MATURI RANGALAH 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 dis - possess him from the property.

(3.) 2nd defendant filed a written statement i.e. the 2nd respondent herein, and the same was adopted by the other contesting defendants. According to them, the schedule properties are the self - acquisitions of Maturi Subbarangaiah and that the appellant is the stranger to the Maturi family much less related to Subbarangaiah. According to them, the surname of the appellant is Darimadugu and not Maturi, and that he is a native of Racherla village. They further pleaded that the father of the appellant came to the house of Subbarangaiah as a farm servant. It was alleged that Maturi Rangasayamma wife of Subbaraigaiah filed O.S.No.60 of 1971 in the court of District Munsif, Giddalur for maintenance for herself and her daughter, 3rd respondent herein, and that the appellant managed to get certain documents filed by Subbarangaiah making him to believe that unless partition is pleaded, charge may be created against all his properties. It was also pleaded that Subbarangiaah executed a Will on 09 -01 - 1984 in favour of the 1st respondent bequeathing the suit schedule properties. They pleaded that the appellant was never in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and that he has no concern whatever.