NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE KOTHAGUDEM Vs. VANNALA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the defendant in O.S.99/83. The respondent filed the suit seeking permission to sue as an indigent person and claimed a sum of Rs.18,600/- with 12 per cent interest towards costs incurred by him in reconstructing the house demolished by the appellant herein. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he is owner and possessor of the house bearing No.2-3-188 situated at Boddigadda, Kothagudem town (within the notified area of the appellant/ defendant committee) and the said house was assessed to tax. The appellant seemed to have given a show-cause notice dated 31-10-1979 directing him to give explanation as to why his house should not be demolished since same was constructed unauthorizedly, the appellant herein seemed to have started demolishing the house within one hour after serving the notice on the wife of the respondent on 12.12.1979 and as such the respondent filed a suit O.S.262/79 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kothagudem seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule house. Ultimately the Trial Court while granting permanent injunction seemed to have observed that the appellant herein demolished the house illegally and high handedly and as such the respondent herein is entitled for damages and the said judgment has become final. Basing on the observations made by the learned District Munsif, the respondent herein laid the present suit claiming damages. The principal and the foremost contention raised by the appellant herein is that the suit is barred by limitation in the light of Section 369 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Act) whereunder any person aggrieved by any action or order of the municipal authorities have to file a suit within six months from the date of cause of action. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

(2.) On behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff, PWs.l to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-35 and C-1 to C-3 were marked and on behalf of the appellant/ defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked. On considering the evidence and on hearing the Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff and appellant/ defendant, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem held that the appellant/ defendant demolished the house of the respondent/plaintiff without any manner of right and that the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff as damages is fully justified and thereby decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant has filed the appeal.

(3.) The appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge who referred the matter to the Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the issues framed by him which are as follows: