P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in the appeal filed against the judgment and decree in OS. No. 14 of 1981 (on the file of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad ).

( 2 ) THE appellants in this LPA as well as the first appeal are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for a declaration of title over a site of 375 Sq. Yards situated within the Municipal limits of Adilabad Town. The plaintiff also sought for restoration of possession of the suit land after removing the temporary structure erected by the defendants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court holding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff on appeal, the trial Court s judgment was confirmed by the impugned judgment. That judgment of the learned single Judge is reported in Pavan Kumar v. K. Gopala Krishna, 1990 (1) A. L. T. 209.

( 3 ) IT is the admitted case that the plot of land, which is the subject-matter of the suit, originally belonged to one Sri Lateef Ahmed. The plaintiff s case is that he purchased from Sri Lateef Ahmed a plot of land measuring 110 x 80 Yards pursuant to an agreement of sale (EX A3) dated 22-4-1952 executed by the said Lateef Ahmed, who died in the year 1971. The plaintiff left Aditabad in the year 1959 leaving the suit land in the custody of one Nazimuddin. Out of the same parcel of land, a small portion thereof measuring 15 x 30 Cubits was sold by Lateef Ahmed to Nazimuddin under an unregistered sale deed. The plaintiff submits that in order to avoid litigation, he agreed to adjust with Nazimuddin. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after the death of Sri Lateef Ahmed, he paid the balance consideration to the sons of Lateef Ahmed and they confirmed the agreement of sale executed by their father on 24-8-1976. As the sons neglected to execute a registered sale deed, the plaintiff filed OS. No. 40 of 1976 for specific performance of the agreement. The said suit-OS. No. 40 of 1976 filed against the L. Rs. of Lateef Ahmed, was decreed ex parte on 11-10-1976. The sale deed was executed and registered on 3-12-1976.

( 4 ) WHILE so, the possession of the suit plot was delivered to the defendants on 17-7-1976 in EP. No. 12of 1976 in execution of decree in OS. No. 43 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif. That suit was filed by the defendants (appellants herein) against one Choudary Rajanna, who according to the defendants, executed an agreement of sale dated 28-8-1974 (Ex. B-9) in respect of the very same land. Choudary Rajanna, even according to the defendants, got title to the land through the plaintiff i. e. , the 1st respondent herein. As per the defendants, Gopala Krishna sold the land in question to Choudary Rajanna under an agreement of sale Ex. B22 dated 8-10-1952. OS. No. 43 of 1974 was filed by the appellants for specific performance of the agreement against Rajanna on 4-ll-1974. Within a few days, the suit was decreed, as Rajanna admitted the suit claim. A sale deed was got registered through Court on 22-2-1976. EP. No. 12 of 1976 was filed for possession, as already noted.

( 5 ) THUS, it is seen that the plaintiff filed the suit OS. No. 40 of 1976 against the sons of late Lateef Ahmed and obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance. The appellants herein filed a suit OS. No. 43 of 1974 against Choudary Rajanna and obtained a consent decree for specific performance. Both the decrees are alleged by each other--not without justification, as collusive decrees. It is to be further noted that the appellants-defendants claim to have derived title through Choudary Rajanna (examined as DW3), who according to the appellants themselves, purchased the land from the plaintiff Gopala Krishna. Be it noted at this juncture that the sale by the plaintiff Gopala Krishna in favour of Choudary Rajanna was disbelieved by the trial Court and the trial Court was not inclined to accept the genuineness of the agreement (Ex. B9) alleged to have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document