JUDGMENT:

The above second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in the suit against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2018 in A.S.No.10 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 in O.S.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as they were arrayed in the plaint.

3. Suit O.S.No.313 of 2006 is filed for recovery of Rs.77,740/- with future interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization.

4. In the plaint it was contended inter alia that an extent of Ac.20.07 cents of land, wet and dry, in Mulukuduru Panchayat originally belonged to late Tummala Narasaiah. The said Narasaiah is having four sons, namely, Tummala Satyanarayana, Dr.Tummala Veeraiah, Dr.Tummala Suryanarayana and Dr.Tummala Seshagiri Rao. Tummala Narasaiah died in the year 2000 and his son Dr.Tummala Veeraiah died in February, 2002. By the date of death of Narasaiah, plaintiff was cultivating Ac.13.65 cents, which includes Ac.3.57 cents i.e. plaint schedule property as tenant and has been paying maktha without committing any default.

5. While so, disputes arose between Tummala Satyanarayana and his sister-in-law Dr.T.Indira Devi, W/o late Veeraiah. Dr.T.Seshagiri Rao was sailing with T.Satyanarayana and Dr.T.Suryanarayana was sailing with Indira Devi. In fact, Dr.T.Suryanarayana appointed Dr.T.Indira Devi as his General Power of Attorney Holder. A.T.C.No.3 of 2002 on the file of Special Officer, Ponnur was filed by the plaintiff against T.Satyanarayana, T.Indira Devi, T.Suryanarayana and T.Seshagiri Rao to declare him as cultivating tenant of Ac.13.65 cents. O.S.No.174 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff against A.Venkateswara Rao and others for grant of permanent injunction. A.T.C.No.5 of 2002 on the file of Special Officer, Ponnur, was filed by T.Indira Devi and T.Suryanarayana, represented by GPA Holder against the plaintiff and others restraining them from paying 2/4th share of maktha to Tummala Satyanarayana or anybody.

6. Pending the above three matters, compromise was affected between the parties and a compromise decree was passed on 27.07.2002 in A.T.C.No.5 of 2002 recognizing the plaintiff as the cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.10.76 cents, includes the suit schedule property. As per the compromise, lease between the plaintiff, Dr.T.Indira Devi and Dr.T.Suryanarayana is subsisting. While the plaintiff was cultivating Ac.10.76 cents as tenant, T.Suryanarayana sold his Ac.5.39 cents and Dr.T.Indira Devi sold Ac.1.44 cents, out of her Ac.5.37 cents. Thus, the plaintiff is continuing as cultivating tenant of T.Indira Devi for the remaining extent of Ac.3.93 cents.

7. According to the plaintiff, Dr.T.Indira Devi at the time of alienating Ac.1.44 cents, offered to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at the same cost, which she sold Ac.1.44 cents. But disputes arose between the plaintiff and his landlady Indira Devi, resulting in plaintiff filing A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 on the file of Special Officer, Ponnur to determine the price of schedule land at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre; that the sale of the schedule land has become effective on payment of first installment of Rs.49,125/- by way of demand draft No.053831 dated 26.09.2003; that the plaintiff is entitled to pay balance of sale price of Rs.4,42,125/- in nine installments and for grant of permanent injunction; to declare the sale deeds executed by landlady in favour of defendants herein are void etc., Along with A.T.C 2 of 2003, I.A.No.1004 of 2003 was filed for grant of injunction restraining the landlady/Indira Devi from alienating the plaint schedule property. By order dated 26.09.2003, learned Special Officer granted the order of status quo; that while the order of status quo is in force, landlady Dr.T.Indira Devi sold away Ac.3.57 cents, out of Ac.3.93 cents to the 1st defendant, G.Srinivasa Rao under a register