M. PURNACHANDER RAO versus SRI NAWAB MAZAHARUDDIN KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 11-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

i--
(2008] 2 S.C.R. 699 
M. PURNACHANDER RAO 
A 
... 
...,._ 
v. 
SRI NAWAB MAZAHARUDDIN KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1121 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 11, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
_.lo( 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
' . 
Sale of agricultural !and - Appellant purchased the land c 
in question - Title and claim under enquiry by Revenue -
Legal heirs of original estate holder filing suit for declaration 
lq 
of assignment in respect of land in question in their favour -
Legal representatives/alleged assignee filing application after 
43 years for declaration of assignment in their favour and to 
direct authorities to mutate the land in their names in Revenue D 
records; to deliver possession; and for passing final decree -
~ 
Allowed by Single Judge of the High Court - Challenged by 
vendee by filing Letters Patent Appeals - Dismissed by 
.. 
Division Bench of High Court on ground of limitation - On 
appeal, Held: Appellant purchased the land in question from 
E 
vendor heavily relying on his title from original estate holder -
However, the Issues that land in question is excluded from the 
Schedule of the property in the suit and passing of final decree 
in favour of legal representatives of original estate holder in 
violation of preliminary decree, can not be agitated in Letters 
F 
.... "I 
Patent Appeal before High Court - Appellant could initiate 
separate proceedings before the appropriate Court to vindicate 
his grievance - Directions issued. 
Letters Patent Appeal - Scope of 
Appellant is a bona fide purchaser of certain G 
agricultural land at village Raidurg Paigah for valuable 
consideration under a registered sale deed in the year 
1996. A suit was filed in the year 1958 before the High 
699 
H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
{ 
A Court by the legal heirs/sharers of the land in question 
for declaration of assignment of the land in their favour. A 
t- ... 
preliminary decree was passed by the High Court 
excluding item Nos. 230 to 254 from the Schedule of the 
properties to the suit including the land in question since 
B the properties indicated in these items were under enquiry 
with the Board of Revenue. The legal representatives of 
the legal heirs, after a lapse of 43 years, filed applications 
claiming recognition of the Assignments in their favour; 
~ 
to direct the Collector to mutate the names of the 
. ~ 
c Assignees in the Revenue Records pertaining to the land 
in question; and to direct the District Judge to deliver 
possession of the said land to the Assignees. Single 
Judge of the High Court allowed the petitions contrary to 
the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and other 
D 
enactments like the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Registration 
and Stamps Act, Hyderabad Land Revenue Act etc. 
Thereafter another application was filed by the petitioners 
for passing final decree and the same was allowed by the 
~ 
High Court. However, the appellant was also not made 
party to the above proceedings. The respondents started 
....
E interfering with the land purchased by the appellant. Being 
aggrieved by the orders passed by the Single Judge of 
the High Court, appellant filed an appeal, which was 
dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Appellant contended that item No.234, the land in 
question which is an excluded property, the action of the 
respondents in including the same in the final decree 
cannot be sustained; that in such circumstances, he is 
)I.: -1 
an aggrieved person and as soon as he came to know 
about the various orders including the final decree, filed 
G the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court; 
and that the High Court is not justified in dismissing the 
appeal on the ground of limitation. 
,. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1 Appellant purchased the land in question 
" 
. :~~: 
+ 
M. PURNACHANDER RAO v. SRI NAWAB MAZAHAR. 
701 
KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS. 
...... 
~ 
by way of sale deed dated 11.10.2003 from the vendor, A 
heavily relying on his title from one 'W' who was defendant 
No.41 in C.S. No. 7 of 1958 on the file of the High Court. It 
is relevant to point out that the appellant himself placed a 
memo of compromise which was filed and recorded in 
the said suit. The copy of the decree in the said suit shows B 
that the suit filed against defendant No.41 was dismissed. 
The appellant claims title from defendant N0.41 through 
~ 
various persons. Therefore, the claim of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.