ANNAM UTTARUDU Vs. ANNAM VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the sole defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.4.2004 in A.S.No.59 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Judge Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam, confirming in appeal the decree and judgment dated 30.7.1996 in O.S.No.43 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kaikalur. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the younger brother of defendant and they are immediate neighbours. Their mother, Smt.Annam Seshamma gifted 80 Sq.yards of house site and some other site situated in Kaikalur in favour of the plaintiff by means of registered gift deed dated 30.11.1984. The plaintiff accepted the gift and took possession of the properties covered under the gift deed. He has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. He erected cattle shed in the schedule site. Their mother passed away 3 years prior to filing of the suit. Defendant is a powerful person in the Village. On 28.4.1990 when the plaintiff started to construct walls in the schedule property, defendant interfered with such construction. The defendant high-handedly occupied the schedule property after completion of construction of brick walls on 20.6.1990. Hence, the suit for recovery of possession and perpetual injunction.

(3.) The case of the defendant is that himself and the plaintiff are brothers and that the schedule site is surrounded by the properties of their families. They separated about 20 years prior to filing of the suit. He was gifted Ac.0.02 cents of land by his uncle. In oral exchange, he gave that Ac.0.02 cents to his mother and received the suit schedule property. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff obtained registered gift deed in respect of the schedule property by influencing their mother. Despite the same, he has been in possession of schedule property for over the statutory period and thereby he perfected his title to suit schedule property by adverse possession. The allegation that he highhandedly occupied schedule property is false. Since the plaintiff is not in possession of the schedule property, he is not entitled for injunction. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.