K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, in A. S. No. 49 of 1986, whereby the decree of dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction in O. S. No. 471 of 1981 has been reversed.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants alleging that in family partition, amongst others, the land bearing Survey No. 196/2, area 49 cents (for short the suit land ) had fallen to the share of late Suri while his brother, B. . Ramulu -DW3 - was allotted the other lands including "relugaddi" admeasuring 50 cents. After the death of Suri, his share including the suit land had devolved on his son, B, Venkataramana - PW3 B. Venkataramana-PW3, had sold the suit land to the plaintiff through registered sale deed, Ex. Al, dated 30-3-1981. The plaintiff has raised coconut crops in the suit land. The defendants also wanted to purchase the suit land, but having failed to do so, had started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction against them.

( 3 ) THE defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff. They pleaded that the whole land of 49 cents in Survey No. 196/2 was not allotted to late Suri, but actually 24 cents out of 49 cents in Survey No. 196/2 was allotted to B. Ramulu, DW3, who, in turn, sold the same through registered sale deed, Ex. B 1, on 6-4-1981. The defendants have raised red gram in the said 24 cents of land which is situated in front of their house divided by a road and, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

( 4 ) ON assessment of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the appellate Court, relying on the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 as also on the land revenue receipt, Ex. A2 and another land revenue receipt, Ex. A4, and rejecting the evidence of the defendants and the revenue receipts produced by them, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land and, therefore, set aside the decree of dismissal of the suit and granted permanent injunction to the plaintiff.

( 5 ) THE appellate Court had also admitted certified copy of number if account for Fasli 1383 and 1390 and marked the document as Ex. A6 and had placed reliance on it.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred this appeal.

( 7 ) RELYING on the case of Natha Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, AIR 1976 SC 1053, it has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the lower appellate Court had wrongly admitted the documentary evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the application I. A. No. 44 of 1986 of the respondent without affording any opportunity to the appellants to contest the same as also without assigning any valid reasons, and therefore, the certified copy of the number II account in respect of Survey No. 196/2 for Fasli 1383nd 1390 should be excluded from being considered. It has been further urged on behalf of the appellants that the land revenue was paid by the plaintiff through Cist receipt, Ex. A2, dated 7-11-1981 and on the same day the suit was instituted and, therefore, no importance can be attached to the Cist receipt, Ex. A2, for reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on the date of institution of the suit. It has lastly been urged that the question of title is not relevant in a suit for permanent injunction. The lower appellate Court has wrongly rejected the land revenue receipts filed by the appellants which are at Ex. B2 to B7 and the Pattadar Pass Book, Ex. B8.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the lower appellate Court has rightly rejected the land revenue receipts which are at Ex. B2 to B7 because the land revenue receipt which is at E. B6 and another land revenue receipt which is at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document