KURUMALI KOTESWARA RAO Vs. D GANGAMRNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent herein filed O S No.5 of 1980. on the file of the Special Assistant Agent. Kowur, against her husband, second respondent herein and the appellant herein for partition and possession of 3/4th share of the suit schedule property measuring Acs 12 14 cents in R S. No. 154, situated at Darbhagudem, an agency village of Jeelugumilli, and for past and future profits and costs. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this second appeal, it would be appropriate to narrate the gist of the case in nutshell.

(2.) Second respondent had mortgaged the suit schedule property to third parties by taking some amount as loan. In order to redeem the mortgage, the second respondent entered into a sale agreement with the appellant for some consideration and the subject-matter of the suit property was sold to the appellant by the second respondent. The appellant, pursuant to the sale, was put in possession of the said property. Pursuant to the possession, the appellant had invested huge amounts on the property and developed Mango Garden on the suit schedule land:

(3.) First respondent, who is the wife of the second respondent, filed O.S. No. 5 of 1980 before the Court of the Special Assistant Agent, Kowur, for partition and possession of 3/4th share of the property, after ejecting the appellant from the suit schedule land. It is the specific case of the first respondent, in the suit filed by her, that she begot two male children through the second respondent in the years 1965 and 1967, who died soonafter their birth. It is claimed by the first respondent, the two children were born in the private hospital of one Dr. J.V. Rajendra Prasad Reddy in Jangareddygudem village, who is examined as P.W. 2 on behalf of the plaintiff-first respondent herein, in the suit. It is also , claimed by the first respondent, that after the ' death of her two children, bom from out of the wedlock with the second respondent, she is entitled to succeed to their undivided shares, that is to say 3/4th share of the suit , schedule land. Therefore, it is contended that ' the sale effected on 24-2-1970 by the second respondent in favour of the appellant is void. The first respondent has also pleaded the ground that the transaction had taken place in agency area is hit by the provisions under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation No. 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulatbn 1 of 1970 dated 2-1-1970.