THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NOs.32 OF 2014 AND 350 OF 2013

COMMON JUDGMENT:

A.S.No.350 of 2013 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2012 in O.S.No.116 of 2011 on the file Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act- cum-V-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. A.S.No.32 of 2014 is filed by the appellant against the order and decree dated 11.03.2013 in I.A.No.748 of 2012 in O.S.No.116 of 2011 on the file of Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The appellant in both the suits is the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.116 of 2011.

2. I.A.No.748 of 2012 was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein before the trial Court under Order XX Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure for passing of final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.116 of 2011. The trial Court divided the suit property into five shares and allotted 8 guntas each to plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.1. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiffs are the joint owners and peaceful possessors of an agricultural land measuring Ac. 1.00 guntas in Survey No. 204/E (ఇ) 8, situated at Kollur village, Ramachandapuram Mandal, Medak District, along with Defendant No.1, who is the son of Plaintiff No.1 and elder brother of Plaintiffs 2 to 4.The plaintiffs claim that their great- grandfather, late Balaiah, was the original pattadar of Ac.5.00 guntas of land in Survey No.204/E (ఇ)situated at Kollur village. After Balaiah's death, the property was devolved and was in joint possession of his five sons viz., Sayanna, Ramaiah, Balaiah, Papaiah and Laxmaiah. The plaintiffs' grandfather, late Papaiah, got Ac. 1.00 guntas of land towards his share, which was cultivated by his son, Samaiah @ Samuel, along with the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. Samaiah died on 18.01.2005, and Papaiah died on 02.02.2005, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 continued to cultivate the land. When the plaintiffs requested defendant No.1 for partition of the suit schedule property, he dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and in July, 2011, the defendant No.2 without any manner of right came to the suit schedule property and tried to build a compound wall, the same was resisted by the plaintiffs, the defendant No.2 disclosed that, defendant No.1, along with his grandmother, V. Jangamma, sold the entire suit land to him under a registered sale deed document No.3945 of 2005 dated 7.04.2005. The plaintiffs claim that there was no family necessity for the sale and that defendant No.1 and Jangamma had no right to sell the property. However, when the plaintiffs questioned defendant No.1, he bluntly refused to give them share and stated that he already sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.2. Further to avoid the share of plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 along with his grandmother sold the property to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 got mutated his name in the revenue records. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 2 is null and void to the extent of the suit schedule property; to correct the entries in the revenue records and for perpetual injunction. They claim that defendant No.2 is trying to alienate the suit property to third parties and dispossess the plaintiffs, taking advantage of the sale deed.

4. Though notice was served on defendant No1, he remained ex parte. Defendant No.2 entered appearance by engaging an advocate, but as he failed to file written statement within the stipulated time, he was set ex parte. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 was examined as Pw.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.17 are marked. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court cancelled the sale deed vide document No.3945 of 2005 executed by defendant No.1 and his grandmother and also decreed the suit for pa