RAMKRISHNA GANPATRAO JOGDAND Vs. KONDIRAM JAYSINGRAO NAIKWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL plaintiff No. 1 Ramkrishna and his two sons Janardhan and Nivrutti had filed a suit against Kondiram and Vyankatrao seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs land admeasuring 8 acres and 4 gunthas. The contention of the original plaintiffs was that said Ramkrishna was declared owner of the said 8 acres and 4 gunthas of land under section 38-F of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act" ). Said Ramkrishna had paid the price also for the same as per the declaration and as such said Ramkrishna had claimed title to the said land. Balance portion of land admeasuring 1 acres and 23 gunthas was also in possession of Ramkrishna in addition to the aforesaid 8 acres and 4 gunthas as a tenant.

(2.) THE plaintiffs had alleged that plaintiff No. 1 Ramkrishna has simpleton having short temper. In the heat of anger, when he had a quarrel with his sons plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, hence he had entered into two sales deeds on 12-4-1978 in favour of the defendants selling the aforesaid land admeasuring 8 acres and 4 gunthas. The plaintiffs in paragraph 7 of the plaint have specifically pleaded that these two sale deeds are invalid as per the provisions of the said Act, inasmuch as no prior permission of the Collector for said sale was obtained. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that the sale deeds which were executed on 12-4-1978 were void. The said suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs on the ground that the aforesaid two sale deeds were void ab initio. The aforesaid suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 100 of 1978 was decreed by the trial Court i. e. Joint Civil Judge, J. D. Beed on 29-6-1981, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to possession of the suit land.

(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the aforesaid defendants Kondiram and Venkatrao had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 187 of 1981 before the Extra Assistant Judge, Beed. The lower Appellate Court also noticed the fact that subsequent thereto, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms had declared the said transactions to be valid. The lower Appellate Court had only considered one issue, namely, whether the original plaintiffs had proved their actual possession with regard to 8 acres and 4 gunthas of land from Survey No. 73/e/3 and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to get a decree for perpetual injunction.