LAWS(APH)-2004-11-143

THOTA VENKATANARAMMA Vs. ERUVA ENNA REDDY

Decided On November 05, 2004
THOTA VENKATANARAMMA Appellant
V/S
ERUVA ENNA REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of E.P. No.59 of 2001 in O.S. No.275 of 1979 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, decree- holders filed this revision.

(2.) Revision petitioners obtained a decree for declaration of their title to six guntas of land in Sy.No.153 of Gunturpalli H/o Bommakal Village, bounded on the East by 9 ft. wide road, West by the land of Musuku Yelia Reddy; North by the land of Rajesham; and South by the land of Thomas Reddy, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering their possession over the said land, which became final. Subsequently, they filed E.P. No.59 of 2001 alleging that the respondent, who had an opportunity to obey the decree, had wilfully failed to obey the decree and so he may be arrested and detained in civil prison for a period of six months under Rule 32 of Order 21 C.P.C.

(3.) Respondent/JDr filed a counter, contending that the decree in O.S.No.275 of 1979, is a fraudulent decree and that revision petitioners (decree-holders) are not in possession of the land shown in the E.P. or any part of the land in Sy.No.l53/B and that the land covered by decree is different from the land mentioned in the schedule appended to the E.P. and that revision petitioners are not in possession of the land shown in E.P. and that he purchased 12 guntas of land in Sy.No. 153/B of Bommakal Village on 10.2.1961 and obtained possession, thereof and constructed a house bearing Door No11-7/A in the year 1982 therein, after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and is in possession and enjoyment of thereof and that in fact revision petitioners filed O.S. No.349 of 1997 against him seeking a decree of perpetual injunction basing on the decree in O.S. No.275 of 1979, wherein he filed a written statement, denying the averments in the plaint and that the said suit was dismissed as not pressed on 29.3.2001, and so, E.P. is liable to be dismissed.