The assignment of land to the plaintiff was prohibited under the Board of Revenue Standing Orders and therefore, her possession of the suit property was not lawful.

B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, Rajam in A. S. No. 9/1991 dated 21-3-1994 is assailed in this appeal. That appeal was against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Rajam in O. S. No. 179/86, dated 2-4-1991. The suit was filed by the present respondent against the present appellants for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which is described as Survey No. 152 of O. Punja (mettu) with an extent of Ac. 2. 00 situate in Boddam village in Srikakulam district. That was contested by the appellants. They denied the plaintiff s possession and the lawful possession of the suit property in addition to setting up their own rightand possession over the same. The parties went to trial wherein the plaintiff examined herself as P. W. I and got examined two witnesses as per P. Ws. 2 and 3 whereas defendant No. 3 got himself examined as D. W. I and defendant No. l as D. W. 2 and two witnesses as per D. Ws. 3 and 4 respectively. By way of documentary evidence the plaintiff got marked Exs. A-1 and A-2 and none by the defendant. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed for local inspection and he submitted his report which was read as evidence in the case. The learned Munsif after hearing both sides and on the basis of the evidence produced before him, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to permanent injunction and consequently dismissed the suit without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred theappeal A. S. No. 9/91before the learned Sub-Judge. He after hearing both the sides set aside the findings of the learned Munsif and held that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit property and consequently allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession. Costs were also awarded to her. That has resulted in the present appeal. The reference to parties as plaintiff and defendants in the suit would be convenient and that will be done.

( 2 ) THE following grounds styling as substantial questions of law are raised in this appeal: (A) Whether the suit for injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff in respect of schedule land with the stated boundaries could be decreed in spite of the report of the Commissioner that such land with such boundaries is not identifiable. (B) Whether the appellate Court is justified in ignoring the Commissioner s report on the ground that he has travelled beyond the warrant without any issue to that effect in the suit and without such a point being raised by the plaintiff. (C) Whether the Commissioner report which form part of Court record could be ignored on the ground that the Commissioner travelled beyond the warrant when the Commissioner takes pain to identify the land with revenue records and Field Measurement Book and reported that Ex. A-1 patta is not available in the revenue records and the disputed land is recorded as Koneru in revenue records.

( 3 ) THE facts, controversies, evidence and the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court may require a brief record in the light of the grounds of appeal. The plaintiff claimed to be the D. Patta holder in Rc. No. 2378/82 and Survey No. 153 P. Punja (Mettu) with an extent of Ac. 2. 00 situate in Boddam village which is comprised in the suit property. The patta was issued to her in the year 1982. She claimed to be cultivating the land since the year 1982 and continued to be in possession till the date of the suit. Ex. A-1 is the D-patta issued to the plaintiff by the concerned authorities dated 2-5-1982. She paid land revenue to the suit land for the faslies 1392-94 under land revenue receipt Ex. A-2 dated 10-11-85. She alleged interference to her possession and cultivation of the suit land by the defendants. The defendants not only denied the issue of D-patta to the plaintiff in regard to the suit property

Click Here to Read the rest of this document