Possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can be protected against third parties, even without a formal sale deed, if established through credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Defendants against the Decree and Judgment dated 11.07.2001, in A.S.No.92 of 1995 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chodavaram (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the decree and Judgment dated 06.04.1995, in O.S.No.39 of 1990 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif Court, Chodavaram (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

2. The Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.39 of 1990 seeking for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the plaint schedule land.

3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

(a) The Plaintiff purchased the schedule land from Bonda Kullemma, W/o. Rajulu Dhora for Rs.1,600/- under a sale agreement dated 03.11.1984 was put in possession on the same day, along with 18 tamarind trees on the land. Since then, the Plaintiff has maintained possession and enjoyment of the property. Being in a backward area, the land has not been subject to land revenue collection. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff's vendor filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 1989 against the Plaintiff and her husband in the District Munsif Court, Narsipatnam, seeking an interim injunction. The Court passed an ex-parte injunction in I.A.No.269 of 1989, but this was subsequently dismissed on 18.09.1989, with the Court confirming the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property.

(b) The Plaintiff is entitled to protect her property under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, having paid the full consideration and taken possession of the land under the sale agreement. She has always been ready and willing to obtain a sale deed from the vendor, who, harbouring ill will, has sought to cause harm to the Plaintiff since the dismissal of her injunction petition by the District Munsif, Narsipatnam. Following this, the Defendants, allegedly instigated by the Plaintiff's vendor, committed theft of the millet crop and damaged the black gram crop cultivated on the schedule land. In response, the Plaintiff filed a criminal case.

(c) The schedule land contains tamarind trees, and the fruit-bearing season has arrived. The Defendants, allegedly instigated by the Plaintiff's vendor, sought to seize the usufruct from these trees unlawfully. They attempted to harvest the tamarind but were resisted by the Plaintiff and her husband. As they left, the Defendants declared that they would not permit the Plaintiff to enjoy the usufruct or retain possession of the land, making similar proclamations throughout the village.

5. Both the Defendants have filed written statements denying all the material averments in the plaint by contending that:

(a) Bonda Kullemma filed CMA No.25 of 1989 challenging the orders passed by the District Munsif, Narsipatnam, in I.A.No.269 of 1989 of O.S.No.72 of 1989, and the matter is still pending. The Plaintiff is not entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and claims that the alleged attempt by the Defendants to seize the usufruct from the tamarind trees, allegedly instigated by Kullemma, is fabricated as a cause of action for the suit. The land in question belongs to Bonda Rajulu Dhora, a Mokasadhar, and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment by him and his family, including their father Pentayya, for over 100 years as tenants. Kullemma filed an O.S.No.211 of 1984 seeking a permanent injunction, which the Defendants contested. Kullemma was not Rajulu Dhora's wife and had no title to the property. They also claimed to have been in possession as tenants of Sanyasayyadora, Latchannadora, and Rajulu Dhora. Ultimately, the suit