V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE order in I. A. No. 729 of 1996 in A. S. No. 34 of 1996 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Narsapur, dated 13-11-1996 making an interim stay granted on 15-7-1996 absolute subject to the result of the appeal is assailed in this Revision Petition by the respondents - plaintiffs (sic, petitioner-plaintiff ).

( 2 ) THE Revision Petitioner filed O. S. No. 278 of 1989 on the file of the District munsif, Palakol seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondents - defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of coconut trees in R. S. No. 624 and 625 of Poduru Gram Panchayat on the ground that he had planted the said trees in poramboke puntha having obtained necessary licence from the Gram Panchayat and subsequently he has been granted tree pattas. He asserted that he has been watering and nourishing the said plants and he has been enjoying the usufruct thereof. During the pendency of the suit, temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents - defendants from interfering with the enjoyment of the Revision Petitioner over the said trees in I. A. No. 850 of 1989 and the temporary injunction was in force till the disposal of the suit. The suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants. It is averred that the aforesaid punta did not belong to the Gram Panchayat and that it was being used as easing ground for public of Chittitagunta Sangham and as passage for men and cattle. After full trial, the suit was decreed with costs.

( 3 ) THE respondents-defendants preferred A. S. No. 34 of 1996 on the file of subordinate Judge, Harsapur against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 278 of 1989. They also filed I. A. No. 729 of 1996 seeking stay for operation of execution of the decree in O. S. No. 278 of 1989 dated 17-1-1997 (sic.) till the disposal of the appeal. It is averred in the stay petition that Gram Panchayat, poduru has no right to grant any licence or patta for those trees as the above land stood vested in Penumadam village and that he has adduced sufficient evidence to that effect. It is further asserted that Chittitagunta Sangham planted the trees in R. S. Nos. 101 and 102 for the purpose of developing ramalayam and the yield was meant for Ramalayam. It is finally stated that the plants have to be watered and unless the stay is granted, the trees may perish.

( 4 ) ON a consideration of the above averments, the learned Subordinate judge granted ex parte interim stay on 15-7-1996 subject to deposit of lower court costs.

( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Revision Petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter. AH the material averments stated above are denied. The contentions raised in the plaint and the affidavit filed along with the temporary injunction petition are reiterated. It is further stated that abundant oral and documentary evidence was adduced in support of his case showing that the coconut sapplings were planted in puntha in R. S. Nos. 624 and 625 of Poduru Gram panchayat. Ex. A-21 is the licence/patta granted by Poduru Gram Panchayat and Ex. A-3 is the tax receipt. Ex. A-4 is an application for planting additional coconut trees and Ex. A-5 is the acknowledgment of the said application. The assertion that the above land is part of R. S. Nos. 101 and 102 of Penumadam cillage and that Penumadam Gram Panchayat is the authority to issue licence or patta is denied. On the other hand, it is asserted that the above land is part of R. S. Nos. 624 and 625 of Poduru Gram Panchayat and it is stated that for the first time the respondents-defendants have alleged that the land is part of R. S. Nos. 101 and 102 of Penumadam village. It is further asserted that the disputed land was got surveyed by Mandal Surveyor, Poduru, and he is examined asp. W. 3 and his report is marked as Ex. X-1. As such the controversy, if any, whether the disputed trees are situated in R. S. Nos. 101 and 102 of penumadam village or in R. S. Nos. 624 and 625 of Poduru village was resolved and it is established that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document