B NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. BHASKARA RAO JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No. 597 of 1969 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who are the unsuccessful appellants in C.C.C.A. No. 46 of 1985, are the appellants. First respondent is the second plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter would be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) One Ramdas Maharaj @ RamdasBrahmachari (first plaintiff) filed a petition seeking leave to sue as an indigent person seeking declaration of his title to Ac. 6.14 Gts. of land in S.Nos. 182/1 and 182/2 of Gudimalkapur village, bounded on the East by the border of Moosi Karwan Sahu and Kulsumpura, North by the road from Lunger House to Hyderabad, West by the border of Moosi Lunger House, and South by the river Moosi, hereinafter referred to as the suit property, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit property, contending, inter alia, that he purchased the suit property under an agreement of sale dated 30-07-1956 from its pattader Munuruddin for a total consideration of Rs. 2,500/- and paid Rs. 100/- to him towards advance, and took possession thereof. After the death of Munuruddin on 15-07-1957, when he made a request to the heirs of Munuruddin to receive the balance sale consideration and execute a registered sale deed in his favour, they bargained and agreed to sell the suit property to him for Rs. 10,000/- and had on 19-11-1966 executed a sale deed in respect of that property in his favour and got it registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. He also obtained permission from the Tahsildar under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (1950 Act) for purchase of the suit property. The defendants, by creating a cloud over his title to the suit property, are trying to interfere with his possession over the suit property. Hence the suit.

(3.) Soon after filing of the petition seekingpermission to sue as an indigent person, first plaintiff passed away. Thereafter, second plaintiff, claiming to be a legatee under a Will executed by the first plaintiff, came on record and continued the proceedings.