IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of an agreement for rectification of survey number and confirmed the plaintiff's possession, rejecting defendants' inconsistent claims.

JUDGMENT :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in O.S.No.28 of 1989, dated 31.03.2000, defendants in the suit preferred the present Appeal.

2. Appellants are defendants in the suit and respondent is plaintiff, who filed the suit on the basis of agreement dated 14.02.1979, for rectification of the agreement by inserting Survey No. 258 instead of Survey No.291 and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience, array of parties is made as was done in the trial Court.

4. It is the case of plaintiff that she is the youngest daughter of the 1st defendant and sister of defendants 2 and 3 and her marriage was performed in 1978 as per Hindu Customs. Defendants gave Acs. 7.12 gts. situated at Lalapuram Village, Konijarla Mandal, Khammam District towards Pasupu Kumkuma (Gift) at the time of her marriage and executed an agreement dated 14.02.1979 and delivered possession thereof and since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land and the revenue authorities mutated her name in revenue records in respect of the subject land. Her matrimonial house is at Hasangurti village, which is at distance of 20 kilometers from the subject land, hence, she entrusted the subject land to defendants for cultivation, on condition to pay Rs.3,000/- per year towards lease and accordingly, defendants are paying. It is the case of plaintiff that after death of her mother in 1988, defendants developed greedy eye over the subject land due to surge in land rates and had taken ‘U’ turn and declined to pay the lease amount. In view of the obstructions made by defendants, she filed the suit for rectification of wrong survey number and to restrain defendants from interfering in suit schedule property.

5. In the suit, defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in plaint and possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule land, however, admitted the relationship and execution of the agreement in her favour. They further contended that they performed the marriage of plaintiff and agreed to pay dowry of Rs.30,000/- to her husband, but due to financial problems, they could not pay the same. Subsequently on the pressure of plaintiff‘s husband, they executed agreement towards security to pay the balance amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is the case of defendants that subsequently, they paid the due amount of Rs.25,000/- to plaintiff’s husband, but the latter did not return the agreement saying that it was destroyed by white ants.

6. Defendant No.3 had taken out I.A. No.1005 of 1994 seeking compromise with plaintiff on 02.12.1994, during pendency suit, duly admitting execution of agreement dated 14.02.1979 and delivery of suit property in favour of plaintiff.

7. Plaintiff got examined PWs.1 to 3 on her behalf and marked Exs. A1 to A4 to substantiate her case. Plaintiff as PW1 reiterated the averments made in the plaint; PW2, attestor of Ex.A1-agreement, deposed in favour of plaintiff as to the execution of Ex.A1 by defendants 1 to 3 and delivery of the subject land in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants did not dispute the evidence of PW2 and attestation of Ex A1. PW3, who is none other than own sister of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, deposed that subject property was given to plaintiff by defendants at the time of her marriage. Defendant No. 3 - brother of plaintiff filed sworn affidavit admitting execution of Ex. A1 and delivery of possession of subject land in favour of plaintiff. Village pahanies marked as Exs. A3 and Ex A4 reflect the name of plaintiff in respect of subject land. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 to 8 were examined and Ex.B1 promissory note was marked. DW5 former patwari of the village deposed that on the request of the 1st defendant, he scribed Ex.A1 and delivered physical possession of subject land in favour of plaintiff.

8. The stand taken by de