0% found this document useful (0 votes)
25 views7 pages

Legal Opnion

Legal draft

Uploaded by

fitnesstugs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
25 views7 pages

Legal Opnion

Legal draft

Uploaded by

fitnesstugs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

CHAYANAM RAVINDRANATH, BED, LLB ADCOCATE

CHAYANAM VIJAYINDRANATH LL.M, B.COM., ADVOCATE


Enrolement No. AP/1852/07, Dt: 04th October, 2007
Office: Residence:
6-1-103, Ground Floor, Maruti Nilyam,
Abhinava Colony, 12-11-28,Uppar Basti,
Padma Rao Nagar Namalagundu,
Secunderabad-500 025 Seethaphalmandi,
Mobile: 6303435328 Secunderabad-500 061
[email protected]

Ref.No CR/Legal/2/2020 Date: 18-02-2020

LEGAL OPINION
I have perused the documents handed over to me by Sri. Prathap Reddy S/o Sri. Rama
Reddy ,R/o: H.no 1-102, Motighanpur village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahbubnagar district, TS –
509202 the documents are;
Endorsement from Thasildhar that the land doesn’t fall under S.C & S.T Grant or Inam
category (PTCL Certificate)
(a) Particulars of the documents scrutinized serially and chronologically.
(b) Nature of documents verified and as to whether they are originals or certified copies
or registration extracts duly certified.

1. The following information are given in the letter

S.No Sy. No Extent Pattadar Legal Heirs Details


1. 51 14-23 Sulochna Reddy K.Pratap Reddy
w/o Rama S/o Rama Reddy
Reddy
2. 218 2-10 -Do- -Do-
3. 219 2-22 -Do- -Do-
4. 220 1-34 -Do- -Do-
5. 221 19.30 -Do- -Do-
6. 244 1.39 -Do- -Do-
7. 245 3-05 -Do- -Do-
8. 246 1-07 -Do- -Do-
9. 247 0-39 -Do- -Do-
10. 580 1-04 -Do- -Do-
Total 55.11

2. Letter of MRO Dt 4-10-1992 address to the K. Pratap Reddy.


3. I have also pursed the document Phani paper for the year 1969-70 of Sy. No 580
situated at Motighanpur village, Balnagar Mandal, Mahbubnagar District, TS in which
the extent of the land 1-4 and 3-36 are also in the name of K.Pratap Reddy S/o Rama
Reddy.
4. The Phani paper for the year 2005 -2006 were also in the name of K.Pratap Reddy
s/o of Rama Reddy.
5. There is a letter from Naib Thesildar wide letter no RY/572/2020 dt. 22-09-2020
which is endorsement letter to the letter of B.Arun Kumar Reddy son of Jagnath
Reddy under RTI act giving reply that the old ROR pertaining Sy. No 580 situtated at
Mothiganpur, Balanagar Mandal the papers of Old ROR and New ROR of Sy no 580
torned hence the office cannot issue the concerned documents.
6. I have also pursed the eltericty meter pertaining to the SC.NO:M01200938 USC :
110999795 to the H.no 1-102, Mothighanpur, Balanagar on the name of K.Pratap dt
18-12-2020.

S.No

1. Survey No 418 & 580

2. Door/House No H.no 1-102 Motighanpur


village, Balnagar mandal,
Mahbubnagar district
TS - 509202

3. Extent/area including plinth/built up area in 418 Dry extent Ac. 0-30


case of house property Gts & 580 Dry extent Ac.
1-04 Gts

4. Location like name of the place, village, city, Motighanpur village,


registration, sub-district etc. Boundaries Balnagar mandal,
Mahbubnagar Dist, TS

5. Whether certified copy of all title documents YES


is obtained from the relevant sub-registrar
office and compared with the documents
made available by the proposed mortgagor?

6. Whether all pages in the certified copies of YES


title documents which are obtained directly
from Sub-Registrar’s office have been verified
page by page with the original documents
submitted?

7. Whether the certified copies of the title YES


documents are not available, the copy
provided should be compared with the
original to ascertain whether the total page
with the original produced.
(in case originals title deed is not produced
for comparing with the certified or ordinary
copies should be handled more diligently &
cautiously)

8. Whether the records of registrar office or Available in website


revenue authorities relevant to the property
in question are available for verification
through any online portal or computer
system?

9. If such online/computer records are available, No


whether any verification or cross checking are
made and the comments/findings in this
regard

10. Whether the genuineness of the stamp paper No


is possible to be got verified from any online
portal and if so whether such verification was
made?

11. Property offered as security falls within the Yes


jurisdiction of which sub-registrar office?

12. Whether it is possible to have registration of Balanagar Mandal,


documents in respect of sub registrar/ district Mahabubnagar District,
registrar/ registrar-general. If so, please name TS
all such office?

13. Whether search has been made at all the Yes


offices names at (b) above?

14. Whether the searches in the offices of No


registering authorities or any other records
reveal registration of multiple title documents
in respect of the property in question?

As seen from the contents of document No. 1 that pahanies for the years 1980-81 it
is evident that the land in Sy.No 418 Dry admeasuring extent Ac. 0-30 Gts & 580 Dry
land admeasuring extent Ac. 1-04 Gts situated at H.no 1-102 Motighanpur village,
Balnagar mandal, Mahbubnagar district TS – 509202 is patta land. The names of Late
Smt. K. Sulochana Reddy W/o Late Sri. Rama Reddy shows as pattadar and possessor
of the said land.
That Smt. Late Smt. K. Sulochana Reddy W/o Late Sri. Rama Reddy was the absolute
owner of the land admeasuring Ac. 0-30 Gts in Sy No 418 situated at 580 Dry
admeasuring extent Ac. 1-04 Gts situated at H.no 1-102 Motighanpur village,
Balnagar mandal, Mahbubnagar district TS – 509202.

As seen from the contents of that, Pahanies issued by Naib Tahsildar, Kadthal shows
that is the pettedar of land

2. Background: Sy no 418 Dry extent Ac. 0-30 Gts and 580 Dry extent Ac. 1-04Gtd, Mothi
Ghanpur Village, Balanagar Mandal, District Mahabubnagar was purchased by Late Smt. K.
Sulochana Reddy W/o Late Sri. Rama Reddy the same was mutated on her name.
3. Our comments/ opinion
Sy no 418 Dry extent Ac. 0-30 Gts and 580 Dry extent Ac. 1-04Gtd, Mothi Ghanpur Village,
Balanagar Mandal, District Mahabubnagar.
Mahbubnagar District and with some of the Dam, Industry etc is developing economy for
Telangana. 1553 revenue villages, 1347 village panchayats 64 Mandalas and 5 revenue
division after formation of Telangana for first time altering the boundaries of existing
District(s), i.e., as specified in Section 3 of the Central Act No. 6 of 2014 and its Revenue
Divisions and Mandal’s and Villages, notified, the new District, Revenue Divisions and
Mandal’s and Villages as specified in the Schedules, with effect from 11.10.2016 Section 3 of
the Central Act No. 6 of 2014 till the new ZPs, MPs and GPs are constituted, in accordance
with law.
Conclusion
580 Dry land admeasuring extent Ac. 1-04 Gts situated at H.no 1-102 Motighanpur village,
Balnagar mandal, Mahbubnagar district TS – 509202 therefore it is clear title of K.Pratatp
Reddy who is also paying the property tax and as well as electricity bills on his name in
which H.no 1-102 Motighanpur village, Balnagar mandal, Mahbubnagar district TS – 509202.
However the third parties may encroach in any part of the Sy.No 580 since there is no
proper fencing. It is advisable to construct compound wall to the total area of 1.04 gts in
Sy.no 580 it is also necessary to get valuation to the open land and house immediately.

Advocate
Reference
Judgement of Hon’ble High Court.
According to Sec of the land law ___a individual who has occupied land from the time of the
promulgation of the land law in 19--, and was able to fulfil the requirements, would be
regarded as legal possessor and be entitled to request legal ownership of that land, those
requirements include occupying the land unambiguously, non-violently, publicly known,
continuously and in good faith.
By seeing document provided by official confirmation from the local authority (such as the
cadastral officer), or village, commune, or district chief, that the land was in the legal
possession of the occupants. In the urdu letter, the commune and village chiefs, by the
handwritten remarks, only confirmed that the land was located in their commune and only
certified the identity of the persons signing the transfer documents. Neither did they certify
the legality of their possession of the land nor sis they have the authority to do so. They
would still have required the official confirmation from the Chief of the District Agriculture
office, which was empowered to be in charge of land transfer at that time.
The transfer of possessory rights by way of the urdu letters would been in practical
procedure for transferring possessory rights over unregistered land in TS, to effectively
transfer freehold title in land, the land transfer and sale would need to be made before and
verified by the relevant competent authority, followed by the registration of the land
certificate (i.e certificate of possession or Certificate of Ownership).
Based on the forgoing and subject to assumption and qualifications set out I am of the
opinion that
-------------------------is the absolute owner
MAHADAPPA SANGAPPA BHANGE AND OTHERS V. SHIVAJI NARSU DHOR (Maharashtra)
Appellant Mahadapaa (defendant No. 4) was declared as tenant-purchaser under the
provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act (“The H.T and A.L Act” for
brevity’s sake) and was put into possession of the suit property along with his brothers as
per the provisions of section 38-E(1) of the H.T and A.L Act. However, regarding the same
writ petition had been filed in the High Court and the same was pending.
Civil court cannot extinguish tenancy rights section 38-E(1) of the H.T and A.L Act which
stands in the way and civil court cannot surpass it. It was therefore, held that giving
possession of the suit property was beyond jurisdiction of the civil court as is evident from
observations.
In view the finding that the Appellant is to be protected tenancy of the Appellant, which had
remained unchallenged, and as such final and binding.
That though original mortgage was not written and registered as required under the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,
Defendants were refered in Pahani Patrak in year 1954 A.D
Respondent no 1 as shikmidar is defined in sub-section (12) of section 2 of the Land
Revenue Act of His Exalted Highness the Nizam’s Dominions, 1318 Fasli (no.8 of 1317 Fasli)
In the case of Lachmi Narain v. Kalyan AIR 1960 Rajasthan 7, it is held that by virtue of
section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the limited right of mortgagee can be acquired by
adverse possession. The provisions of section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act are not in
any way affected on account of acquisition of rights by prescription. The rights of the parties
can be regulated by law in no valid agreement exists. In the said case, there was an
unregistered document and delivery of possession. It was held that the suit for redemption
of mortgage created by operation of law is governed by Article 148 of the Limitaion Act and
the period will run after the expiry of 12 years from the date when possession was taken
under such mortgage deed. In the said case, authorities of the Supreme Court and of Privy
Council were relied upon. Similar view is taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Balkrishn
V. Mohsin Bhai, AIR 1999 M.P 86.
Shri Halkude, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon Ram Kumar v. Jagdish
Chandra, 1952 SC 23, wherein the same principle was applied to the agreement of lease.
Another case on the same point relied upon is of Collector of Bombay v. Municipal
Corporation of the City of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 469. In that case, grant in favour of
Municipal Corporation, though invalid; was held to have acquired status of legal grant by
virtue of adverse possession.
Sec 38-E of the H.T and A.L which is regarding ownership of lands held by protected tenants
to stand transferred to them from a notified date, lays down that notwithstanding anything
in chapter IVA or any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage, decree, or
grant to the contrary, the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare in
respect of any area and from such date as may be specified therein that ownership of all
lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their landholders,
in such area under any provisions of Chapter IVA shall stand transferred to and vest in the
protected tenants holding them and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed
to be the full owners of such lands. So, it is statutory presumption in respect of protected
tenants whose names were declared in the official gazette and it does ni=ot depend upon
terms of contract or even decree to the contrary.
There is a copy of register of protected tenants from village Harwadi
As per sub-section (3) of section 38-E, within 90 days from the date specified in a
notification under sub-section (1) every landholder of lands situated in the area specified in
such notification shall file an application before the Tribunal for the determination of the
reasonable price of his interest in the land which has been transferred to the ownership of a
protected tenant under subsection (1).
Section 99 of the H.T and A.L Act. It reads: “99(1). Bar of jurisdiction [Save as provided in this
Act] no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question [including
a question whether a person is or was at any time in the past a tenant or protected tenant
and whether any such tenant or protected tenant is or should be deemed to be the full
owner of the lands] which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt
with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or collector or by the [Commissioner] or Government.
(2) No order of the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or of the [Commissioner] or Government
made under this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court”.
The tenant, who is in lawful possession of the property and in whose favour declaration of
ownership under section 39-E of the H.T and A.L Act is issued and who is declared owner of
the property, could not have been dispossessed by order of the civil court as held in the case
of Ramu Gavade v. Ramchandra Kulkarni.

You might also like