LAWS(APH)-2003-8-2

T BHASKARA RAO Vs. TANGELLA MUDI GABRIEL

Decided On August 08, 2003
T.BHASKARA RAO Appellant
V/S
TANGELLA MUDL GABRIEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in O. S. No. 350 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Gudivada are the appellants in this second appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(3.) The case, in brief, of the plaintiffs is, second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. Nakshtram, the mother of the defendants sold Ac. O. 49 cents of wet land in R. S. No. 214/2 of Vennanapudi village, specified in the plaint 'A' schedule (the suit land) to the first plaintiff on 27-3-1958 under a registered sale deed dated 6-6-1958, in pursuance of an agreement of sale in favour of the first plaintiff and put him in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Rayappa, the father of the defendants was a member of the Field Labour Co-operative Society, which owned Acre 26.65 cents of land in patta No. 199. As a member of the said society, he was allotted Ac. O. 34 cents of land in the patta land. He exchanged the said land in Patta No. 199 with Ac. O. 34 cents of wet land in R. S. No. 41/2 of Vennapaudi village, belonging to the predecessors-in-title of Surapaneni Venkateswar Rao, which is described in the plaint B Schedule. For the purpose of convenient enjoyment, first plaintiff, defendants and their father exchanged plaint A Schedule land, i.e., suit land with plaint B Schedule land under an agreement of Exchange dated 11-6-1958 and as such first plaintiff has been paying kist for plaint B Schedule land. Since agreement of exchange did not transfer the title, the title to the suit land still vests with the first plaintiff. Since an extent of Acres 1.84 cents in occupation of Surapaneni Venkateswara Rao and others including the land of the Field Labour Cooperative Society was utilized for excavation of a drainage channel Venkateswar Rao took away the plaint 'B' schedule land from the plaintiffs on 6-12-1976 and so plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the plaint 'A' schedule property from the defendants.