Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, S.PARVATHA RAO
Sanjeevayya Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
S.Malareddy alias Parvathalu - Respondent
Decided On : 06-18-93
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a co-operative society, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants, seeking to prevent them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the land. The trial court decreed the suit, but the defendants appealed and the appellate court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.Finding of the Court:
The High Court, while inclined to dismiss the suit, held that the plaintiff did not acquire any land from the defendants as the landholder did not have the right to alienate the land in contravention of the Act. The court also held that the provisions of Section 102 of the Act did not apply as the alienation must be valid and in conformity with the law. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not establish its right to the land and dismissed the suit.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the alienation made in contravention of Section 38-D of the Act has no legal effect. The court also held that the provisions of Section 102 of the Act did not apply as the alienation must be valid and in conformity with the law. Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, a co-operative society, seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff did not establish its right to the land and that the alienation made in contravention of the Act has no legal effect.( 1 ) THE appellant before us is the plaintiff, a co-operative house building society. It filed a suit represented by its President, out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises, for perpetual injunction against respondents 1 to 4 herein (defendants 1 to 4 respectively) restraining them, their representatives, servants, agents or any person or persons claiming any interest whatsoever from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants preferred appeals against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court and the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff questions the correctness of the learned single Judge s judgment in this Letters Patent Appeal. We are also inclined to dismiss the suit but for reasons different from those of the learned single Judge.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff rests its case on 4 registered sale deeds marked in the suit as Exs. A-1 to A-4 dated 17-12-1980, 22-12-1980, 26-12-1980 and 30-12-1980 respectively where-under one B. V. Prakash Reddy claiming to be the sole and absolute owner and pettadar in possession of agricultural land measuring 2 acres and 5 guntas forming part of Survey No. 18 of Thokatta village in Secunderabad Cantonment area, sold and conveyed under each of the said sale deeds an extent of 2,422 square yards of the said land in the said Survey No. 18. The total extent covered by Exs. A-1 to A-4 thus conies to about 2 acres which is the plaint schedule property in respect of which injunction is sought by the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that Maigam Reddy the father of the 1st defendant was the protected tenant of the said land covered by Exs. A-1 to A-4. According to the plaintiff, after his death on 5-1-1974 his protected tenancy rights devolved on his widow Narasamma and his three sons i. e. , the 1st defendant herein, Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy. It is the case of the plaintiff that physical possession of the plaint schedule land was delivered to it and that on the date of the suit it was in possession of the said land. According to the plaintiff, the protected tenants i. e. , Narasamma, 1st defendant, Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy agreed for the sale of the plaint schedule property and received their respective shares of sale consideration; and further, B. V. Prakash Reddy the pattadar of the land obtained a confirmation deed on 20-12-1980 from the 1st defendant which was marked as Ex. A-11 in the suit, and also two receipts dated 20-12-1980 and 25-12-1980 marked as Exs. A-5 and A-6 respectively from the 1st defendant establishing that he received his portion of the consideration. Exs. A-1 to A-4 also bear the signatures of Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy and thumb impressions of Narasanima as witnesses from which it is sought to be established by the plaintiff that they were willing parties to the sale.
( 3 ) THE defendants denied that they agreed for the sale of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant also denied that Exs. A-5, A-6 and A-11 bear his signature and contends that they were fabricated and further denied that he received any consideration for the alleged sales of the plaint schedule property. According to the defendants, the plaint schedule property had been in the possession of the 1st defendant s father Maigam Reddy as protected tenant till he died on 5-3-1974 and subsequent to his death in the joint possession of the 1st defendant and his brothers and mother who were entitled to be continued as protected tenants. According to the defendants, the pattadar B. V. Prakash Reddy was never in possession of the plaint schedule property and he could not have delivered possession to the plaintiff. The defendants also contend that B. V. Prakash Reddy had no right or authority to convey plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as he had no title in that property. The defendants rely on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
