( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 573 of 2002 on the file of the learned IV Additional junior Civil Judge, Ongole, filed the Second appeal. The 1st respondent (for short the respondent ) filed the suit initially for the relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which, admittedly, was a road margin. Subsequently, she amended the prayer in the suit, for the one of recovery of possession invoking Section 6 of the Specific relief Act, 1963 (for short the Act ). She pleaded that she is in possession and enjoyment of that suit land for about 20 years and that the appellants have high-handedly dispossessed her without following the procedure prescribed by law.

( 2 ) THE appellants contested the suit. They pleaded that apart from the respondent, several others encroached into the road margin and the abutting property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, and that it was not only causing traffic congestion but also resulting in health hazards. A notice, dated 25-6-2002 was said to have been issued requiring all the encroachers, to remove their encroachments, failing which the Gram panchayat would take steps to remove them. It is their case that while all the other encroachers have removed the encroachments and requested for providing alternative sites, the respondent offered resistance and ultimately, she was evicted on 22-7-2002, on which date the suit was filed. The appellants also raised a plea as to the maintainability of the suit inasmuch as the Gram Panchayat or the Government of a. P. were not made parties. The trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 7-4-2004. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A. S. No. 86 of 2004 in the Court of the learned III Additional District and Sessions judge (Fast Tract Court), Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 9-12-2004. Hence, the second Appeal.

( 3 ) SRI M. V. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the suit was initially filed for the relief of perpetual injunction pleading that the respondent is in possession of the suit schedule property and unless a different cause of action was shown in the plaint, there was no basis for claiming the relief under Section 6 of the Act. He contends that admittedly the action was initiated by, and relief was claimed against, the Gram panchayat, but it was not impleaded. Placing reliance upon Order XXVII Rule 5-A C. P. C. , he contends that the Government ought to have been made a party. As a corollary to this submission, he contends that once the government becomes a necessary party to the suit, the relief under Section 6 of the Act cannot be claimed in it. He further contends that even otherwise the appellants placed sufficient material before the trial Court to establish that the dispossession was in accordance with law and Section 6 of the Act does not get attracted to the facts of the case.

( 4 ) SRI Manmadha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that there was voluminous evidence to disclose that his client was in possession of the suit schedule property for the past twenty years, and that she was dispossessed after the suit was filed; that too in violation of the order of status quo granted by the trial Court. He contends that it makes little difference whether the dispossession was on the date of filing of the suit or two days thereafter, from the point of view of grant of relief under section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel also submits that the officials who have initiated action against the respondent were impleaded and in that view of the matter, it was not necessary to implead either the gram Panchayat or the Government.

( 5 ) AS observed earlier, the suit was initially filed for the relief of perpetual injunction by pleading that the respondent is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is a matter of record that she did not claim any title in it and in fact, it is admitted that the suit schedule property is a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document