CHAKALA ANJAPPA Vs. BETAPPAGARI ANJANEYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant herein. The suit was originally filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the plaint schedule properties. Subsequently, the plaint was amended seeking the relief of declaration of title. The plaintiff is the father-in-law as well as the sister's husband of the first defendant. The second defendant is the elder brother of the first defendant and the third defendant is the mother of defendants 1 and 2. The fourth defendant is another sister of the first defendant. The suit property consists of two items of wet land measuring Ac.1.23 cents and Ac.1.74 cents, and a house constructed on seven Ankanams of site together with a well and a pump set.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that he purchased the unit property and some other properties from the second defendant who executed Ex.A-1 sale deed on his behalf and on behalf of the first defendant as karta of the joint family to meet the expenditure for digging a well and for family necessity, that the first defendant did not take any steps to get the sale set aside after attaining majority; that the plaintiff took possession of the properties purchased by him and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then, that on 1-3-1977, the second defendant trespassed into item No.1 of the plaint schedule and objected for the ploughing; that he also trespassed into the house and tried to break open the locks and that the defendants have been obstructing the plaintiff from raising sugar cane crop in the suit land. The plaintiff further pleaded that in the sale deed dt.11-6-1953, which is marked as Ex.A-52, under which the first defendant purchased some property from one Gaddi Agasthya Reddy, the northern boundary is described as that of the plaintiff and as such, the defendants are estopped from questioning the title of the plaintiff.

(3.) The common defence set up by all the defendants is that the sale deed Ex.A-1 dated 22-3-1948 is nominal and not intended to be acted upon; that in fact the said said deed was not acted upon; that the plaintiff never took possession under the sale sale deed and was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; that as the second defendant was innocent, the third defendant got the sale deed executed by the second defendant in order to prevent the second defendant from wasting away the properties; that defendants 1 to 3 continued to be in possession and that there was no necessity for the family to alienate the suit properties. Subsequently, the first defendant filed an additional written statement pleading that after the estate of Punganur Zamindar was taken over by the Government, the Survey and Settlement authorities granted a patta in favour of the first defendant and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.