HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Ediga Ranganayakulu, (Died) per L.Rs. and others - Appellants/Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
B. Venkatesu, S/o. Venkatappa & others - Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs
S.A. No. 463 of 2014
Decided on: 05-08-2014
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.18.06.2014 in AS.No.8 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram (Old AS.No.17 of 2006 on the file Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda), confirming the judgment and decree dt.19.10.2006 in OS.No.28 of 1997 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.
2. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of 1st defendant.
3. Respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and one N. Venkataramudu filed the above suit for a permanent injunction restraining defendant nos.1 to 3 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
4. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property is an open site consisting of a courtyard and rasta/path way of the plaintiffs house property more particularly described in the sketch filed along with plaint as ACDF; plaintiffs are owners of adjacent houses shown as MNOPQ to the south of ACDF area; 1st plaintiff got ABEF property by uninterrupted, continuous, peaceful, open and hostile possession over it for more than the statutory period prescribed for adverse possession; that ABEF site was part of Gramakantam originally; likewise, plaintiff nos.2, 3 and 4 have got right over BCDE property under a registered document relating to their EBGHCD property; out of ACDF plaint schedule property, ACXY part was being used as a courtyard in front of the houses of plaintiffs; the doors, windows, spouts, ventilators of plaintiffs houses open into ABXY; that this was also used by plaintiffs to stand their carts, store agricultural implements, etc.,; that out of ACDF suit property, the other YXDF part was used by plaintiffs as a rasta/path for ingress and outgress for the houses and respective courtyards of their houses ; they had been using the ACDF property exclusively since it is a necessity for the beneficial enjoyment of their houses; that defendants are enjoying the property shown as DIJE in the plaint sketch to the north of ACDF; that one Jardhar was enjoying the property shown as FEJK; defendants have no right, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property; there is a public rasta/path to the north of the properties of defendants; and defendants intended to encroach into the plaint schedule property and threatened to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit property and obstruct and interfere with their use and occupation of the suit property prompting the filing of the suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 1ST DEFENDANT :
5. The 1st defendant filed his written statement opposing the plaint averments. Defendant nos.2 and 3 adopted his written statement.
6. The 1st defendant contended that one Mallakka, W/o. Venkatappa purchased the plaint schedule property from one Narayanamma under a registered sale deed Ex.B.1 dt.17.10.1947; that she enjoyed the same till 26.06.1968 when she sold it to the father of the defendants under a registered sale deed Ex.B.2 dt.26.06.1968 and inducted him into possession of the property; defendants are actually six brothers and after the death of their father in 1987, the 3rd defendant along with other three defendants became owners of the property as legal heirs of their father; and so the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. They also claimed that they were assigned one cent of land by Government measuring 21 x 50 links towards the west of the plaint schedule property under HS Dis.No.35/77 and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which is covered under Ex.B.2 sale deed dt.26.06.1968. They alleged that the plaintiffs, in order to grab the property which is adjoining the National Highway, had filed the suit without having right, title or possession.
7. Pending suit, the 2nd plaintiff died and 5th plaintiff was added as his legal representative. The 2nd defendant also died on 06.08.2002 but his legal representatives were not brought on record and the suit was dismissed against 2nd defendant on 04.12.2002 as abated.
8. On t
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.