HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT No. 1844 OF 1998

J U D G M E N T :

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 780 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R District at Saroornagar, dated

04-8-1998.

2. The parties as arrayed in the suit are referred to in the same manner in this Appeal.

3. Appellants herein are plaintiffs in the suit which was filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction of agriculture lands admeasuring Acs. 09-19 guntas in Survey No. 103/5 situated at Shamshabad Village, Ranga Reddy District. The said property herein is referred to as ‘suit schedule property’. The trial Court dismissed the above suit by judgment and decree dated 04-08-1998., which is impugned in this Appeal.

4. Brief facts of the case are:

Plaintiffs claim that their respective fathers late Yenga Reddy Venkat Reddy, S/o Sai Reddy and Late Yanga Reddy Narayan Reddy, S/o Sai Reddy have jointly purchased suit schedule lands from Late Kuchireddy Chenna Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy who is the husband of Defendant No. 1 and Father of Defendants 2 to 4 and Kuchireddy Narayanan Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy who is father of Defendant Nos. 5 to 8. Both of them are the natural brothers and are Pattedars and possessors of Suit Schedule Lands. The respective fathers of Plaintiffs have jointly purchased from the husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendants 2 to 4 suit schedule property by paying the sale consideration of Rs 600/- on 27-12-1960 and got possession of said land on the same day. The predecessors of defendants executed a simple sale deed/ Bainama in favour of fathers of plaintiffs on a stamp paper on 27-12-1960. The revenue authorities recognizing rights of Plaintiff father and after their death had recorded the names of Plaintiffs in the revenue records more specifically in Pahanies under the possession column. It is the further case of Plaintiffs that they are in physical possession of suit schedule lands from the date of purchase without interruption from anybody. While the matter stood thus, in December 1995, Defendants tried to interfere with the possession of Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In view of the said interference, mediation has been done in the presence of village vendors wherein, it was decided that Plaintiffs have to pay Rupees Five Hundred only to Defendant Nos.1 and 5 to 8 and the same was received by said Defendants and having received the said amount, Defendants are obligated to cooperate with Plaintiffs for getting their names recorded in the revenue records as owners and possessors of the suit schedule lands. However, defendants have once again tried to interfere and disturb possession of suit schedule property on 16-12-1996. In view of the same, Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction.

4.1. Pursuant to service of summons/ notices in the suit, Defendants filed their appearance and contested the suit. The contention of Defendants is that the husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendants did not alienate suit schedule property and the claim of Plaintiffs is false and denied. Defendants in categorical terms have disputed the simple sale deed dated 27.12.1960. In other words, Defendants disputed alienation of suit schedule Property under Bainama dated 27-12-1960 for sale consideration of Rs. 600/- and defendants are also denying and disputing that they have tried to disturb the physical possession of suit schedule property contending that taking advantage of illegal entries and possession column of Pahanies, Plaintiffs have put up a wrong claim on the Defendant to knock away the property of Defendants and it is Plaintiffs who have tried to dispossess Defendants.

4.2. Defendants, in categorical terms, denied payment of Rs.500/- by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs by colluding with revenue officials got illegal entries in the Pahanies and those entries are the basis for filing present suit so also