K LAXMINARASIMHA CHARY Vs. K SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ranga Reddy, District, in AS No. 11 of 1986.

(2.) The facts that arise for consideration can be briefly summarised as follows. Appellant is the plaintiff in OS No.9 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad. Appellant's father Chandraiah had three brothers by name Venkaiah, Papaiah and Kishtayya. Kishtayya is the father of the respondent herein. These brothers had never constituted a joint family and there was no joint business. They were carrying on their caste profession and maintaining themselves with the income earned by them. Appellant's father purchased Acs. 11-16 guntas in S.No.57, corresponding to new S.No.58/1, in Gundla Marpally Village, Vikarabad Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, from out of the money saved by him. It is alleged by the appellant that his father's name was mutated in the revenue records. After the death of his father, respondent came from Karimnagar to Amardi Khurd village, where the father of the appellant lived, and started interfering with the land of the father of the appellant. Thereupon, appellant's father filed OS No.25 of 1973 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Vikarabad, for injunction against the respondent. In that suit, the respondent contended that he was in joint possession and the property was joint family property, as the said property was purchased with the joint funds of his father and Chandraiah. The suit was decreed. Respondent carried the matter in appeal in AS No. 116 of 1974. The appellate Court gave a finding that the plaintiff in OS No.25 of 1973 could not prove his possession, and allowed the appeal. It also gave a finding that the property in the suit was not the self-acquired property of the father of the appellant, but it was joint family property. Thereupon, the plaintiff in that suit, i.e., the father of the appellant herein, carried the matter in SA No.726 of 1976. The High Court by its judgment dated 21-7-1977 set aside the judgment of the lower appellate Court and remanded the matter to the lower appellate Court with a direction to give a finding as to whether the property covered by OS No.23 of 1975 was joint family property or the self-acquired property of the father of the appellant. The lower appellate Court, after remand, dismissed OS No.23 of 1975. Later, appellant filed OS No.9 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, seeking a declaration that he was absolute owner in possession of the suit land in Survey No.57, corresponding to new S.No.58/1, in Gundla Marpally Village, Vikarabad Taluk, Ranga Reddy District and for perpetual injunction against the respondent, and alternatively for possession. That suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, appellant carried the matter in appeal in AA No. 11 of 1986 to the Court of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that the judgment and findings in OS No.25 of 1973 operate as res judicata. The lower appellate Court did not give its findings on other issues. As against the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following question of law was framed for consideration.