ACHAMULLA RAMAPPA Vs. YELLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four second appeals arise under similar set of facts. Though the appellants in each second appeal are different, the respondents are common to them. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

(2.) The facts, that led to the filing of second appeals, may briefly be stated as under: The agricultural lands in survey Nos.233, 234 and 235 of Appireddypally, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, were owned by one Bheemamma. Konda Laxmappa, father of the first respondent in all the second appeals, was recorded as the protected tenant in respect of the said lands. He was also issued ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950, through proceedings dated 27-12-1983. The appellants claim to have purchased different extents of land in these survey numbers from late Konda Laxmappa, through different sale deeds dt. 27-12-1983. According to them, they were dispossessed by the respondents herein, on the basis of an ex parte temporary injunction obtained by them in O.S. No.13 of 1984 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal.

(3.) Appellants filed O.S. Nos.18, 21, 22 and 23 of 1990 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, in relation to the lands said to have been purchased by them from Konda Laxmappa under sale deeds dated 27-12-1983. Respondents 1 to 4 are the defendants in all the suits. The first respondent-the daughter, respondents 2 and 3, are brothers and respondent 4 is the adopted son of late Konda Laxmappa. They pleaded that though Konda Laxmappa alone was recorded as the protected tenant, and the ownership certificate was issued in his name, the land was held by the joint family, and as such, he did not possess the exclusive right to alienate the same. They also pleaded that during his lifetime, Konda Laxmappa, together with the first respondent, filed O.S. No.42 of 1981 for perpetual injunction against respondents 2 and 3 and the possession of the latter was upheld. They contended that their title in respect of the land was recognised in O.S. No.13 of 1984, to which, all the appellants herein are parties. The trial Court dismissed the suits, holding that the appellants are not entitled to seek declaration of their title and thereby the relief of recovery of possession was also rejected. The appellants filed appeals before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet. The appeals were also dismissed through separate judgments dated 29-11-2002. Hence, these second appeals.