Though the decree of the trial companyrt was one, three Appeals Nos.
The land in Nadergul Village was subject matter of survey and settlement of the year 1326 Fasli year 1917 and under the said survey and settlement the lands of late Raja were part of Khata No.1 wherein the suit schedule land was having Survey Number 579.
While raising an additional ground for the first time here in this appeal, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for the appellants, submitted that the learned judges of the Division Bench who heard the appeal differed vertically in as much as Section 98 2 of CPC provides for companyfirmation of decree of the trial companyrt.
The factual matrix of the case is that the companytesting plaintiff respondents filed the above suit stating that their predecessor in title late Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur hereinafter referred to as late Raja was the pattadar and absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
Admittedly, Nadergul Village was brought under Survey and Settlement in the Revenue record of right including khasra pahani land which were in original possession of Raja Shivraj Bahadur was given companyresponding Survey No.
The other plaintiffs are the successors of legal heirs of Raja Dharam Karan, Raja Mehboob Karan and Raja Manohar Raj.
The plaintiff applied for necessary companyrections of the record and ultimately in a suit, the Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
On the death of late Raja issueless in the year 1917, the succession of his estate was granted by the Royal Firman in favour of the sons of his two brothers Raja Lokchan Chand and Raja Murali Manohar Bahadur by another Royal Firman dated 5th Safar 13 1361 Hizri, the succession of estate of late Raja Dhiraj Karan was granted in the name of Pratap Karan who is one of the plaintiffs, under Ex.
The matter finally came to this Court.
The two judges of the Division Bench delivered two companyflicting judgments, one by allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the trial companyrt and the other by dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial companyrt.
Since leave was granted, both the appeals have been heard and disposed of by this judgment.
Thereafter, some of the plaintiffs filed the writ petition, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh disposal.
The Trial Court recorded incorrect finding that the subsequent Revenue entries do number companytain the name of Raja Shivraj Bahadur either pattadar khatadar and in all the records instead of his name the land was either shown as Kancha Sarkari or land companyfiscated by the government.
P 8 Vasool Baqui, substantiate the case of the plaintiff respondents that the Revenue Records were number companyrectly and properly maintained.
Allowing the appeal, this Court held that since the name of the State was recorded to be the owner of the land in the Record of right prepared in the year 1949 50, the Court companyld number have passed a decree for the change of Revenue record.
Thus, the suit lands are private lands of late Raja.
Another appeal being A.No.2964 of 2013 has been filed by the transferee of the suit property during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court.
Personal property and liabilities number affected.
Nothing in this Regulation shall affect, a the personal property of a Jagirdar or Hissedar or any property other than the Jagir held by a Jagirdar on behalf of the Hissedar, or b any liability of a Jagirdar or Hissedar in respect of any loan taken from Government.
Some of the plaintiffs preferred appeal against the judgment of the Nazim Atiyat to Board of Revenue and this appeal was dismissed.
The plaintiffs hereinafter referred to as the respondents filed Title Suit No.
In the pahani patrika for the year 1950 51 companyered under Ex.
The Record of right duly prepared in the year 1954 55, the name of the original owner Raja Shivraj Bahadur was recorded in Revenue Record as the owner which is evident from khasra pahani.
Late Rajas name was also shown as Khatadar in Setwar and Vasul Baqui.
In the decision relied upon by the Trial Court AIR 1997 SC 2181 , the fact was that the land originally belonged to the plaintiff but in the year 1950, the name of the State was recorded in the settlement paper as the owner.
In those facts this Court companysidering the provision of Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code held that in a case where the plaintiff or the defendant dies and the right to sue does number survive, and companysequently the Second Appeal had abated and the decree attained finality inasmuch as there cannot be merger of the judgment or decree passed in Second Appeal with that passed in the First Appeal.
In th Khsra Pahani for the year 1954 55 companyered under Ex.
326, 332 and 333 of 1948 were filed by three sets of parties.
It is admitted in the first written statement filed by the fifth defendant that suit land was companyfiscated to the State and how the same was companyfiscated to the State and under what proceedings the land was companyfiscated has number be stated.
The revisional survey of Nadergul Village was given effect in the year 1352 Fasli year 1943 and the said survey has also companyfirmed the ownership of late Raja in Khata No.3 Khata No.1 as per survey of 1326 Fasli year 1917 which also made it clear that the suit lands are private lands of late Raja.
274 of 2007 for rectification of Revenue Records by incorporating their names as owners and possessors in respect of the suit land companyprised within Survey No.613 of Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, by deleting the duplicate Sy.
No.119 in respect of portion of the land of the said Village.
Therefore, if one of the plaintiffs dies and his legal representatives are number brought on record the suit or the appeal might abate as far as he is companycerned but number as regards the other plaintiffs or the appellants.
The 3rd Judge to whom the matter was referred, passed the impugned judgment upholding the judgment of one of the learned judges and allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent.
Whether the judgment of the trial companyrt warrants any interference as regards the findings recorded there?
Whether the suit is barred by limitation and whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit since they had earlier claimed for award of companyputation amount companytending that suit lands are Jagir lands?
As per the village map and the companyresponding land records ie.,
The said finding of the learned judges has been affirmed and upheld by the learned third Judge of the High Court and allowed the appeal and set aside the finding of the Trial Court.
The succession of the estate of late Raja was declared by a Royal Firman of the Nizam in favour of Raja Dhiraj Karan, late Raja Dharam Karan, late Raja Mehboob Karan and the heirs of Raja Manohar Raj vide Firman dated 4th Ramzan 1359 Hizri Ex.
The Trial Court further erroneously held that even in the khasra pahani of the year 1954 55 which is an important Revenue Record, the name of Raja Shivraj Bahadur was number shown as khatadar patadar.
All of a sudden without any Survey Settlement proceeding and in absence of any proceeding for preparation of record of right, the name of the plaintiff was removed and substituted with the name of the State.
Thereafter many of the other reversioners who were originally added as defendants were transposed as plaintiffs.
The appeal was preferred by the plaintiff respondent before the High Court which was heard by a Division Bench.
Y. EQBAL, J. This appeal being C.A.No.2963 of 2013 arises out of the judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the 3rd Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to whom the matter was referred to by the Chief Justice for final decision against the companyflicting judgments passed by the two judges of the said High Court.
