PAKA VENKAIAH Vs. TADURI BUCHI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals arise out of two first appeals, being A.S. Nos.17 of 1999 and 3 of 2000, which in turn arose out of the decree in O.S. No.155 of 1991. Hence, they are dealt within a common judgment. The plaintiff is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) Paka Venkayya, the plaintiff, filed O.S. No.155 of 1991 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet against the defendants for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property comprising of Ac.6.35 guntas in Survey No.122 of Thupranpet Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District. According to him, the land was held by one Paka Mallamma, as protected tenant, and thereafter ownership rights were conferred upon her in relation to that land. He pleaded that his grandfather Paka Mutyalu and husband of Paka Mallamma, viz. Paka Venkayya are brothers and he became the sole legal heir of Paka Mallamma, after her death in the year 1979. It was also his case that Defendants 1 to 4 were the tenants in respect of the land and they were giving the crop share to him till the year 1984-85. Thereafter, they are alleged to have refused to give the crop share stating that they purchased the suit schedule property from Paka Mallamma through registered sale deeds dated 7.2.1985 and 27.2.1985, marked as Exs.A6 and A8. Defendants 1 to 4 sold the property in favour of Defendants 5 and 6. He contended that the sale deeds are forged, inasmuch as they were brought into existence after the death of Mallamma and no title can be said to have passed on to the defendants.

(3.) While the Defendants 1 to 4 filed a common written statement, Defendants 5 and 6 filed separate written statements. Their plea was that Defendants 1 to 4 were cultivating the property on crop share basis as tenants of Paka Mallamma till the year 1985, and through Documents No.205 and 283 of 1985, Mallamma executed sale deeds, alienating the property in favour of Defendants 1 to 4. They also stated that out of the suit schedule property, they sold Ac.2.00 in favour of the fifth defendant, and Ac.4.00 in favour of the sixth defendant through separate sale deeds. It was their uniform case that Defendants 5 and 6 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They denied the claim of the plaintiff as the legal heir of late Paka Mallamma.