THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO.347 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:-
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.42 of 1991 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvidu, Krishna District are the appellant herein.
The suit was filed for declaration of title of the second plaintiff to the suit schedule property, which is an extent of Ac.6.99 cents of land situated at Nadim Tiruvur and for an injunction.
The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property is known as Ganga Ragi Chettu Thota. The half of the schedule property was purchased by the first plaintiff’s father from one late Shaik Gulam Ali Saheb in the year 1938 and the second half of the said land was purchased by one late Rajah Vellanki Radhakrishna Rao from one Shaik Kandam Bibi and he in turn sold the property to the plaintiffs’ father in the year 1944 for a sum of Rs.800/-. The revenue records show that the land was leased out to Shiak Gulam Ali Saheb by the Rajah. The inam fair register does not show that it is an inam land which is claimed by the third defendant. The plaintiff has been exercising the right of ownership and possession over the entire suit schedule property. The ryotwari passbook was also issued to the plaintiffs. Part of the suit land which is an extent Ac.0.55 cents was acquired by the Government and a reference was made to the civil court in O.P.No.6 of 1984. In that the land was held to be the Government land. As against that the appeal A.S.No.1421 of 1985 was carried and the judgment was confirmed. The defendants, therefore, contended that the land was granted as Inam to the deity and the inam B register clearly goes to prove the same. In 10(1) Adangal Account maintained by the Government, the third defendant is shown as the owner of the property. The question of extinguishing of title does not arise. The title of the plaintiff has been seriously disputed.
After considering the evidence on record, the trial court has considered the issue based on principles of res judicata and held that the suit is liable to be dismissed. As against that Appeal A.S.No.40 of 2002 was preferred to the VIII Additional District Judge,Vijayawada
Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel representing the counsel for the appellants contends that both the courts below have misapplied the principles of res judicata without considering the voluminous evidence placed by the plaintiff to support the title to the property. According to him, the enquiry under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act is of a limited nature and any decision with regard to title therein will not operate as res judicata. In this connection, it is to be noted that by virtue of the amendment of Civil Procedure Code in 1976, as per the explanation (8) of Section.11 the issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction shall also operate as res judicata. Evidently, the claim before the Land Acquisition Officer is based on the same facts of title acquired by the plaintiff. The court has framed necessary issues and decided the title which was a point of controversy between the parties. When the part of the suit land was held to be the land belonging to the third defendant and when such finding has become final as rightly held by the courts below, no further decision contrary to the earlier finding can be undertaken. Even otherwise, the records filed by the defendants shows that the land is inam land and evidently it was meant for the deity. The pleadings on the part of the plaintiffs is also not clear as to when imams were abolished and when Nuzivid is zamindar village whether the partition between the vendor of the plaintiffs’ father and other brothers relate to the family land. Further more, after the abolition of the imams also, the plaintiffs have not obtained any patta from the Settlement Officer. There is nothing on record to show that a personal grant given to any person for the services to be rendered or if any other purpose is alienable though it may be inheritable. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, when part of the land is found to be the land belonging to the deity, there cannot be any contrary view to be taken. The contention of the counsel for the appellants cannot be entertained in view of the settled proposition of land and also in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair([1]). Therefore, I find no merits in the appeal and there are no substantial questions of law to be entertained in this Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
_______________________
N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J
28-08-2012
TSNR
