P KALYANA CHAKRAVARTHY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the son of late P. Vekata Rama Rao. The joint family comprising of Venkata Rama Rao and his sons, i.e., the appellant and a person by name Venkata Chandra Sekhar, held certain items of property; one of them being the land in R.S. No.38 of 1 of Edulamaddali Village, Krishna District. A family partition took place through a registered document, dated 07.09.1981, in which the three coparceners were allotted separate shares mentioned in Schedules A, B and C of that document. The appellant was allotted an extent of Ac.1.44 cents.

(2.) Venkata Rama Rao emerged as the highest bidder to run a group of arrack shops in Peddaparupudi, Venkapamula and Juzzavaram villages for the excise year 1989-90. Since he did not pay the monthly privilege fee in November 1989, the licences were cancelled and the shops were put to re-auction. The Government sustained loss of Rs.3,93,230/- in the process. To recover the said amount, the respondents herein initiated proceedings against Venkata Rama Rao. He is said to have represented that the entire land in Survey No.38/1 belongs to him and offered it as security for payment of the privilege fee. The respondents sought to proceed against the same and got attached the property. The appellant filed O.S.No.39 of 1991 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Gudivada against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction vis-a-vis the said property viz., Ac.1.44 cents. He pleaded that severance of status had taken place in the family through partition deed dated 07.09.1981 marked as Ex.A.1. and that there was absolutely no basis for the respondents to proceed against the said property. It was also pleaded that ever since the date of partition, he is in effective possession and enjoyment of the property.

(3.) The respondents filed a written statement opposing the suit. According to them, Venkata Rama Rao filed an affidavit to the effect that he owns the entire land in R.S.No.38/I and that the so-called partition is nothing but a device to defeat the interests of the Government. Alternatively, it was pleaded that even there was any partition, it was not acted upon./The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 24.11.1995.