HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

The Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy in A.S.No.46 of 2022 by which the judgment and decree, dated 13.06.2018, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Medak in O.S.No.62 of 2008 was set aside.

2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondent herein is defendant in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that one Laxma Reddy was the ancestor of appellant and he has two sons namely Durga Reddy and Narayan Reddy; that there was partition between them and an extent of Ac. 37.07 guntas fallen to the share of Durga Reddy; that Durga Reddy had two wives namely Satyamma and Veeramma and he kept one Bagamma as his concubine and out of their relationship the appellant was born and Bagamma died when the appellant was 1 ½ years old; that Satyamma and Veeramma had no issues and they along with Durga Reddy brought up the appellant as their son and performed his marriage. It is further averred that Durga Reddy expired 25 years ago, Satyamma died about 20 years ago; that Veeramma died on 07.01.2006 leaving behind the appellant as their son; that respondent is son of Ramakrishna Reddy who is son of Narayan Reddy i.e., brother of Durga Reddy; that respondent has got executed a will deed dated 19.06.1968 in respect of properties of Durga Reddy and also got his name mutated in the year 1984-85; that respondent by playing fraud on Veeramma has got executed gift settlement deed dated 08.07.1993 in respect of suit schedule property and along with Veeramma he filed a suit O.S.No.57 of 1993 in respect of suit schedule property on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

3.1 It is further averred that appellant purchased a tractor in the year 2001 by hypothecating the suit lands to Manjeera Grameena Bank, Jogipet Branch and got the tractor registered in the name of respondent as the lands are in the name of respondent. The respondent taking advantage of revenue entries filed suit in O.S.No.25 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jogipet against appellant and his family members for perpetual injunction and the said suit was dismissed and the respondent preferred appeal in CMA No.09 of 2006 and same was allowed. Basing on the same, respondent dispossessed the appellant from the suit schedule property and the appellant got issued a legal notice to handover the possession and the respondent issued a false reply claiming ownership of the property. Therefore, the appellant filed suit in O.S.No.62 of 2008 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak seeking to declare him as the son of late P.Durga Reddy and entitle him to claim share in the properties of P.Durga Reddy and to declare him as owner of the suit property and tractor and cancellation of gift settlement deed dated 08.07.1993 and recovery of possession of schedule property from defendant and award damages of Rs.10,000/- towards damages of crop and mesne profits of Rs.2,00,000/- per year till the recovery of possession and correction of entries in revenue records.

4. Respondent filed the Written Statement admitting his relationship with brother of respondent’s grandfather and also that Durga Reddy has two wives namely Satyamma and Veeramma and they had no issues. Durga Reddy died in the year 1967 leaving behind land to an extent of Ac.26.07 guntas but not Ac.37.07 guntas, Satyamma died in 1984 and Veeramma died on 07.01.2006 and the appellant has wrongly mentioned his father’s name as Durga Reddy instead of Durgaiah ; that appellant is not the legal heir of Durga Reddy and that after the death of Durga Reddy, his two wives namely Satyamma and Veeramma succeeded to his properties and it became their ‘Sreedhana’ properties. Satyamma and Veeramma executed a will in favour of respondent and after the death of Satyamma, Veeramma executed a gift settlement deed dated 08.07.1993 in favour of respondent in respect