PAPPU VENKATA LAXMI Vs. KOLLI PYDITHALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in A.S. No.8/89 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No.189/76 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Bobbili, had preferred the present Second Appeal. The points which were framed for consideration in the Appeal A.S. No.8/89 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram are as follows:

(2.) The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in the Original Suit for the purpose of convenience.

(3.) The plaintiff herein instituted O.S. No.189/76 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Bobbili for the relief of possession of plaint schedule property after ejecting defendants therefrom and for recovery of mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of possession and for costs of the suit. On the respective pleadings of the parties, after settlement of issues and after recording the evidence of P.W.I and P.W.2 and D.W.I and D.W.2 and marking Exs.A-1 to A- 46 and Exs.B-1 to B-29, the learned Principal District Munsif, Bobbili, had decreed the suit with costs as prayed for on 4-11-1988 and aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred A.S. No.8/89 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram and inasmuch as the 1st respondent/plaintiff died pending Appeal, the legal representatives were brought on record in LA. No.138/90 by the order dated 6-12-1990 and thus at present the said legal representatives are prosecuting the litigation. The learned Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, after framing the points for consideration referred to supra, had arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the title in the light of T.O.Ps. 4/72, 8/72 and 62/72 on the file of Estates Abolition Tribunal, Srikakulam and also on the ground that Ex.A-127, the patta under Section 15(1) of Estates Abolition Act is not binding on the defendants and the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.A. No.170/58 operates as res judicata, and after recording such findings, had reversed the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance and allowed the Appeal with costs by the judgment dated 15-7-1994 and aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff had preferred the present Second Appeal.