POTTURI SARASWATHI Vs. VALLABHANENI VEERABHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff in 0 S No. 169/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada against an order passed in I A No. 376/ 84 refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellant restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with the appellant's alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands

(2.) The appellan is the daugh'er of the respondent, she is a graduate in Medicine and a Med cal practioner at Visakhapatnam. The appellant's husband is an engineer at Visakhapatnam. The appellant's brother one V. Gopalakrishna who is not a party to suit executed a registered sale deed on 14-9-1971 for a consideration of Rs. 24, 500/- in respect of A c 3-07 cents in R S No. 1007/2 of Vuyyuru village in Krishna District. On the same day he also exeandcuted a registered gift deed in favour of the appellant in respect of three items of property-(l) Ac 3-48 cents in R S No. 663 (2) Ac 2-62 cents in R S No. 664 and (3) A c 0-90 cents in R S No. 1007/2 at Vuyyur village, in all Ac 7-00. The total extent covered by the above sale deeds, the certified copy of which is marked as Ex A-1 and by the gift deed, the certified copy of which is marked as Ex A-2 is Ac 10-07 cents. According to the appellant she executed a general power of attorney in favour of the resandpondent who is her father as per Ex A-3 dated 1-3-67 long before she acquired the properties under Ex A-1 and Ex A-2. Under that power of attorney the responanddent was authorised to manage certain other property of Ac 5-00 previously belonging to the appellant which she sold on 25-6-1970 for a sum of Rs. 38, 000/- According to the appellant, the respondent was not properly accounting for the income from the land covered by Exs A-1 and A-2 and that therefore she came to Vuyyuru and cancelled the power of attorney by executing a separate deed of cancellation Ex B-3 dt. 5-2-1981. In that cancellation deed it was stated that the plaintiff-appellant decided to look after her properties personally. After the cancellation of the power of attorney, it is the case of the appellant that she was persistently requesting the respondent to render a complete account but the respondent only made a few payandments without rendering a complete account. It is the further case of the appellant that during May, 1983 she came to Vuyyuru and made a demand from the respondent for submitting his accounts upon which the respondent is stated to have feit offended and volunandtarily handed over possession to the appellant so that she could cultivate the land from June, 1983. The appellant's specific case is that she accordingly took possession in May, 1983 and got the lands ploughed transplanted, manured with the assistance of Sri Y. Baburao and padd/ crop was raised in the entire extent of ac 10.07 cents. The revenue records show that the appellant is the owner and that she isalso in possession. The appelandlant is said to have got the paddy crop cut, harvested and heaped in the lands and during the time of thrashing, it is stated, that the respondent who is her father was trying to obstruct her and her husband from removing the paddy. On 1 -12-83 she put in a petition before the Executive Magistrate as per Ex A-10 for an order under Section 144, Cr P C. Though no police help was given she had harvested the paddy heaps and carted the paddy to the rice mill on bullock carts. The respondent also put in a petiandtion to the Tahsildar on 2-12-83. The Executive Magistrate passed an order on 3-12-83 as per Ex A-19 prohibiting either party to enter the land for a period of one week with effect from 9.50 p m. on 3-12-83. The said order is said to have been served on the appellant on 4-12-83 at 10 15 p. m. While she was at the thrashing floor with her labourers. At that time about 70 bags of paddy were gathered on the thrashing floor. She endorsed on the order served on her that she was leaving the thrashed paddy and the hay in the custody of the police. On these facts the appellant filed a suit on 6-12-83 for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interferanding with her possession.

(3.) An interim injunction was sought for in I A No. 376/84 and it was granted on that day. Thereafter on 7-12-83 the Executive Magistrate vacaandted the prohibitory order passed by him on 3-12-83.