REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.4549 of 2008

Atla Sidda Reddy  .. Petitioner

Vs.

Busi Subba Reddy & Ors. .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. 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

Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.A. No.656 of  

1997.

2. In 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  

2

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  

3

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  

4

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  

5

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.

6

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.

7

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  

8

(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  

9

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.

10