A. PEDA NARASIMHULU Vs. P. KRISHNA MURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.123 of 1986 on the file of Munsif Magistrate, Mummidivaram, is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 are D2, D3 in the suit.

(2.) The appellant is the sole plaintiff instituted the suit against respondents 1 and 2 and also against one Mr.P.Tata Rao @ Appalaswamy against whom suit abated before trial Court as per orders dtd. 16/12/1991. The plaint schedule described land is the house site measuring 0.04 cents bounded by East: House of Malladi Dhanaraju South: House of Palepu China Venkanna West: Vacant land North: Land of plaintiff The appellant filed suit for declaration of his right and title and also for possession of plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondents or their men from interfering in any way with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and for costs. It is averred in the plaint that plaint schedule property is the absolute property of the appellant having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dtd. 18/6/1963 and 9/3/1978. The appellant also said to be purchased another 0.02 cents of site apart from plaint schedule property under an agreement of sale dtd. 18/9/1967 from Patta Muthyalamma for Rs.100.00 wherein he constructed a house and paying taxes and his possession in respect of the plaint schedule property is open, peaceful and uninterrupted which site he is using for drying fish, fishing nuts wherein respondents have no right, title or interest. It is alleged that respondents having sold all their properties bent upon to cause obstruction to him for enjoyment and possession of plaint schedule property, which is situated on the north of the house purchased by him from Patta Muthyalamma. He also stated that further north of the plaint schedule property, there is a property of Palepu Nagulu, S/o.Dhanaraju and the plaintiff wanted to construct a house in the vacant site, but respondents obstructed him and then he issued notice for which the respondents kept quiet and he filed suit for injunction in O.S.No.13 of 1983 on the file of Munsif Magistrate, Mummidivaram, which was dismissed and then he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, which was also dismissed on 24/3/1986 wherein it is held that nature of property being an open vacant site, which is not possible to decide the possession and appellate Court advised the appellant to file a suit for declaration of his title for protection of his possession. Then plaintiff filed suit against defendants seeking declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. He also stated that it is customary among the caste of 'Agnikula Kshatriya' to obtain sale deeds on white papers in the presence of caste elders, due to that, he also obtained agreement of sale, which is in fact a sale deed and from the date of purchase of the site, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of respondents. As respondents are said to be denied his title and possession, he came up with a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) The contention of defendants in their written statement is that findings in O.S.No.13 of 1983 which confirmed in A.S.No.24 of 1984 operates as resjudicata, due to that appellant is estopped from claiming any relief over plaint schedule property and he is not entitled to seek declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. They also stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and alleged registered sale deeds dtd. 18/6/1963 and 9/3/1978, which are not pertaining to plaint schedule property and appellant not purchased Ac.0.02 cents under an agreement of sale dtd. 18/9/1967 from Patta Muthyalamma and there is no house in Ac.0.02 cents, which is also not in the possession of the appellant. They further stated that even Patta Muthyalamma had no site at all wherein appellant not constructed any house and alleged customary right of obtaining sale deeds on white paper also denied. They further stated that plaint schedule is vague, not contained any survey number for the extent which cannot be identified. They pray to dismiss the suit.