M NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. K VINOBHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners, who are the defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, filed the revision against the common judgment in OS No.294, 300, 301 and 302 of 1995 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District in decreeing the suit with costs and directing the revision petitioners to restore the possession of the suit schedule plots.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the revision are as follows: The respondents, plaintiffs in OS Nos.294, 300, 301 and 302 of 1995 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, filed the above suits praying for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants in respect of the suit property in S.Nos.30, 31 and 33 of Nagaram village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs contended that late Kishan Rao Deshpande and his sons Dr. Nagaraj Deshpande and 6th defendant were the pattedars of the land including the suit schedule lands situated at Nagaram village. M.Pochi Reddy and his two brothers claiming themselves to be the protected tenants filed a suit against late Kishan Rao Deshpande and 6th defendant in OS No.237 of 1980 for perpetual injunction and the said suit was compromised and the lands in S.Nos.30, 31 and 33 fallen to the shares of the defendants and the 6th defendant. The 6th defendant and his father made lay out of the properties in S.Nos.30, 31 and 33 of Nagaram village and the lay out was sanctioned and after obtaining the sanction, the 5th defendant sold the plot Nos.45, 46, 55 and 56 admeasuring 300 sq. yards each to the plaintiff in the suit and delivered the possession under registered sale deeds. Since then, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. While so, the defendants 1 to 4 illegally encroached into the suit properties and took possession of the suit property in the 3rd week of October, 1995. The plaintiffs gave a police report and there was no action. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act'), for recovery of possession, within six months from the date of dispossession. The defendants 2 to 4 filed written statement contending that the 6th defendant and his farther were patttedars and the 1st defendant and his two brothers were protected tenants in S.Nos.30, 31, 33 and 25 and they compromised the suit in OS No.237 of 1980. They were allotted some portions described in the compromise decree. The defendants are not aware as to the sale in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the respective plots and the plaintiffs were never dispossessed.

(3.) On the basis of the said pleadings several issues were framed in all the suits and the plaintiffs adduced evidence and several documents were also marked on their behalf. Defendants also adduced evidence and marked documents. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Junior Civil Judge, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs proved their right title and possession of the suit property and that the defendants dispossessed them on 3.10.1995 and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled for recovery of possession. Accordingly, the suits were decreed directing the defendants to deliver the possession and restore the possession of the suit schedule plots to the respondents-plaintiffs.