THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN APPEAL SUIT No.1134 of 1998

JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.12.1995 in O.S.No.7 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Adilabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), wherein and whereby the suit filed by the appellants herein for declaration and injunction was dismissed and counter claim filed by the respondents herein for declaration and injunction was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed challenging the dismissal of the suit filed by the appellants as well as allowing of counter claim filed by the respondents, in consolidated appeal since decree was not separately prepared. The Court fee was paid for both.

2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs and the respondents herein are defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is that originally one Onkarmal was absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.51 of Kachikanti Village, Adilabad Mandal and District, to an extent of Ac.28-10 guntas. One K. Ramulu, who is the father of the plaintiffs purchased land to an extent of Ac.7-06 guntas and one Chukkabotla Ushanna purchased land to an extent of Ac.7-05 guntas. They were owners and possessors of the said extent. There was partition between said Ramulu and Ushanna in respect of said lands purchased by them and they made the said lands into four parts. The land to an extent of Ac.3-20 guntas (hereinafter referred to ‘suit land’), which is in dispute in the present suit is part and parcel of one of the said parts. The defendants without any right over the suit property are trying to disturb the possession of plaintiffs. Therefore, the present suit is filed.

4. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim that their father purchased the suit land. They admitted that originally one Onkarmal was owner of land in the said survey number. The ancestors of the defendants were protected tenants and their ancestors were granted 38-E certificate for land to an extent of Ac.13-39 guntas in Sy.No.51 and they are in possession of such land being rightful owners and possessors. The suit land to an extent of Ac.3-20 guntas is owned by them and they are in possession. They filed written statement and counter claim seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction and alternatively claimed for recovery of possession.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit land in Sy.No.51/B of Kachikanti Village measuring Ac.3-20 gts. as shown in the sketch appended to plaint and wherein possession of it on the date i.e., 05.10.1992 when they filed O.S.No.94/1992 in the Court of District Munsiff, Adilabad?

2. Whether the plaintiff No.1 has purchased an extent of Ac.7-06 gts. in Sy.No.51/B of Kachikanti village from Onkarmal pattedar in the year 1970 and what are its boundaries?

3. Whether the defendants have trespassed into the suit land on 03.10.1992 and interfered in the possession of plaintiffs?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs of declaration of title and perpetual injunction with regard to the suit land?

5. Whether the defendants are entitled to the reliefs of declaration of title and perpetual injunction or alternative relief of possession of suit land?

6. To what relief?”

6. The plaintiffs in support of their case examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-23. Defendants got examined D.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-27.

7. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession. However, the trial Court has decreed the counter claim of defendants for declaration and injunction. Therefore, the present appeal is filed challenging the dismissal of the suit and allowing