LINGALA RAMA RAO Vs. DONEPUDI SRI RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyalu, counsel representing the appellant and Sri Srinivas Rao representing Sri Garapati Krishna Murthy, counsel representing respondents.

(2.) The operative portion of the judgment in A.S.No.191 of 1987 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur reads as here under:

(3.) The Second Appeal was admitted on grounds 'a' to 'e' in ground No.11 raised in the grounds of Second Appeal. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties before the Court of first instance and the findings recorded by the original Court and the Appellate Court as well the following substantial question of law would arose for consideration in this Second Appeal. Whether the Appellate Court is right in reversing the judgment and decree made by the Trial Court. Just on the ground of death of Ragavamma and recording a finding in relation thereto and holding that the legal rights would not flow infavour of the plaintiff? All other questions which had been pointed out are only incidental to this principal question in controversy between the parties. The factual matrix as reflected from the pleadings may be narrated as here under: The appellant/plaintiff, Lingala Rama Rao instituted O.S.No.1058 of 1981 on the file of III Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from constructing a wall along with I M N in the plaint plan or from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the ABEF marked portion of the plaint plan, which is also fully described in the plaint schedule. It was pleaded in the plaint that " The BFGL site with a terraced building marked as BDHL therein originally belonged to late Etukuri Raghavamma. She executed a gift deed dated 9.7.1979 regarding ABEF property shown in the plaint plan in favour of her 2nd daughter Mallampallin Anjamma and her son Mallampalli Veeraswamy conveying life interest in favour of Anjamma and absolute rights in favour of her grand son Veeraswamy, and put them in possession of the said property on the same day. There is a thatty along with AJI. The said property is also fully described in the schedule. Subsequently Mallampalli Anjamma and her son Veeraswamy sold the said property to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 30.3.1981 and put him in possession of the same. Due to Moudhyami the plaintiff wanted to enter the said property on the same suspicious day. He therefore allowed his vendors to continue to live in the said house. Subsequent to the execution of the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff's vendors, late Etukuri Raghavamma is said to have bequeathed the remaining property marked as ALGF in the plaint plan in favour of the 2nd defendant who is no other than the son of her 1st daughter. Etukuri Raghavamma died about 2 months ago. The 2nd defendant thus became entitled to the said property. The said property has been in possession of the tenants of the 2nd defendant. Be that as it may, the defendant tried in vain to purchase the ABEF marked portion of the property. They did not relish the plaintiff purchasing the said property. They therefore began to pick up quarrels with the plaintiff as well as his vendors. The plaintiff who is mild and humble by nature has been carefully avoiding any unpleasant situation. Being emboldened by the same, the defendants began to dig foundation along IMN on yesterday morning with a proposal to construct a well therein. The plaintiff could somehow stop it with the assistance of elders. The plaintiff submits that the defendant have absolutely no right to do so. The distance between D E as well as F and I is only about 2 yards. It is a vacant site in which there is hand boring pump. The defendants are having stairs as well as a bath room, and latrine in their site, marked as F G H I. The defendants are trying to inconvenience the plaintiff and put him to unnecessary hardship with the malicious intention of coercing him to sell his portion of the property to them.