Sidda Reddy Vs. Busi Subba Reddy & Ors.  INSC 357 (6 May 2010)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)
No.4549 of 2008 Atla Sidda Reddy .. Petitioner Busi Subba Reddy & Ors. ..
Despite service of notice, the respondents have not appeared to contest the
Special Leave Petition which is directed against the judgment and order dated
18th April, 2007, passed by the 2 Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.A. No.656 of 1997.
September, 1988, the petitioner filed O.S. No.735 of 1988 in the Court of
District Munsif, Cuddapah, inter alia, for declaration of the petitioner's
title to the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction to restrain
the defendant No.1 and his men from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful
possession therein and enjoyment thereof. The III Additional District Munsif
dismissed the petitioner's suit on 29.11.1990, upon holding that the petitioner
had failed to establish the title of his predecessor-in-interest in the suit
land. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being A.S.No.113 of 1990, in the
Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, which was allowed on 26th
March, 1997. The judgment and 3 order of the trial court was set aside and the
suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner.
3. It may
be indicated that the defendant No.1 Koppolu Subba Reddy, died during the
pendency of the appeal before the 1st Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, and
the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 herein were brought on record as his legal
representatives. The respondents herein filed Second Appeal No.656 of 1997, in
the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the same was allowed by the learned Single
Judge on 18th April, 2007. The judgment and decree of the 1st Additional
District Judge was set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court
dismissing the petitioner's suit was restored.
order to appreciate the submissions of Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned advocate,
appearing in support of the Special Leave Petition, it is 4 necessary to set
out the facts of the case in brief.
According to the petitioner, the suit property belonged to the defendant No.1,
Koppolu Subba Reddy who sold the same to one Pasupula Lakshmamma by a
registered deed of sale dated 19.7.1966. Lakshmamma, in her turn, sold the
property to one Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum, a minor represented by her
guardian and father Syed Ghouse, by a registered sale deed dated 10.5.1974 and
the same was allegedly attested by the defendant No.1 himself.
Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum sold the land to the petitioner by a
registered deed of sale dated 5.3.1984 and the petitioner is in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the said land in his own right since then. The suit
was resisted by the defendant by filing a 5 written statement wherein it was
admitted that the suit lands originally belonged to the defendant No.1 who sold
the same to Lakshmamma, but the said Lakshmamma sold all the lands, except
Survey No.93/6, to one Thondolu Mahaboob Basha, son of Dathagiri by a
registered deed of sale dated 22.5.1968.
Thondolu Mahaboob Basha sold two portions of the said land, namely, Survey
No.99/6 to an extent of 40 cents out of 52 cents and Survey No.99/6 to an
extent of 47 cents, comprising the suit land, to Pallampalli Pedda Veera Reddy,
by a registered deed of sale dated 17.5.1982. The defendant thereafter
purchased the said two plots of land from the said Pallampalli Pedda Veera
Reddy by a registered deed dated 7.11.1985. The defendant, accordingly, was the
absolute owner of the said land and he has been in possession 6 and enjoyment
of the property since then.
6. In the
light of the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the main issue which fell
for decision of the trial court was whether the petitioner had acquired title
to the suit properties by virtue of the deed of sale dated 5.3.1984 executed in
his favour by Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum in view of the case of the
defendant that Lakshmamma had already sold the suit property to one Thondolu
Mahaboob Basha by a registered deed of sale dated 22.5.1968 (Ext.B2). In other
words, what the Court was called upon to decide was whether Ext.B2 extinguished
Lakshmamma's right in the suit property so that she no longer had any right to
execute and register the sale deed dated 10th May, 1974 executed in favour of
Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum.
trial court came to the finding that in view of the registered sale deed dated
22.5.1968 executed by Lakshmamma in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha in
respect of the suit property, she was no longer competent to execute the
subsequent sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of Syed Ghouse
Bi alias Chand Begum through whom the plaintiff/petitioner claims title. The
trial court thereupon dismissed the suit.
First Appellate Court, however, chose not to rely on the evidence of
Lakshmamma, (DW.4), who in her deposition was not certain as to how the sale
deed was said to have been executed by her in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha
as she neither knew him nor the scribe, who is said to have written the sale
First Appellate Court held that the testimony of DW.4, Lakshmamma, did not
inspire confidence and, accordingly, discarded the same as far as the sale deed
in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha on 22.5.1968 (Ext.B2) is concerned and
relied on the subsequent deed executed in favour of Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand
Begum dated 10.5.1974 (Ext.A1), and decreed the suit.
indicated hereinbefore, the High Court accepted the evidence of DW.4 Lakshmamma
and came to a finding that by virtue of Ex.B2 she had transferred all her
rights, title and interest in the suit properties in favour of Thondolu
Mahaboob Basha and having divested her of the title to the suit properties, she
was no longer competent to execute a further sale deed in respect of the same
property in favour of Syed Ghouse Bi on 16.3.1974 9 (Ex.A1). The High Court
having accepted the sale deed dated 22.5.1968 in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha
as being genuine, it came to the conclusion that since the said document was
prior in point of time in relation to the subsequent document executed in
favour of Syed Ghouse Bi, the plaintiff/petitioner, who had acquired his title
through Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum, did not acquire any title to the suit
properties. On such finding, the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of
the first Appellate Court.
factual aspect having been dealt with in detail by the Courts below, ending in
the findings of the High Court, we are not inclined to delve into the facts any
further. As indicated by the trial Court, Ext.B2 is a crucial document and was
admittedly anterior in point of time to Ext.A1 subsequently executed by DW.4 in
favour of Syed 10 Ghouse Bi when she had already divested herself of title to
the suit properties. The petitioner did not, therefore, acquire any title to
the suit property and the suit was rightly dismissed.
Having regard to the above, the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner do not warrant any interference with the order of the High Court
impugned therein and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order
as to costs.
................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)
6TH May, 2010.