specific defence. Although the Agent to Government extracted the provisions governing transfer of assigned lands, it neither examined the applicability of those provisions to the facts of the case nor considered whether the transaction relied upon by the appellants attracted any statutory exception or saving provision.

12. It is pertinent to note that the Agent to Government itself recorded that both parties had produced only photo copies of the documents and, therefore, no document could be marked as an exhibit. Having so recorded, it nevertheless proceeded to rely upon those very documents for returning findings regarding title and possession. Such an approach is inherently inconsistent and renders the reasoning legally unsustainable.

13. It is to be noted that the validity and legal effect of the appellants' plea of transfer constituted an integral part of their defence and necessarily required judicial determination while deciding the issues framed in the suit. Instead of examining the rival claims in the light of the pleadings, oral evidence and the applicable statutory provisions, the Agent to Government disposed of the defence by a summary observation that the transaction was void. Consequently, the appellants' defence was never meaningfully adjudicated. Such a failure goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the impugned judgment.

14. The Agent to Government has also erred in appreciating the principles governing a suit for perpetual injunction. The present suit was one for bare injunction, wherein the principal issue for determination was whether the respondents had established their lawful and settled possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of institution of the suit and whether such possession was liable to be protected against unlawful interference.

15. While the Agent to Government referred to the revenue entries standing in the names of the respondents and their claim of succession, the impugned judgment does not disclose any meaningful examination of the rival claims regarding possession. The appellants had specifically pleaded that they had purchased the suit schedule properties under an unregistered sale document dated 03.04.2001 and had remained in continuous and uninterrupted possession ever since. This specific defence constituted a direct challenge to the respondents' assertion of continuous possession and required independent consideration.

16. Further, the Agent to Government neither analysed the oral evidence adduced by the parties nor evaluated the competing claims of possession. Instead, the finding regarding possession appears to have been founded principally upon the revenue entries relied upon by the respondents and the conclusion drawn regarding the validity of the appellants' transaction. Such an approach is contrary to the settled principles governing a suit for perpetual injunction, where the Court is required to independently determine the question of possession on the date of the suit on the basis of the evidence available on record. The absence of any discussion on the appellants' plea of long-standing possession and the failure to appreciate the evidentiary value of the oral testimony adduced by either side renders the findings of the Agent to Government incomplete and legally unsustainable.

17. It is pertinent to note that the Agent to Government failed to undertake a proper evaluation of the rival claims regarding possession of the suit schedule properties. While the respondents relied upon the revenue records, pattadar passbooks and their claim of succession, the appellants specifically pleaded that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule properties ever since the alleged purchase under the unregistered sale document dated 03.04.2001 and that their names were also reflected in the revenue records as persons in possession. Despite the existence of these competing claims, the Agent to Government accepted the respondents' case primarily on the basis of the revenue entries and their claim of succession, without comparatively appreciating the evidence or materials relied upon by the appellants in support of their plea of long- standing possession. Therefore, the principal issue relating to actual possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of institution of the suit remained inadequately examined, thereby rendering the findings recorded in the impugned judgment unsustainable.

18. Another significant infirmity in the impugned judgment pertains to the appreciation of documentary evidence. The Agent to Government recorded that both parties had produced only Xerox copies of the documents and, therefore, no document could be marked as an exhibit. Having so held, the Agent to Government nevertheless proceeded to rely upon the very same documents for recording findings regarding the rival claims of the parties, particularly while holding that the transaction relied upon by the appellants was null and void. Such an approach is internally inconsistent and contrary to the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence.

19. It is apposite to note that the appellants had specifically relied upon the unregistered sale document dated 03.04.2001 in support of their plea of long-standing possession. Without first determining the admissibility and evidentiary value of the said document in accordance with law, the Agent to Government summarily rejected the appellants' defence and proceeded to decree the suit. The absence of any reasoned consideration on this aspect has materially prejudiced the appellants and has further vitiated the impugned judgment.

Conclusion

20. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in O.S. No.61 of 2020, cannot be sustained. The Agent to Government failed to properly adjudicate the rival claims of the parties, did not meaningfully appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record, and proceeded to record findings without adequately addressing the principal controversy relating to possession of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from material irregularities in the appreciation of both facts and law, warranting interference by this Court.

21. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in O.S. No.61 of 2020 is hereby set aside. It is directed that the Agent to Government shall reconsider the suit afresh by duly appreciating the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence, and the rival claims of the parties, including the appellants' plea of transfer and long-standing possession, and shall determine the admissibility and evidentiary value of the documents relied upon, after affording the parties adequate opportunity. The Agent to Government shall thereafter dispose of the suit by passing a reasoned judgment on all the issues arising for consideration, uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned judgment or the instant judgment of this Court. Since the suit is of the year 2020, every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in the appeal, shall stand closed. No costs.