HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated

26.08.2024 in A.S.No.29 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023 in O.S.No.37 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, was confirmed.

2. The appellants are plaintiffs and the respondent is defendant in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts that lead to filing of the present Second Appeal are that the aforementioned suit was originally filed by plaintiff No.1 to declare him as owner, possessor and title holder of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his heirs, etc., from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the plaint, it is averred that the suit schedule property was purchased by plaintiff No.1 jointly with one Vishwanadula Rama Chary and Kamasani Satyanarayana Reddy from one Alugubelli Biksha Reddy and another through a registered sale deed bearing document No.4141/1984; that later, Vishwanadula Rama Chary and Kamasani Satyanarayana Reddy have relinquished their rights in favour of plaintiff through registered release deed bearing document No.1156/1992, dated 27.3.1992 and thus, plaintiff No.1 became absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property; that on three sides of the suit schedule property i.e., on North, South and West he erected fencing with stone pillars; that the plaintiff has let out an extent of Ac.0.34 guntas to one Pasupuleti Saidaiah through a registered lease deed dated 11.11.2011 for the purpose of erecting a petroleum outlet; while so, the defendant under the guise of created sale deed said to be executed by one Yellamma started interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; that though the plaintiff protested and denied the claim of the defendant, the defendant had illegally dug a trench in the suit land separating an extent of Ac.0.23 guntas on southern side; that the plaintiff made an application to the Tahsildar, Nalgonda to inspect the land physically and submit report and the same is pending; that in such circumstances, the aforesaid suit was filed.

4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 died, as such, his legal heirs were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 5.

5. The defendant filed the written statement denying the averments in the plaint and inter alia contended that he is owner and possessor of Ac.0.23 guntas of land in Sy.No.653 of Cherlapalli Village having purchased the same from one Sunkaraboina Yellamma though registered sale deed bearing document No.16790 of 2011, dated 31.12.2011; that originaly, one Sunkaraboina Lingaiah, husband of Sunkaraboina Yellamma vendor of the defendant was owner of land to an extent of Ac.2.09 guntas in Sy.No.653; that the said Lingaiah sold the said land to one V.Chandraiah and V.Sree Ramulu, who in turn sold an extent of Ac.01.25 ½ guntas to one Kakkireni Sreenivas and others and the remaining extent of Ac.0.23 guntas to S.Yellamma; that in the said document, the boundaries were clearly mentioned that on the northern side there are lands of Brahma Chary and others and on the southern side there are lands of Mohd. Osman and Ramesh Kumar; that even in the document executed by S.Yellamma in favour of the defendant, the same boundaries were clearly mentioned; and thus, ever since the date of purchase, the defendant is in possession of the land.

5.1. It was further averred that plaintiff No.1 who claimed that he purchased the suit schedule property from one Alugubelli Biksha Reddy and another, has intentionally withheld the name of the alleged vendor; that in the registered sale deed vide document No.4141/1984, the names of the seller and purchaser mentioned therein is one and the same i.e., Kamsani Satyanarayan