NAGASAMUDRALA VASARAIAH Vs. DASAM KONDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.197 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, is the appellant. THE respondent filed the suit for injunction in respect of 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.359/B of Algunoor Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property, along with some other extent, was assigned to his father about 30 years ago, and after the death of his father, he has inherited the same. It was alleged that his name was entered in the revenue records, and that part of land was acquired by the Government. Alleging that the appellant is trying to interfere with his possession, he filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction.

(2.) THE appellant filed written-statement, opposing the suit. He pleaded that the respondent and two others by name, Dasam Parsaiah and Dasam Jampaiah sold an extent of one acre in Sy.No.359/B, including the suit schedule property, way back on 20-09-1992 under an unregistered document for a sum of Rs.14,950/- and that possession was also delivered. It was stated that when the respondent and two others, named above, sought to interfere with his possession, the appellant filed O.S.No.1460 of 1992 in the same Court for the relief of injunction, and that on admission of the case of the appellant, by the respondent, the suit was decreed on 07-06-1993. He pleaded that the decree became final and that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He alleged that on account of the increase in the value of the property, the respondent has filed the suit with an oblique motive.

(3.) HE contends that when the respondent herein admitted the possession of the appellant, by filing a written-statement in O.S.No.1460 of 1992, marked as Ex.B-2, there was no basis for the Courts below to assume that the appellant is not in possession of the property. HE further submits that the Courts below have erred in extending the scope and ambit of O.S.No.1460 of 1992, and the decree passed therein, as well as the rights of the parties, vis-'-vis the land. Learned counsel submits that substantial questions of law arise for consideration.