MATURI RANGAIAH Vs. MUTYALA VENKATA LAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.84 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Markapur, is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties comprising of Item No.1: a House at Nekhunambad Village and Item No.2: Acs.3-74 cents of land at Salakalaveedu village of Prakasam District. He pleaded that item No.2 and the eastern portion of the item No.1 fell to his share in a partition that took place in the year 1966 and that thereafter, he purchased the western portion of item No.1 from one Mr. Maturi Subbarangaiah and ever since then he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. According to him, the 1st respondent was the kept mistress and respondent Nos.2 and 3 (defendant Nos.2 and 3) are the daughters, of late Maturi Subbarangaiah. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are the legal representatives of the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE appellant pleaded that the entries in the revenue records and the proceedings that ensued before the Land Reforms Tribunal confirm his ownership and possession over the property. His grievance was that one week prior to the filing of the suit, the respondents and their followers, who were shown as defendant Nos.6 to 10 in the suit, threatened to dispossess him from the property.

(3.) M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client filed various documents such as, the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal (Ex.A-1), sale deed executed by Subba Rangaiah in favour of the appellant (Ex.A-2), certified copy of deposition in O.S. No.60 of 1971 (Ex.A5) and other documents; and still the relief was not granted. He contends that excessive importance was given to certain proceedings initiated before the revenue authorities that the approach adopted by the trial Court and the lower appellate court cannot be countenanced in law.