You are on page 1of 5

2/25/2017 Hitlist Rank - 1 (195638)

This judgement ranked 1 in the hitlist. ( Hitlist )

Referred 1 times...

Irruvuru Ramachandra Reddy @ Chandraiah v. Koppala Bhushanam, (A.P.) : Law Finder Doc Id
# 195638

2009(1) CivCC 766 : 2008(2) ALT 36 : 2006(6) Andh LD 140

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Before :- L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

Second Appeal No. 847 of 2004. D/d. 19.07.2006.

Irruvuru Ramachandra Reddy @ Chandraiah & Ors. - Appellant

Versus

Koppala Bhushanam - Respondents

For the Appellants :- Sri. S.V. Muni Reddy

For the Respondent :- Sri. P.V.Sanjay Kumar.

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 3 - Identity of immovable property - When
the boundaries of a property tally, the discrepancy as to survey number or even extent
becomes immaterial - Such a discrepancy does not defeat the title.

[Para 14]

B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 31 - Appeal - Points for determination -
Non-mentioning does not vitiate the judgment if Court dealt with all controversies
between parties and discussed them - It cannot be said that the judgment under appeal
is vitiated, on the ground that it did not conform to Rule 31 Order 41 C.P.C.

[Paras 10 and 11]

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 - Sale deed and agreement to sell in
respect of same land - Agreement to sell cannot have any procedure over sale deed.

[Para 16]

Cases referred :

http://lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?q=Andhra%20Law%20Times]2008]2]36&p=1&pos=0&qType=4 1/5
2/25/2017 Hitlist Rank - 1 (195638)

Gorrella durga Vara Prasada Rao v. Indukuri Rama Raju 2002 Supp.(2)ALD 757 (D.B).

Sheodhyan Singh v. Sanichara Kuer AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1879.

Sabhaji v. Nawalsingh AIR 1928 Nag, 4.

JUDGMENT

L. Narasimha, J. - Defendants in O.S. No. 186 of 1994, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Kovur, filed this Second Appeal.

2. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit
schedule property; recovery of possession thereof, and for mandatory injunction, for removal of
the structures on the suit schedule property, raised by the appellants herein. He pleaded that
on 11-09-1985, his daughter entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A-1), with one Kakuturu
Chandra Reddy, to purchase an extent of 33 ankanams of land. On the same day, through sale
deed, marked as Ex.A-4, an extent of 18 ankanams was purchased by his daughter from the
same vendor, under Ex.A-1. The balance of consideration is said to have been paid, by 10-05-
1987. It was alleged that an endorsement, Ex.A-2, was obtained from the wife of the vendor,
on 10-05-1987, keeping the agreement alive.

3. The respondent stated that after the death of Chandra Reddy, he approached his family
members and they in turn, have assured him, that the agreement would be honoured, but in
view of the escalation of prices, sale deed would be executed for a smaller extent. The wife of
Chandra Reddy, Smt. Vazravathamma is said to have executed sale deed, (Ex.A-3), on 04-07-
1994, for an extent of 17 ankanams of land, as against 36 ankanams, promised under Ex.A-1.
The respondent alleged that he went to Madras, some time in July 1994, and taking advantage
of his absence, the appellants have encroached upon his land, and raised thatched sheds.

4. The appellants filed written-statement, denying the allegations of the respondent. It was
pleaded that they purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale, dated 06-
6-1992, marked as Ex.B-1, executed by Smt. Vazravathamma. A dispute was also raised, as to
the correctness of the description of property, particularly the survey numbers, mentioned in
Exs.A-1 to A-4.

5. The trial Court framed necessary issues. On behalf of the respondent, PWs 1 to 6 were
examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, DW-1 was examined,
and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner, for identification of
the suit schedule property. He was examined as PW-4, and he filed Exs.C-1 to C-5. On the
basis of the pleadings, evidence and arguments advanced before it, the trial Court dismissed
the suit, through judgment dated 07-02- 2000. The respondent filed A.S. No. 3 of 2000 in the
Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovur. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree
of the trial Court, and decreed the suit, through its judgment dated 09-04-2004.

http://lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?q=Andhra%20Law%20Times]2008]2]36&p=1&pos=0&qType=4 2/5
2/25/2017 Hitlist Rank - 1 (195638)

6. Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court recorded
clear findings, to the effect that the suit schedule property was different from the one,
purchased under Ex.A-4, and that there was no justification or basis for the Lower Appellate
Court in reversing the same. He places reliance upon the reports, submitted by PW-4; which
were marked as Exs. C-1 and C-2, and contends that the respondent failed to establish his title
over the suit schedule property. He takes exception to the approach of the Lower Appellate
Court, in not framing points for consideration, as required under Rule 31 Order 41 C.P.C.

7. Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that
his client established the title by filing the sale deed, and examining the son of the vendor. He
urges that the minor discrepancy in mentioning the survey number of the suit land stood
cleared, with the recitals in Ex.A-1, and the report submitted by PW-4 in Exs.C-4 and C-5.
Relying upon several judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, he contends that where
the boundaries are clear, the discrepancy, as to extent, or the survey number; should not
matter.

8. The relief claimed by the respondent is in twofold, namely, declaration

of title and recovery of possession. The second limb of the relief takes in its

fold, the delivery of possession and removal of structures, on the suit schedule property.

9. The appellants raised an objection, as to the manner in which the Lower

Appellate Court rendered its judgment. It is complained that no points were framed and
thereby, there was non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 31 Order 41 C.P.C.

10. It is no doubt true that Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the Appellate Court shall
state the points for determination. Such a course would entail in a systematic and
compartmentalized discussion, touching on the various controversies. However, by its very
nature, this procedural requirement is not so mandatory, as to vitiate the judgment, on the sole
ground that its compliance was not ensured. A Division Bench of this Court in Gorrella durga
Vara Prasada Rao v. Indukuri Rama Raju 2002 Supp.(2)ALD 757 (D.B). held that, if the
judgment of an Appellate Court discloses that, it dealt with all the controversies involved in the
appeal and discussed them; mere non-framing of points does not invalidate it.

11. In the instant case, the Lower Appellate Court had undertaken extensive discussion,
touching on all the controversies. The pleadings, evidence and contentions of the parties were
referred to. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment under appeal is vitiated, on the
ground that it did not conform to Rule 31 Order 41 C.P.C.

12. The suit land was originally owned by one Kokuturu Chandra Reddy. The appellants do not
dispute the said fact. Initially, an agreement of sale, Ex.A- 1, was entered into, on 11-09-1985,
between the daughter of the respondent and Chandra Reddy, for purchasing of an extent of 33

http://lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?q=Andhra%20Law%20Times]2008]2]36&p=1&pos=0&qType=4 3/5
2/25/2017 Hitlist Rank - 1 (195638)

ankanams of land. On the same day, an extent of 18 ankanams, abutting the land, covered by
Ex.A-1; was purchased by the daughter of the respondent, through Ex.A-4. Before the
transaction under Ex.A-1 could materialise into sale deed, Chandra Reddy died. His wife
executed sale deed, marked as Ex.A-3, on 04-07-1994, but only for an extent of 17 cents of
land, as against 33 ankanams, mentioned in Ex.A-1. This was on account of rise in prices,
between the date of agreement and the date of sale. Ex.A-3 was filed into the Court, and it
was proved by examining the witness to it, and the son of the vendor. The respondent pleaded
that the suit land was not in Sy. No. 24/2 of North Raju Palem (N.R. Palem) village.

13. There existed some dispute as to the identity of the property. In Ex.A-3, the survey number
was mentioned as 24/2 of N.R. Palem. The appellants pleaded that the land is situated partly in
one village and party in another village, i.e. Sy. No. 10/3 of N.R. Palem and Sy. No. 125/C of
Gandavaram village. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Trial Court. He made a
local inspection and submitted a report and map, marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2, respectively. He
stated that the location of the suit schedule property does not tally with the survey number
mentioned in Ex.A-3 and suit schedule. At the instance of the respondent herein, he was made
to visit the site once again. This time the Commissioner was required to fit the suit schedule
property, with reference to its boundaries in the respective survey numbers. After the second
inspection, he filed Exs.C-4 and C-5 and stated that the suit property is partly situated in Sy.
No. 10/3 of N.R. Palem and partly in Sy. No. 125/C of Gandavaram. The Commissioner was
examined as PW-4. This discrepancy weighed with the Trial Court. It took the view that the
title of the respondent over the suit schedule property cannot be said to have proved, and on
that ground, dismissed the suit.

14. There is no dispute that the boundaries of the suit schedule property, on physical
verification, tallied with those mentioned in Ex.A-3. The Trial Court made a mountain out of a
mole, in relation to the so-called discrepancy in the eastern boundary. In Ex.A-3, the boundary
was mentioned as a lane, whereas in Ex.C-4 and C-5, prepared by PW-4, it was shown as a
panchayat road. Hardly, there exists any discrepancy, since all the roads and lanes in a village,
vest in the Gram Panchayat. As regards the other three boundaries, there is no dispute. It is
settled principle of law that wherever the boundaries of a property tally, the discrepancy as to
survey numbers or even extent become immaterial. In this context, reference may be made to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheodhyan Singh v. Sanichara Kuer AIR 1993
Supreme Court 1879. In that case also, the boundaries of the suit schedule, on the one hand,
and those mentioned in the concerned title deed, tallied, but there was discrepancy as to
survey numbers. The actual survey number was 1060 and the one mentioned in the sale deed

http://lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?q=Andhra%20Law%20Times]2008]2]36&p=1&pos=0&qType=4 4/5
2/25/2017 Hitlist Rank - 1 (195638)

was 160. On facts, it was found that the Sy.No.160 does not exist at all. The Khata of the
vendor was verified and he was found to be the owner of the land in Sy. No. 1060. The
Supreme Court held that such a discrepancy does not defeat the title.

15. In Sabhaji v. Nawalsingh AIR 1928 Nag, 4, it was held that, if the parties to the
documents were clear and unanimous in their understanding of the identity of the property,
small discrepancy does not invalidate the transaction. Authorities can be multiplied on this.
Further, it there was consensus ad idem between the vendor and purchaser, the objection
raised by third parties cannot result in annulment of the transaction.

16. As observed earlier, as between Chandra Reddy and the daughter of the respondent herein,
two transactions took place on 11-09-1985, viz., an agreement of sale i.e. Ex.A-1, in respect
of 33 ankanams, and a sale deed (Ex.A-4), in respect of 18 ankanams of land. Both the pieces
of land were part of the same survey number. In both the documents, the survey number was
mentioned as 24/2. The record discloses that the land covered by Ex.A-4 is in the immediate
neighbourhood of the suit land. Therefore, it clearly emerges that mentioning of Sy. No. 24/2
was a bona fide mistake. It has also come on record that Sy. No. 24/2 does not exist in that
village, at all. In contrast to this, the appellants relied upon an agreement of sale dated 06-06-
1992, marked as Ex.B-1. The agreement was said to have executed by the wife of Chandra
Reddy, who is also the vendor in Ex.A-3. An agreement of sale cannot have any precedence
over a sale deed. At any rate, no one connected with that document was examined. The only
oral evidence on behalf of the appellants was that of the 2nd appellant.

17. The Lower Appellate Court took these aspects into account, and decreed the suit. This
Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same; and no question of law, much less
substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.

18. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Hitlist

| Home | Quick Search | Main Search | Citation Search | Statute Search | DocId Search | Help | Feedback |
About Us |

For help and suggestion call +91 9878777111


2017 Chawla Publications (P) Ltd. & LawFinderLive.com

http://lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?q=Andhra%20Law%20Times]2008]2]36&p=1&pos=0&qType=4 5/5