YELLAPRAGADA GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHI Vs. PETTU PODA MADIREDDI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of possession of one acre of land out of 2 acres and 45 cents in Demarcation No. 612/1 in the village of Chandola was dismissed by the Courts below.

(2.) ONE Manthona Butchi Raju and others were co -owners of a plot of land of the extent of 8 acres comprised in Demarcation Nos. 604/2, 606/1 and 612/1. On the 18th of March, 1929, they agreed to sell the land for a sum of Rs. 3,700 to one P. Venkateswarlu. An advance of Rs. 450 was paid that day under a contract of sale, Ex. D -4. The third defendant in the present suit who claims rights under that contract from P. Venkateswarlu paid on 2nd July, 1929, a sum of Rs. 950 to two of the co -owners, and obtained a receipt, Ex. D -5. She was in possession of the land ever since through her lessees, defendants 1 and 2, in the present suit. Ex. D -6 series are leases in their favour and the third defendant was also paying taxes on the land as is evidenced by Ex. D -7 series. On the 2nd March, 1934, one of the co -sharers, Butchi Raju, sold under Ex. P -4 to the present plaintiff an extent of one acre of land out of 2 acres 45 cents comprised in Demarcation No. 612/1 which is the subject -matter of the present suit. The co -sharers instituted on 9th March, 1936, a suit in the District Munsiff's Court of Tenali for recovery of possession of the land which was the subject -matter of the contract of sale, Ex. D -4, from Venkateswarlu, who was impleaded as the third defendant in that suit and the present third defendant was impleaded as the sixth defendant. The lessees of the third defendant, the present defendants 1 and 2, were also impleaded as parties in that suit as defendants 4 and 5. The present plaintiff was the eighth defendant. That suit was based on the allegation that Venkateswarlu committed default and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the property. Reference was made in that plaint which is marked as Ex. D -1 to the sale in favour of the present plaintiff of the one acre of land and it was prayed that as one of the plaintiffs, Butchi Raju, in pursuance of the covenant to deliver possession, was bound to secure possession and deliver the same to the eighth defendant in that suit, the present plaintiff, he should be put in possession of the said extent of one acre. That suit was contested by the present third defendant and the present plaintiff filed a written statement Ex. D -2. In that written statement he pleaded that he was entitled to possession of one acre of land sold to him under the sale deed of 1934 together with the profits in respect of that land. An issue was raised in that suit, issue No. 4, which runs as follows:

(3.) THE present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 15th March, 1941. He sued to recover possession on the strength of the sale deed in his favour executed by Butchi Raju in 1934. The main contesting defendant was the third defendant. She claimed to be entitled to continue in possession of the property in pursuance of the contract of sale in favour of Venkateswarlu; and further pleaded that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was of no legal effect as it was brought into existence fraudulently with a view to defeat her rights. A further plea that the present suit was also barred under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code was also raised.