K GOPALA REDDY Vs. SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendants appeal. Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant to declare them as absolute owners of the site bearing Khaneshmari No. 258 in khata No. 195/1 measuring east-west 45' and north-south 25' situated in Agaram village, bounded by east-Therumane, west by drain leading to the tank, north by Krishna Reddys land and south by road and also to grant a decree for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant or his a gents or servants or anybody claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint averments, one Neela Shetty son of Chikka Munisetty was the owner of the suit schedule property and that he gifted the property in the year 1975 in favour of the plaintiffs mother Pillamma and thereafter khata was changed in the name of Pillamma and that at present Khaneshmari number stands in the name of Pillamma. During the life time of Pillamma she was paying taxes to the plaint schedule property and that she had also obtained license from the village panchayat in order to put up a construction on the schedule property and that Pillamma died on 16. 12. 1983 leaving behind her the plaintiffs and others as sole legal heirs. When the plaintiffs collected the building materials to construct the building, defendant made an attempt to interfere with the possession of the suit property. Therefore, plaintiffs filed a suit initially for judgment and decree of perpetual injunction, later on converted the same into one for declaration of title.

(3.) DEFENDANT filed a detailed written statement denying the rights of Neela Setty in gifting the property to the plaintiffs mother Pillamma and he has also denied granting of license by the village panchayat in favour of Pillamma and even if such license was granted to her, same has been concocted one. According to him, plaintiffs by giving false Khaneshmari number is trying to lay claim on his property. Khaneshmari No. 259 in khata No. 97/a which was standing in the name of his father Krishna Reddy and that in a family partition Khaneshmari No. 229 present No. 259 fell to the share of the defendant in a memorandum of partition drawn on 5. 6. 1969 and that he continued to be in possession of the property and that he has also laid foundation in order to put up construction on the property. He has denied that the plaintiffs mother having any property next to his property bearing Khaneshmari No. 259. According to him, by concocting the revenue records plaintiffs are making an attempt to claim defendants property. Defendant also contended that the plaintiffs have no title or possession in respect of the property in question and that the defendant is enjoying his property bearing No. 259 out of which plaintiffs are laying claim by showing different boundaries as plaint schedule property.