Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1211 of 2008
PETITIONER:
M. Purnachander Rao
RESPONDENT:
Sri Nawab Mazaharuddin Khan (D) Thr. L.Rs.& Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/2008
BENCH:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1211 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19521 OF 2005)
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the order dated
26.04.2005 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in O.S.A. (SR) No. 1900 of 2005 in and by which the Division
Bench dismissed the said appeal on the ground of limitation.
The appellant preferred O.S.A. before the Division Bench of the
High Court under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order of the Single Judge dated 26.12.2003 in Application No.
1409 of 2003 in C.S. No. 7 of 1958.
3) According to the appellant, he purchased an extent of 4
acres of agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 46 of Raidurg
Paigah Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, Andhra
Pradesh under a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1996. The
appellant’s title flows from Sri Mala Ramulu and others who
have purchased land under a registered sale deed dated
12.11.1962 from Sri Waliullah Hussaini. The said Sri
Waliullah Hussaini derives title from his father Late Sri Moulvi
Syed Akbar Hussaini. Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini
was given four villages by the then Paigah under the Nizam
Rule somewhere in the beginning of the century. The said
Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini, who was the estate
holder, died in the year 1923. He was survived by his wife,
three sons and four daughters. After his death, the Court of
Wards (Revenue Department), constituted under the
Hyderabad District Court of Wards Act, took custody of the
property of Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. The Court of
Wards will take custody of the property only if it is a private
property. The land in Patta Raidurg was also taken over by
the Court of Wards after the death of Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar
Hussaini. In 1925, there was a compromise between the legal
heirs of late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. The properties
located in Yenkapally Maqta and Patta Raidurg were allotted to
Sri Waliullah Hussaini and other sisters and brothers and
Maqta Karimnagar was allotted to other members of the
family. After the compromise, the other shareholders sold
away their rights in favour of Waliullah Hussaini and two
minors, namely, Sri Syed Akbar Nizamuddin and Sri Syed
Aminuddin Hussaini, under registered sale deeds.
4) It is the further claim of the appellant that the land in
Raidurg village is a Patta land (private property). In view of the
fact that Sri Waliullah Hussaini purchased other shareholders’
rights over the property, except Sri Waliullah Hussaini no
other person got any right. Sri Waliullah Hussaini paid land
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
revenue from 1950 onwards and he sold the same in favour of
the appellant’s predecessors in title Sri Mala Ramulu and
others after obtaining permission in the year 1962 as per the
sale deed dated 12.11.1962. They, in turn, sold the property
in favour of the appellant’s vendors.
5) It is the further case of the appellant that he is a bona
fide purchaser of land to an extent of 4 acres in Survey No. 46
of village Raidurg Paigah District Ranga Reddy, Andhra
Pradesh for valuable consideration under a registered sale
deed in the year 1996. The Civil Suit was filed on the original
side jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.S.
No. 7 of 1958. The suit was filed by the legal heirs who are the
sharers of the property belonging to the estate as "Asmanja
Paigah". A preliminary decree was passed on 06.4.1959 and
in the list of properties shown in "A" Schedule to the
preliminary decree, Item No. 234 is shown as Raidurg and in
the preliminary decree item Nos. 230 to 254 have been
excluded since the properties were under enquiry with the
Board of Revenue as to the title and claim. Item No.234
shown as Raidurg is also excluded from the distribution in the
preliminary decree. The legal representatives in the year
2002, after a lapse of 43 years, filed applications bearing Nos.
1144 to 1147 of 2002 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 claiming (1)
recognition of the Assignments in favour of respondent Nos. 21
to 40; (2) implead the respondents (assignees) as respondents;
(3) direct the Collector, R.D.O., M.R.O., to mutate the names of
the Assignees in the Revenue Records pertaining to Survey
Nos. 37, 39 to 43 and 45 to 49 in all admeasuring 143 acres
11 guntas of land situated in Raidurg Village, Serilingampally
Mandal, R.R. District and (4) direct the District Judge, Ranga
Reddy to deliver possession of the above land to the Assignees.
Without any enquiry, the learned single Judge, by order dated
09.10.2002, contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure
Code and other enactments like the Urban Land Ceiling Act,
Registration and Stamps Act, Hyderabad Land Revenue Act
etc., allowed those applications. The State Government which
was a party in the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959 was
not made a party in the abovementioned applications filed in
the year 2002. Thereafter another application was filed
bearing No. 1409 of 2003 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 for passing final
decree and the same was allowed on 26.12.2003.
6) The appellant is a stranger to the above proceedings. By
virtue of the order passed as stated above, the respondents
started interfering with the land purchased by the appellant
and coming to know about the above orders passed by the
High Court and being aggrieved by the orders passed in
Application No. 1409 of 2003, filed an appeal in OSA (SR) No.
1900 of 2005. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of
the High Court sustaining the office objection with regard to
the limitation in filing the appeal and finding that there is no
satisfactory explanation, dismissed the appeal. Questioning
the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal before
this Court.
7) We have heard Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, Ms. June
Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Harish N. Salve, Mr. R.F. Nariman, Mr. Arun Jaitely, Mr. L. N.
Rao, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel for the
respondents.
8) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, after
taking us through the chequered history of the case and by
drawing our attention to the various proceedings submitted
that Item Nos. 230-254 which have been excluded in the
preliminary decree and item No.234 being Raidurg land which
is an excluded property, the action of the respondents in
including the same in the final decree cannot be sustained. In
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
such circumstances, according to him, the appellant is an
aggrieved person and as soon as he came to know about the
various orders including the last one, namely, the final decree,
filed the original side appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court. He further contended that the High Court is not
justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.
9) We have perused all the earlier proceedings as well as
documents in respect of the property in question. It is not in
dispute that the appellant, who purchased 4 acres of land by
way of sale deed dated 11.10.2003 from his vendor, heavily
relied his title to the same from Sri Walliullah Hussaini who
was defendant No.41 in C.S. No. 7 of 1958 on the file of the
High Court. It is relevant to point out that the appellant
himself placed a memo of compromise which was filed and
recorded in C.S. No. 7 of 1958. The copy of the decree in C.S.
No.7 of 1958 dated 6.4.1959 which is available on pages 156-
232 in the S.L.P. Paper Book (Part II) filed as additional
document by the appellant in this Court shows that the suit
filed against Sri Waliullah Hussaini was dismissed. Clause 14
which is available at page 198 of the said paper book reads as
under:
"That the plaintiff’s suit against defendants 27 to 49 be and
hereby is dismissed."
It is not in dispute that defendant No.41 is Sri Waliullah
Hussaini from whom the appellant claims title through various
persons. In view of the same, the claim of the appellant that
the very same property has been shown in the final decree and
allotted to one of the sharers in spite of his possession for
several decades cannot be gone into by the High Court after
passing a final decree even in the year 2003. Likewise, the
allegation that though the lands in Item No.232-254 in
"Schedule A" to preliminary decree concerning defendants 2-
12 and 14-22 excluded and however shown in the final decree
dated 26.12.2003 which is in violation of the preliminary
decree can not be agitated by filing an appeal before the High
Court. We are of the view that the proper remedy for the
appellant is to initiate a separate proceeding and the same
cannot be questioned by way of a Letters Patent Appeal before
the High Court who is not a party to the entire proceedings. In
those circumstances, we refrain from considering various
details projected before us.
10) In the light of the above discussion, we agree with the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court and dismiss the above
appeal. However, the appellant is at liberty to initiate separate
proceedings before the appropriate Court to vindicate his
grievance for which we express no opinion. With the above
observation, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.