HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 in A.S.No.04 of 2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Manthani confirming the judgment dated 25.04.2023 in O.S.No.26 of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Mr.K.Mohan Goud, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The appellant herein is defendant No.3 and respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.1 and 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as referred in the suit.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, the plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S.No.26 of 2016, against the defendants for perpetual injunction. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff is the owner and cultivator of the land admeasuring Acs.4.00 guntas in Sy.No.81 situated at Lonkakesaram Revenue Village of Kamanpur Mandal (herein after referred as “suit schedule property”), having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing No.2668 of 2006 on 12.06.2006 and he is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of suit schedule property. It is averred that on 14.02.2016, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff, which was resisted, however, in view of threats of defendants, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

5. Defendant No.1 entered appearance, but he did not filed any written statement and the case against defendant No.2 was not pressed. Whereas, defendant No.3 was set ex- parte and the suit was initially decreed exparte. However, vide order dated 25.11.2022 the exparte judgment and decree vide dated 18.11.2019 was set aside and the written statement filed by defendant No.3 was taken on file.

6. In the written statement, defendant No.3 denied the averments and allegations made in the plaint and further averred that the registered sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff is created and the boundaries mentioned in the documents are imaginary. It is further averred that defendant No.3 never interfered with the possession of plaintiff. It is also averred that the Mandal Girdawar, Ramagiri Mandal gave a report dated 22.02.2018 to the Tahsildar, Ramagiri Mandal in which it was mentioned that plaintiff has no land in Sy.No.81 of Lonkakesaram Village and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in possession of the land to an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas of land each in Sy.No.81. It is averred that as the husband of plaintiff was Sarpanch of the Lonkakesaram Village and that the suit is barred by limitation.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 were marked. On behalf of defendant No.3, DW-1 and DW-2 were examined and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3 were marked.

9. The trial court on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.2023.

10. The trial Court made the following observations:

“Plaintiff as PW-1 got marked Ex.A-1 1.e., the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing document no.2668/2006, dt. 12.06.2006, as per which the Plaintiff purchased the Suit Schedule Property from its Lawful owner for sale consideration of Rs. 1,36,000/-. Further, the Plaintiff also filed old original title deed book of her vendor which proves that the vendor of the Plaintiff was the Pattadar of the Suit Schedule Property prior to the execution of Ex.A-1 registered sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also got marked Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 i.e., pahanies for the year 2001-2022 and 2003-2004 which proves that the vendor of t