Atla Sidda Reddy vs Busi Subba Reddy & Ors

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.

4. In 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.

5. 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.

Thereafter, 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.

Subsequently, 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.

7

7. The 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.

8. The 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 deed.

8

9. The 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.

10. As 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.

11. The 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.

12. 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)

................................................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated: 6TH May, 2010.