L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two civil miscellaneous appeals are disposed of together, since they arise between the same parties and under the same set of facts.

( 2 ) C. M. A. No. 1074 of 2004 is filed against the order dated 20-2-2004 in I. A. No. 373 of 2003 in O. S. No. 54 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. C. M. A. No. 1075 of 2004 is filed against the order of the same date in LA. No. 369 of 2003 in O. S. No. 53 of 2003 on the file of the same court. Since the parties in both the suits and IAs are same, they are referred to as arrayed in the suits. Through the orders under appeal, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 c. P. C. , in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, the defendants preferred these appeals.

( 3 ) O. S. No. 54 of 2003 is filed by four plaintiffs, represented by their Special power of Attorney, Ponnuri Bala Kutumba rao, for the relief of declaration, that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac. 12. 00 in sy. No. l (part) of Chilkuru Village, Moinabad mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and for consequential perpetual injunction against the defendants, viz. , the State of A. P. , represented by its District Collector, Ranga reddy District; Divisional Forest Officer, hyderabad Range, Ranga Reddy District, and Forest Range Officer, Rajendranagar range. In O. S. No. 53 of 2003, the same plaintiffs are represented by a different General power of Attorney, by name, Dasari nageswar Rao. This suit is filed on the same lines as the other suit, and for the same relief, but in respect of different piece of land of Ac. 12. 00 in the same survey number.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that the land in Sy. No. 1 admeasuring about 1600 acres is the private property of H. E. H. Nizam of Hyderabad, and the father of the plaintiffs by name, Zaheeruddin Alt Khan, applied to the Nizam, on 25th Sherwar, 1341 fasli (roughly about 1931), for sanction of ac. 50. 00 in Sy. No. l of Chilkuru Village. It was pleaded that the father of the plaintiffs was sanctioned the said extent of land, on consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and the same was confirmed subsequently in the year 1953. It was further alleged that a letter was issued in the year 1940 (15th Azur 1350 fasli) by the Awal Talukdar, acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- and directing the deputy Superintendent, Bandobust, to deliver the possession of the land. The possession is said to have been delivered to the father of the plaintiffs.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs further contended that their father died in the year 1983 and thereafter they sold an extent of 26 acres in the year 1999 and that they are in possession of the remaining extent of 24 acres. They alleged that their father and themselves have been enjoying the possession of the land by selling the grass, and that the defendants started interfering with their possession in July 2003 by seeking to take the law into their hands and obstructing the plaintiffs from enjoying the suit schedule land.

( 6 ) AN affidavit was filed on the same lines in support of the applications for grant of temporary injunction under order 39, Rule 1 C. P. C. They filed certain documents before the Trial Court such as the challan, under which the amount of rs. 10,000/- is said to have been paid; the receipt issued by the Executive Officer, sharfekhas; letter dated 15th Azur 1350 fasli, said to have been issued by the Awar talukdar; Faisal Patti for the year 1963-64; letters dated 1-1-1997 and 3-12-1997 issued by the MRO, Moinabad etc. In all, the plaintiffs filed Exs. P-1 to P-39. They have also filed certain documents relating to the acquisition of land by the Government of a. P. from the Nizam and the proceedings of Forest Settlement Officer in respect of neighbouring lands.

( 7 ) THE defendants filed written statements in the suits as well as the counter-affidavits in the IAs. It is their case that the entire land in Sy. No. 1, was the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document