SAYANNA Vs. THIMMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of fact and law are involved in these two revision petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) C.R.P.No. 2514 of 2002 is filed against the order dated 22-3-2002 in I.A.No. 286 of 2001 in O.S.No. 91 of 1997. C.R.P.No. 2652 of 2002 is filed against the order dt. 22-3-2002 in I.A.No. 285 of 2002 in O.S.No. 90 of 1997, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanapet.

(3.) The plaintiffs are different, whereas the defendants are common in both the suits. The petitioners - plaintiffs filed the respective suits for perpetual injunction. It was their plea that the suit schedule property was purchased under two registered sale deeds dated 20-8-1988 and that on 10-10-1997 and 12-11-1997, the defendants tried to dispossess them and, therefore, the suits. It appears, initially, there was an ad interim injunction which was later vacated and as on today, there is no injunction against the respondents - defendants. Be that as it may, in both the suits, the respondents - defendants filed written statements opposing the suits. Their plea was that the property is governed by the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ('the Act'), that the tenancy Tribunal conducted an enquiry and granted occupancy certificate under Section 38-E of the Act, that those proceedings were challenged by the alleged landlords/owners in appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed and that against the orders of the appellate authority, revision petitions were filed before this Court, which were also dismissed. They also alleged that in view of the above, the suits are not maintainable.