TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by Tirupathiah who claimed to be the General Power of Attorney holder of the respondent no. 3. The case of Tirupathiah was that no one else including S. Prabhakara Rao had my any right to transfer the property. However, since obstruction was being created to the construction undertaken by the appellant over the land in dispute, he filed a suit for injunction on 28.3.1994. An interim injunction was granted in favour of the appellant. Later, however, Tirupathiah also filed a suit on 29.6.1994 for respondent no. 3 claiming possession over the land. On 29.6.1994 an order to maintain status quo was passed and ultimately by judgment and order dated 20.10.1994 both suits were decided confirming the injunction granted in favour of the appellant and dismissing the suit of respondent no. 3. In respect to the question of possession, on consideration of all the evidence adduced before the Civil Court, it recorded a finding that the appellant was in possession and a case for grant of interim injunction was made out. However, in so far the question as to the title and ownership of the land was concerned it was observed that it was for the parties to approach the competent court for deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred that the appellant had grabbed the property. It was further averred that the respondent no. 3 was residing in U.S.A. and had given General Power of Attorney to Tirupathiah to safeguard his property. The allegations of creating false documents and General Power of Attorney have been denied in reply preferred by the appellant before the Special Court. Further the case of the appellant was that since he wanted to purchase some property in Hyderabad on the suggestion of his brother-in-law he contacted S. Prabhakara Rao who had given out himself as a holder of power of attorney of respondent no. 3 and he executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant. Before the sale deed was executed on 5.2.1994 the appellant had got it published in the newspapers on 2.9.1993 that he intended to purchase the property in question and objections if any by anyone could be indicated to him. He received no objections from anyone whereafter the sale deed was executed in his favour on payment of a consideration of ₹ 1,90,000. He obtained permission for construction from the appropriate authorities. The appellant had also informed to respondent no. 3 through counsel about the purchase of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reading of the definitions of the phrases land grabber and land grabbing it is clear that the grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally. That is to say the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement. If such elements as indicated above are missing in our view, it would not be a case of land grabbing. We may now examine the judgment of the Special Court dealing with the respective cases of the parties after coming to a conclusion that there is not dispute between the parties about the ownership of the land. That is to say that it belonged to the respondent no. 3. The Special Court discussed the oral evidence produced by both parties. It found that the appellant failed to produce Prabhakara Rao, who executed the sale deed as holder of power of attorney of respondent no. 3. It has also discussed about the effort said to be made by the appellant to trace out Prabhakara Rao since according to the appellant he tried his best to contact Prabhakara Rao and also went to the address as provided to him but it was found that Prabh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have executed Ex.B1 and consequently no title to the schedule property flow under Ex. Bl to R.W. 1. and consequently it is a case where the respondent is in possession of the schedule property without legal entitlement . As such we find under Issue No. 2 that the respondent is a land-grabber within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) read with Sec.2(e) of the Act. Thus, the findings are that respondent no. 3 is the owner of the property who had not authorized S. Prabhakara Rao to execute the sale deed. Thus no title is passed on to the appellant who is in possession of the property without legal entitlement. Therefore, the appellant is land grabber within the meaning of Section 2(d) read with Sec. 2(e) of the Act. The first thing to be noted is that the case of the respondent no. 3 as sought to be made out in the petition as quoted in the earlier part of this judgment was that the appellant had created false documents by creating the false power of attorney in favour of Prabhakara Rao and got the sale deed registered in his favour and that the sale deed was also false. But we don't find any such finding having been recorded by the Special Court saying that the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... went to those places but it was found that S. Prabhakara Rao was not residing there. He may have either shifted or may have provided a wrong address. Yet another factor which deserves to be noted is that no finding has been recorded against the case of the appellant that he had purchased the land on the basis of the power of attorney on payment of a consideration of ₹ 1,90,000. The case as taken by the appellant is though mentioned in the judgment yet no finding rejecting this part of the case has been recorded. Again so far the case of respondent no. 3 that he was not in Hyderabad on 5.1.1994 is concerned, admittedly, the respondent no. 3 was in India during that period including on 5.1.1994 and according to his case he has been in Delhi. Bombay and Haridwar during the said period. The respondent no. 3 has not examined himself in support of his case. In the above circumstances it could not be categorically inferred that he was not in Hyderabad on the relevant date. The only other circumstance is in regard to non-examination of attesting and identifying witnesses of the registration of the deed of general power attorney in favour of S. Prabhakara Rao. Certainly they could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
