CHERUKURI NARASIMHASWAMY Vs. CHERUKURI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1019 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. He filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are his brothers and respondent No.3 is the wife of respondent No.1. He filed the suit stating that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property comprising of Ac.0.69 cents of land, together with a thatched shed thereon, situated at Santhanuthalapadu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. According to him, he got separated from the family by executing a deed of relinquishment in the year 1966 and that his brothers also got separated. "He further stated that despite the said partition, six vacant sites including the suit schedule property remained undivided and that in an oral partition which is said to have taken place in or about 1968 or 1969, the suit schedule property was allotted to him, and that the remaining items were allotted to the shares of their father and respondent Nos.1 and 3. He further pleaded that being the eldest son in the family, he looked after the studies of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and that he did not keep any house property for himself. He stated that he constructed a barren in the northern side of the existing thatched house, dug a well and is residing in the house. He pleaded that the taxes were being paid from time to time. He alleged that on account of escalation of value of the property, the respondents are trying to evict him.

(2.) Respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed separate written statements and they denied the version of the appellant. According to them, the appellant has taken the property that has fallen to his share and executed a deed of relinquishment. Thereafter, a partition is said to have been taken place, in which Ac.0.18 cents of land in Survey No.916 is fallen to the share of their father Kistamma and Ac.0.80 cents to the share of respondent No.3. The particulars of the sales that have been affected by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.2 and others were also furnished. It was mentioned that the appellant was permitted to reside in the premises along with their old parents for some time, when he was evicted from a rented house in the execution of a decree and taking advantage of the same, the appellant is attempting to squat on the premises unauthorisedly. They further stated that at one stage, a suit for eviction was filed, but when the appellant vacated the premises, the said suit was withdrawn and that the appellant is not in possession of the said property.

(3.) The suit filed by the appellant was for the relief of injunction simplicitor. THErefore, the trial Court framed two issues, namely "Whether the appellant is in possession of the suit schedule property and Whether he is entitled for the relief of injunction".