C.RAMULU Vs. C.ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit in the trial court for declaration of his ownership in the plaint schedule property and for delivery of possession of the same together with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff's claim was opposed by the defendant. After trial, the trial court decreed the suit; and on appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal. Hence, the plaintiff approached this Court with this second appeal.

(2.) At the time of admission of this second appeal, the then learned Judge of this High Court framed the following substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal:

(3.) The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers and they belong to scheduled caste. The plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that he is owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property consists of house in weaker sections colony of Kurnool town in D.No.45/322 (old plot No.117) in an extent of 0.21/4 cents including open appurtenant site. It is the plaintiff's case that the suit house and site was assigned to him by the Government in the year 1983 and that when the plaintiff wanted to construct another room in appurtenant open site and dug foundation pits, the defendant raised objection and threatened the plaintiff to stop the construction and therefore the plaintiff filed O.S.No.163/1992 in the District Munsiff Court, Kurnool. After it was dismissed, the plaintiff filed the present suit in a comprehensive manner. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the previous suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove his title to and possession of the suit property and that the plaintiff is residing at Manchiryal since the past 18 years where he is working as Assistant Station Master in Railways and that the municipality is serving notices on the defendant relating to enhancement of tax etc.,. From the respective contentions of both the parties, the primary question in this case is whether the previous decision in O.S.No.163/1992 operates as res judicata herein.