ANANTHA RAMRAO Vs. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DEVADURGA DISTRICTRAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal from the judgment and decree dated 13-1-1984, delivered by Civil Judge, Raichur (B.K. Kanavi) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 13 of 1982, arising out of judgment and decree dated 16-1-1982, passed by the Munsiff, Devadurga in O.S.No. 32 of 1980. The Lower Appellate Court by the above judgment and decree dated 13-1-1984, allowed the 1st defendant's civil regular appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, that is of learned Munsiff, dated 16-1-1982, in the suit and dismissed the plaintiffs claim in the suit which had originally been decreed by the Trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit for declaration oftitle as owner of 27 tamarind trees situate at Survey No. 98 in Nizampet.

(3.) The plaintiffs case is that trees in dispute which are 27 in number had been purchased by the father of the plaintiff- appellant by registered sale deeds in the Fisli year 1301. The sale deeds are Exs. P-1, P-2 and P-3, on the record. Plaintiffs further case is that plaintiffs father, after having purchased, continued in possession and user of the usufruct of the trees and had got plucking right of the fruits of those tamarind trees. That on October 9th, 1980, Town Municipal Council sold these trees for a sum of Rs. 2200/- in favour of 2nd defendant-respondent 2. It may be mentioned that Town Municipal Council is 1st defendant-(respondent 1) in the appeal. That the 1st defendant-(respondent 1) had no right, title or interest in the trees nor could it sell, either the trees or right to pluck the fruits of the trees in favour of 2nd defendant. That the action of the 1st defendant-(respondent 1) had created clouds on the right and title of the plaintiff-appellant and defendant 2, has started threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs right to take usufruct of tamarind trees. The need for filing the suit for declaration and for injunction as such did arise and so, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff has been the owner in possession of 27 tamarind trees referred above and defendant 2 had got no right to take the usufruct or fruits from the tamarind trees nor defendant 1 could transfer the same to defendant 2. The plaintiff also claimed decree for injunction restraining the defendants from plucking the fruits from the tamarind trees. The plaintiff also prayed for decree for injunction to the effect that defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the trees.