RAGHUPATHI Vs. V RANGARAJULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the plaintiff in the suit filed by him for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction. THE Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for and as a result of which, the defendant preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. THE first appellate court rendered a finding that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has established his respective title to the properties. Ultimately, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was upset by the first appellate court as the plaintiff, who is bound to establish his title to the properties, failed to do so. THE plaintiff has now preferred the second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. THE defendant has filed cross objection with respect to the finding given by the first appellate court that the defendant failed to establish his title to the properties.

(2.) THE plaintiff has contended that the properties described as items 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule have been in possession and enjoyment of the family of the plaintiff from time immemorial. After the demise of his grandfather, the plaintiff's father Senthamarai Kannan had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. After his death, the plaintiff got the properties in the partition that took place between the brothers. It is contended by the plaintiff that the second item of the suit properties was leased out to one Srinivasulu Naidu on 30.1.1973 and the first item of the suit was leased out to him as per the lease deed dated 5.2.1986. After the said Srinivasulu Naidu vacated the suit properties in the year 1990, the thatched house, which was in a dilapidated condition, was removed by the plaintiff. Claiming that the father of the plaintiff had been in enjoyment of the same having obtained patta in his name and thereafter he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs as stated supra. THE plaintiff also has claimed adverse possession contending that the plaintiff and his predecessors in title have been in continuous possession of the suit properties for more than the statutory period without any interruption.

(3.) THE Trial Court, having taken note of the admission made by DW1, the defendant herein that the properties originally belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff and that Ex.B3 did not relate to the suit properties and relied upon 'A' Register extract Ex.A1 standing in the name of the father of the plaintiff, Exs.A4 and A5 lease agreements relating to the suit properties, Exs.A6 to A10 House Tax Receipts and Ex.A23 the deed of power of attorney executed by the brother of the defendant in favour of a third party, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has established his right and title to the suit properties as well as possession thereof and therefore, he is entitled to the reliefs sought for.