Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Karukola Vasudevarao – Appellant
Versus
Karri Suseelamma – Respondent
Second Appeal No.64 of 2021
Decided on : 08-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MOHAMMED GAYASUDDIN
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 100 and Order XLI Rule 27 - Seeking permanent injunction - Peaceful possession and enjoyment - Plaint schedule properties are joint family property of all plaintiffs; that plaint schedule properties were purchased under registered sale deeds dated with joint family monies; that plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of same; that defendants without any manner of right are trying to invade into plaint schedule properties; that 2nd defendant worked and 3rd defendant is the daughter of 2nd defendant; that defendants 1 and 2 in connivance with each other created sham and nominal documents and tried to trespass into the schedule properties - Suit was filed against defendants 1 to 3. Pending suit 1st defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 10 - Defendants 11 to 36 were brought on record being the purchasers from 3rd defendant pendent lite. Pending the suit, 2nd defendant also died and 3rd defendant was recognized as his legal representative - defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants - Written statement, it was contended interalia that plaintiffs have nothing to do with the schedule properties - otted to him as per the splitting up joint pattas by the then Deputy.
Finding of the Court: Plaintiffs filed appeal, wherein they filed I.A.No. receive copy was filed to receive Photostat copies of pattadar pass books issued in favour of appellant Nos.1, 4 and 3, original notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer - Civil Rules of Practice to send for certain documents - In support of said interlocutory applications, the appellants relied on the order passed in C.R.P. perusal of the order passed manifest that it was filed questioning the order of amendment of plaint schedule - Evidence came to conclusion that suit for injunction simplicitor in the facts of case is not maintainable without seeking for declaration of title - Apart from the same trial court also recorded finding about possession - Findings recorded by Courts below are based on evidence available on record - Court do not find question of law much less substantial questions of law involved in the present second appeal under Sec 100 CPC.
Result: Second appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT:
The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the present second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 07.11.2019 in A.S.No.212 of 2014 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta, confirming the decree and judgment dated 31.12.2001 in O.S.No.105 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Palasa.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties to this second appeal are referred to as they were arrayed in suit.
3. Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is shown in schedule as, an extent of Ac.0.22½ cents in S.No.232/2A/1/B; Ac.1.37½ cents in S.No.232/2A/2/A; Ac.0.40 cents in S.No.232/2A/1/B; Ac.0.62½ cents in S.No.232/2A/1/C; Ac.0.82½ cents in S.No.232/2A/2/B; Ac.0.25 cents in S.No.232/2A/1/C, totaling an extent of Ac.3.70 cents in Patta No.122 of Parasamba @ Kasibugga, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.
4. It was averred in the plaint that the plaint schedule properties are joint family property of all the plaintiffs; that the plaint schedule properties were purchased under registered sale deeds dated 24.07.1971 and 24.11.1972 with the joint family monies; that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same; that the defendants without any manner of right are trying to invade into the plaint schedule properties; that the 2nd defendant worked as Tahsildar, Palasa and 3rd defendant is the daughter of 2nd defendant; that defendants 1 and 2 in connivance with each other created sham and nominal documents and tried to trespass into the schedule properties and hence filed the suit for the reliefs mentioned supra.
5. Originally, suit was filed against defendants 1 to 3. Pending suit 1st defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 10. Defendants 11 to 36 were brought on record being the purchasers from 3rd defendant pendent lite. Pending the suit, 2nd defendant also died and 3rd defendant was recognized as his legal representative.
6. The 7th defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2 to 6 and 8. In the written statement, it was contended interalia that the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the schedule properties in S.No.232/7 in an extent of Ac.3.77 cents; that the 1st defendant sold Ac.2.25 cents of land to 3rd defendant in the year 1972, which was allotted to him as per the splitting up joint pattas by the then Deputy Tahsildar, Tekkali on 27.07.1973, and have been enjoying the land with absolute rights by paying land revenue to the Government; that the authorities also issued pattadar pass books in favour of defendants; that the plaint schedule is incorrect and prayed the Court dismiss the suit.
7. Subsequent purchasers of the schedule properties also filed written statement. It was contended that total extent of land in S.No.232 covered by Patta No.121 is Ac.28.02 cents, which is a joint family property of 1st defendant, Karji Raghunadha Sahu, Illatom Suryanarayana and Penta Jayalakshmi etc; that the 1st defendant enjoyed the properties and later sold North-East portion of an extent of Ac.2.25 cents covered by S.No.232 to 3rd defendant under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1972 and delivered possession by demarcating the boundaries; that the 3rd defendant applied for sub-division of the properties covered by sale deed dated 24.06.1972; that sub-division was effected and survey number was revised as S.No.232/P.1; that the vendors of the plaintiffs had no title; that pending suit 3rd defendant sold plots to defendants 11 to 36 and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and prayed the Court dismiss the suit.
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, 2nd plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked. On behalf of defendants, 9th defendant was examined as D.W.1
