Point of Law - Court feels that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to provide opportunity to the parties to adduce necessary evidence on the re-casted issues and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

The Appeal Suit, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2014 passed in Original Suit No.52 of 2010 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondents herein are the defendants, in the suit. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit seeking declaration of their title over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner over the suit schedule property. The averments in the plaint, in brief, may be stated as follows.

1st plaintiff is the wife, 2nd plaintiff is the son, and plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the daughters, of one Pandu Ranga Rao, who purchased the suit schedule property from 2nd defendant society, being member of the society, under a registered sale deed dated 29.02.1996, and during his life time, he enjoyed the property as the absolute owner and died on 04.06.2001 intestate leaving the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. From the date of his death, plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While things stood thus, 1st defendant filed Original Suit No.1994 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against 2nd plaintiff and others, who are strangers to the suit schedule property, for simple injunction, and the said suit was decreed. 1st defendant put up false claims and is claiming title by relying on some documents. Hence, to clear the cloud over their title, plaintiffs filed the present seeking declaration and permanent injunction.

4. 1st defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and stating that she purchased the plaint schedule property on 30.01.1982 from her vendors for a valuable consideration and has been enjoying the same as the absolute owner without any interference since the date of her purchase and paying taxes to the authorities concerned; that as members of 2nd defendant society tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, she filed Original Suit No.171 of 1996 against 2nd defendant for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 30.07.1998; that subsequently, as 2nd plaintiff and some others, who are claiming as owners of neighbouring plots, tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property, she filed Original Suit No.1994 of 2007 against them for permanent injunction and the same was decreed; that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the same is in her possession and enjoyment, and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the present suit.

5. 2nd defendant filed written statement stating inter alia as follows.

It is a registered society and represented by its Secretary. Suit filed by the plaintiffs showing representation of 2nd defendant through President, is not maintainable, and 2nd defendant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit proceedings and therefore suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. 2nd defendant is a society and the same was formed and registered on 30.07.1981 with total 421 members, and the late Pandu Ranga Rao was one of the members of 2nd defendant society. The District Collector, Krishna, at request of 2nd defendant, acquired Ac.14.12 cents of property at Bhavanipuram and handed over to it, and the plaint schedule property is part of the said land. The Writ Petitions filed by 12 persons at that time, questioning the acquisition proceedings, were dismissed and an Award No.20 of 1985 was passed on 11.06.1985 and Ac.13.51 cents of land was handed over to 2nd defendant on 04.09.1985. Subsequently, lay o