VADDE ANJANAPPA Vs. VADDE HANUMANTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff filed the appeal against the decree and judgment in A.S. No.68 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur in dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.181 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Kalyandurg in dismissing the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S. No.181 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Kalyandurg for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering. with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land in S.No.7/4 admeasuring Ac.5.10 cents situated at Tumukunta village of Kundurpi Mandal. The plaintiff contended that he purchased the suit land from the first defendant under an agreement of sale dt.14-10-1970 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the property continuously and perfected his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff is a landless poor person and purchased the suit land for valid consideration. The Mandal Revenue Officer also recognized his title in his proceedings dated 4-9-1987. The first defendant filed written statement denying the execution of the alleged agreement and disputed the issuing of proceedings by the Mandal Revenue Officer without hearing him. The second defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the first defendant. On the above said pleadings the trial Court framed and settled the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff P.Ws.l to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.I and Exs.B-1 to B-8 and Ex.X-1 were marked. After considering the entire evidence, the learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled for injunction as prayed for and accordingly the suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved against the said decree and judgment, the appellant-plaintiff filed A.S. No.68 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur and the learned Judge after hearing dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment in O.S. No.181 of 1987.

(3.) Aggrieved against the decree and judgment, the appellant filed the appeal contending that the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for specific performance based on the agreement of sale. The Courts below erred in ignoring the fact that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction which is maintainable as the plaintiff prayed for the relief on the ground of possession.