BANDA PULLA REDDY Vs. BANDA LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff (Banda Pulla Reddy S/o Chandra Reddy of Garidepalli village) in O.S.No.66 of 1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Miryalaguda is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by him against Banda Lakshmamma, Banda Pulla reddy, Banda Srinivasa Reddy and Banda Sudhakar Reddy, wife and sons of late Banda Chinna Sathyanarayana Reddy respectively), for the reliefs originally sought for permanent injunction later, after written statement, amended for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property viz., 1820 sq. yards house site in Sy.No.834/AA in panchyat ward No.1 of Garidepali village and to declare the registered sale deeds executed by Banda Pedda Sathyanarayana Reddy, the pattadar of said land(vendor of the plaintiff), are valid and binding on everybody and for perpetual injunction against the defendantsand their men etc., from interfering with the possession, constructions and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit site, costs and such other just reliefs. The ASCMP No.2566 of 2011 and ASCMP No.909 of 2013 filed, one is to amend the plaint prayer and the other to amend the grounds of appeal as part of the events subsequent to the suit filed and also pending appeal regarding alienation to 5th respondent (since impleaded as per orders in ASCMP No.2565 of 2011 dated 04.11.2013) by name Smt. R.Sailaja and the constructions made by her also with claim as all hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as lis pendence. If such is the case, the Court can take note of to mould the relief including within its power under Order XLI Rule 23,24 and 33 of C.P.C. without need of permitting the amendment as it is not mere amendment of grounds of appeal, but also of plaint and once considered, it gives further life to the litigation by need of giving of opportunity for any additional written statement and from any say of permitting further evidence and any say of remand for that purpose vide decision in Atma S.Barar Vs.Mukhtiar Singh, 2003 AIR(SC) 624, and in P.P.Reddy Vs.Pratap Steels, 2002 2 SCC 686.

(2.) Coming to the background of the lis, the plaintiff's vendor B.Sathyanarayana Reddy@B.Pedda Sathyanarayana Reddy S/o Narsi Reddy was no other than plaintiff in O.S.No.123 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Huzurabad, subsequently transferred to dispose off along with this suit to the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Miryalaguda and renumbered as O.S.No.89 of 1995 covered by the common judgment dt.13.08.1997 (impugned in the present appeal). That suit was filed by Banda Sathyanarayana Reddy @ Pedda Sathyanarayana Reddy for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein who are no other than the defendants herein as well as Banda Chinna Sathyanarayana Reddy-husband and father of the defendants, relating to the house site in an extent of Ac.0-14 guntas in S.No.833/AA and an extent of Ac.0.18 guntas in Sy.No.834/AA (in this Sy.No.834/AA, the plaint schedule in O.S.66 of 1994 of 1820 sq.yards = Ac.0.15 guntas is the subject matter of the appeal of Garidepali village. Said Chinna Sathyanarayana Reddy S/o Pulla Reddy, and Pedda Sathyanarayana Reddy S/o Narsi Reddy are cousins. Leave it as it is.

(3.) The averments in support of the plaint ( as well as the amended plaint after written statement of 1st defendant adopted by others) in O.S.66 of 1994 in nut shell are that, due to political rivalry between the plaintiff(Banda Pulla Reddy s/o Chandra Reddy) and 1st defendant (Banda Lakshmamma) and her sons-defendants 2 to 4, they gave false complaint as if the plaintiff kidnapped husband of 1st defendant (Banda Chinna Sathyanarayana Reddy) and also cause published in newspaper Andhrajyothi Telugu Daily (Ex.A.20) alleging that the plaintiff is intended to knock away their property by the kidnap and in course of investigation of the crime registered by police, said Chinna Sathyanarayana Reddy(since died) allegedly kidnapped was traced and gave statement before Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.(Ex.A.21) that he was not kidnapped by the plaintiff-Pulla Reddy or any others and the 1st defendant one way or the other is aiming to hunt the plaintiff and involve in cases. It is further averred that plaintiff purchased from Banda Pedda Sathyanarayana Reddy S/o Narsi Reddy under three sale deeds (Exs.A.1 to A.3 and the rectification deeds(Exs.A.4 to A.6 respectively) of Ac.805 sq. yards + 805 sq. yards + another 210 sq. yards in S.No.834/AA total 1820 sq.yards (out of Ac.0.18 gts of S.No.834/AA) of Garidepalli village which is the suit site covered by plaint schedule, that pattadar passbook (Ex.A.23) also was issued for the Sy.No.834/AA in favour of the plaintiff for the purchased extent of Ac.0.15 guntas and plaintiff with a view to construct compound wall around the suit site obtained panchayat proceedings with a plan (map) dated 22.09.1994 (Exs.A.18 and A.19) showing the land in Sy.No.834/AA of ward No.1 of Garidepalli village, that while the plaintiff was getting filled pits in suit land with gravel on 25.09.1994, the defendants threatened to stop work, that to avoid any fight and threat of criminal implication, even the plaintiff's vendor was having possession prior to sale to plaintiff of the suit site; that even the defendants have no right over the same and from their proclamation of they are not allowing plaintiff to enjoy the property and the defendants after disposal of C.M.A.No.44 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Nalgonda constructed a wall around the place which is part of suit site and the plaintiff is thus constrained to file the suit for above reliefs.