COMMON JUDGMENT:

S.A.No.1197 of 2006 is filed by the appellant – appellant – plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006 passed in A.S.No.13 of 2005 by the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.43 of 1997 by the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District.

2. The appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 9.

3. S.A.No.1188 of 2006 is filed by the appellant – appellant – plaintiff (appellant No.3 in S.A.No.1197 of 2006 – one of the sons of appellant) aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2005 by the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.41 of 1997 by the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District.

4. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court as plaintiff and defendants.

5. The plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 1997 (pertaining to S.A.No.1197 of 2006) filed the suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession in respect of suit lands bearing Sy.Nos.216/paiki, 262, 262/paiki in all measuring Acs.8-22 gts. situated at Mudumal village.

6. The plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1997 (pertaining to S.A.No.1188 of 2006), the son of the plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 1997 filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction in respect of suit lands bearing Sy.No.216 measuring Acs.9-10 gts. situated at Mudumal village.

7. The contention of both the plaintiffs was that originally one Smt. Narsmma Pujari was the owner of the above suit schedule properties. After her demise, her adopted son, one Jaya Rao succeeded to the same. The said Jaya Rao, to meet his family requirements sold the suit lands to plaintiffs for valuable sale consideration under registered sale deeds dated 22.07.1993 and since then, the plaintiffs were enjoying the lands as pattedars and possessors. Earlier to it, the plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 1997 was enjoying both the suit lands as bataidar for several years. The defendants having no claim or right over the said lands tried to cause interference in their possession and enjoyment. As such, Sri Kishan Rao (the plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 1997) filed the suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.31 of 1993 and the said suit was decreed in his favour. Thereafter, the defendants filed a land grabbing case vide O.P.No.247 of 1994 alleging that Jaya Rao and Kishan Rao illegally encroached the land and sought for recovery of possession. However, the said case was dismissed as withdrawn. Later, Kishan Rao filed execution petition vide E.P.No.6 of 1995 for punishment of defendants for committing contempt of court. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs necessitating the plaintiffs to file the above suits for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.

8. The defendants filed written statement contending that late Narsamma Pujari was the mother of defendant No.3 and she gifted the suit schedule properties to defendant No.3 at the time of her marriage towards pasupu- kumkuma. The husband of defendant No.3 by name, Kamalanabha Chary cultivated the suit land. After the death of husband of defendant No.3, all the defendants 1 to 3 were in possession of the suit schedule properties and they being absolute owners, sold the suit schedule properties to Makala Anjaneyulu and Makala Laxmanna (sons of defendant No.4) vide registered sale deed dated

18.05.1993.

8.1. They further contended that suit lands were Inam lands. The defendants applied to Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour. The civil courts had no jurisdiction to issue perpetual injunction in respect of Inam lands. Late Jaya Rao had no right, title or interest in the suit schedule properties. The name of Jaya Rao was recor