CHINNAPPA Vs. PEDDANNA @ VENKATASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit property is in survey No.786/7 extent of 3.38 acres. Out of which, 2.62 acres of land lying on North purchased by one Krishnamma who is mother of plaintiffs 1 and 2 from Kengaiah, S/o Abbaiah. 0.76 acres land purchased by third plaintiff from one Pappamma. Thus the total extent of 3.38 acres, owned by plaintiffs 1 to 3. The second defendant taking advantage of the mistake in the UDR patta, sold a portion of S.No.386/7 to the second defendant on 13.08.1992. Based on that sale deed, which does not bind the plaintiff, the second defendant encroached upon the suit land on 17.10.1992. Hence, suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the defendants as pleaded by the second defendant and adopted by the first defendant is that Chengiaya and Abbaiya the vendors of Krishnammal and the third plaintiff have no right or title in the suit property. In the suit property, 01 acres of land, owned by the first defendant Appaiah who is the brother of the first defendant and the first defendant have the balance of 1.37 acres land. The suit property is in survey number 786/7. The entire extent in survey No.786/7 was handed over to the first defendant as early as 1964. The allegation that his name was erroneously crept in the patta during UDR scheme is not correct. In the year 1969, the first defendant and his two brothers Appaiah and Pillaiya effected partition. Pillaiya released his right of share in favour of the first defendant thereby the first defendant is entitle to ? share. Later in the year, 1972, division of property was effected orally between the first defendant and his brother Appaiah, in which land in survey No.789/4, 790/1 and 1.37 acres in survey No.786/7 was allotted to the first defendant. This 1.37 acres later sold to second defendant.

(3.) The trial Court based on the pleading framed 9 issues. Plaintiff examined four witnesses and marked 69 documents. The defendants examined 8 witnesses and marked 22 exhibits. The trial Court held that, the suit property extent of 3 acres 38 cents is self acquired property of Appaiah. From 1977 to 84 he had been enjoying it. Vide Ex.A.1 dated 20.01.1977, Appaiah has sold 2.62 acres to Chengaiah. He in turned has hold it to Krishnammal on 26.04.1980. The said Krishnammal is mother of 1st and 2nd plaintiffs. The second defendant who have purchased the suit property from Munusamy the brother of Appaiah, claimes Pillappa, who is the brother of Munusamy, released his share to Munusamy. When Pillappa was cross examined as P.W.4 he denies the execution of the release deed. For the said reasons, the trial Court allowed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.