THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL SECOND APPEAL No.78 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2019 passed in A.S.No.18 of 2015 by the learned III Additional District Judge at Gadwal confirming the judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed in O.S.No.41 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

3. Heard Sri Godugu Mallesham, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri NS Arjun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

4. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents herein, instituted OS No.41 of 2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal seeking a declaration of title and a consequential decree of permanent injunction. They asserted that they are the pattadars and possessors of the suit schedule lands situated at Pullur Village, Manopad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, bearing survey Nos.430/AA1, 433/AA1 and 430/AA4, admeasuring Ac.1-18 Gts., Ac.1-22 Gts., and Ac.1-18 Gts., respectively. They contended that they are close relatives, plaintiff No.2 being the wife of the brother of plaintiff No.1. According to them, the schedule properties are their ancestral properties, in which both plaintiffs are co-owners and have been in peaceful, continuous possession and enjoyment. They relied upon certified copies of pahanies for the years 1999 to 2006, along with title deeds and pattadar passbooks, to demonstrate their possession over the suit lands.

(a) The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants have no manner of right or interest over the suit property. However, acting at the instigation of certain villagers, the defendants began creating disturbances. On 03.06.2006, while the plaintiffs were engaged in agricultural operations, the defendants, along with their supporters, allegedly trespassed into the suit lands and attempted to dispossess them. The plaintiffs’ relatives intervened, whereupon the defendants left after issuing threats to dispossess the plaintiffs and destroy their crops.

(b) The defendants, in their written statement, denied the plaintiffs’ claims as false and baseless. They contended that the plaintiffs’ ancestors had alienated the suit properties long ago and that the plaintiffs have neither title nor possession. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 claimed to be the absolute owners and possessors of the suit lands from the dates of their respective purchases, contending that the alleged incident of interference on 03.06.2006 is fictitious. Defendant No.1 claimed to have purchased land in Survey No.430/B/Paiki, admeasuring Ac.2-30 Gts., under a registered sale deed bearing document No.544 of 1990 dated 12.04.1990, executed by one K.Udaya Bhaskar Rao for valid consideration of Rs.15,000/-. He approached the Mandal Revenue Officer seeking mutation of his name by submitting the said sale deed and link documents on 02.03.2006. Upon enquiry in file No.A/328/2006, the MRO issued proceedings dated 05.06.2006 noting that the land in survey No.430/AA, admeasuring Ac.5-32 gts., had originally stood in the name of the plaintiffs’ ancestors, namely Kurva Naganna and Kurva Karrenna, as per revenue records for 1985–86 and 1989–90. After their demise, their successors sold Ac.2-20 Gts., to one M.Pakeeraiah Goud under Document No.1413 of 1981, who subsequently sold it to Udaya Bhaskar, the vendor of defendant No.1. The MRO observed that defendant No.1 has been in continuous possession and that the plaintiffs’ names continued in revenue records only because defendant No.1 had not sought mutation earlier.

(c) The defendants further contended that after obtaining an ex-parte injunction, the plaintiffs approached the MRO and filed objections, which according to the defendants, reveals their malafide intent to grab the defendants’ property. They also contended that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint are incorrect. Defendant No.2 stated tha