B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal assails the Judgment of the learned II Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam in A. S. No. 39 of 1982 dated 17-4-1989 allowing the appeal which was preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned additional District Munsif, Anakapalli in O. S. No. 305 of 1979 dated 19-12-1981.

( 2 ) THE appellant was the plaintiff in the suit who got a decree. The respondent herein was the 1st defendant in the suit whereas the second defendant in the suit who filed written statement and did not pursue the case was not impleaded as a party in the appeal in A. S. No. 39/82 and also in this appeal. The parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the 1st defendant regarding the status they occupied in the suit and that serves the convenience.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit lands and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the same, for costs and such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit in the nature of the case.

( 4 ) THE suit lands as described in the plaint schedule are S. Nos. 121/21 with an extent of 0-80 cents and 70/20 with an extent of 0-50 cents with patta No. 30 situated in Thanam village. The second defendant was the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that he entered into an agreement with second defendant to purchase the suit lands under the agreement Ex. A-1 dated 5-12-1977 on part payment of consideration, remaining amount of Rs. 500/- was paid under an endorsement as per Ex. A-2 on 30-1-1979 and it followed a registered sale deed in his favour as per Ex. A-3 dated 14-2-1979. The plaintiff alleged mat having found interference to his possession of the suit lands by the defendant No. 1 he issued notice as per Ex. A-4 which was replied as per ex. A-5, acknowledged under Ex. A-6. It appears a reply was issued by the second defendant as per Ex. B-3. The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and supported the case of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant resisted the suit denying the plaintiff s agreement with the second defendant, the alleged sale deed in his favour, delivery of possession of him etc. , and his right to be in possession of the suit lands and also the alleged interference by her in regard to the same. On the other hand, she set up Ex. B-1, registered settlement deed dated 21-1-1978 in her favour executed by the 2nd defendant to enure to her benefit after his death. The parties inter alia made certain pleas and counter pleas which became the subject of the following issues on which the parties went for trial:-1. Whether the sale deed dt. 14-2-1979 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant ?2. Whether the puroni dt. 5-12-1977 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff and Bolem Venkunaiah and the endorsement thereon dt. 30-1-1979 are true and valid ?3. Whether the settlement deed dt. 21-1-1978 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is true and valid ?4. Whether the 1 st defendant was in possession of the suit land as tenant of the 2nd defendant and continue in possession of the same after the settlement deed ?5. Whether the valuation of the suit and Court fee paid are not correct ?6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for ?7. To what relief?the ocular evidence comprised in the testimony of the plaintiff as per P. W. 1 and of the witnesses as per P. Ws. 2 to 5 respectively. For the contesting 1st defendant her testimony came to be recorded as per D. W. 1 and her witnesses as per d. Ws. 2 to 4. The documentary evidence comprised in Exs. A-1 to A-6 in favour of the plaintiff and Exs. B-1 to B-3 in favour of the contesting 1st defendant respectively. The rhetoric submission by way of arguments were presented by both the sides and with the materials placed before him, the learned District munsif held Issue Nos.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document