NELLI NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. VADLA KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal. He filed the suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit land bearing R. S. No. 110 situate in Karpamula Village measuring 37 guntas. It was dismissed in the first court though many of the findings are in his favour and the decree has been confirmed in appeal. Hence the second appeal. A few facts are necessary to understand the point arising in this appeal

(2.) The plaintiff purchased the suit land from Vadla Balanarayana, P.W. 4, who is the brother of the defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 500 under an agreement of sale dated 6-12-1960 marked as Ex. A-1. P.W. 4 sold the property as manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two brothers, according to the plaintiff, for a legal necessity. The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land on the same date and he was in actual possession paying land revenue to the Government. On 9/08/1970, when he went to the suit land to plough the same for purposes of cultivation, all the defendants came there in a body without any authority and, taking the law into their own hands, unyoked the ploughs of the plaintiffs and did not allow him to plough the land. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession.

(3.) Defendants 3 to 6 remained ex parte. Defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that the plaintiff has not purchased the land from their brother Balanarayana, that Balanarayana had no authority to sell the Land, that he was not the manager of the joint family, that the suit land is an ancestral balotha inam and the mother of the defendants 1 and 2 alone is the manager, that assuming that he was manager, there was no legal necessity, that the plaintiff colluded with the vendor and concocted the suit agreement, that as a matter of fact the plaintiff used to cultivate the suit land on lease on bathi basis, that as the plaintiff failed to cultivate the land, defendants 1 and 2 have sowed the seedlings in the suit land in Arudra Karthi, that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land in this year, that he did not go to the suit land on 9/08/1970, that the defendants never unyoked his ploughs, that the plaintiff along with three others filed a petition in the Tahsil Office on 30-6-1970 that these defendants are interfering with his cultivation wherein he stated that he took the suit land on permanent lease some ten years back, that he has also filed another petition for the issue of a patta for the suit land on 10-2-1970 wherein he stated that he purchased the suit land on 6-12-1960, that it is not true that all inams are abolished and vested in the Government, that the Abolition of Inams Act of 1955 was repealed by 1967 Act and the same was struck down by the High Court on 31-3-1970, that the inam lands being Government lands cannot be alienated by the holder, that the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendants is that of landholder and tenant and therefore, the dispute has to be decided by the Revenue Court and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, that on the date of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and so the suit for retention of possession does not lie, that the defendants are the owners of the land and so permanent injunction cannot be granted against the defendants, that the suit document is a sale deed and not an agreement and is inadmissible in evidence for want of proper stamp and registration and, therefore, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.