G HANUMANTHU Vs. T RAJITHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S. No. 122 of 1989 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, for the relief of perpetual injunction against the appellant, in respect of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.234, of Farooqnagar Village, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar. According to her, an extent of 20 guntas of land, was purchased by herself and one Gouramma, through sale deed dated 13-6-1986, marked as Ex.A2. It is stated that the boundaries in the sale deed were rectified through Ex.A3, dated 8-11-1988. Subsequently, Gouramma, is said to have sold her undivided share, in favour of the respondent, through Ex.A4, dated 14-2-1989. Thereby, the respondent became absolute owner of 20 guntas of land. She also stated that she purchased adjoining land of 10 guntas, in the same survey number, through Ex.A5, dated 6-6-1989. She complained that the appellant herein started interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property.

(2.) The appellant, in turn, filed a counter-claim, seeking declaration of title and injunction, in respect of an extent of Ac.1.00 of land, in the same survey number. According to him, the land was purchased from the same vendor, namely, Ramulu, by one Lalithamma through Ex.B2, dated 6-2-1976, and that he purchased it from Lalithamma through Ex.Bl, dated 17-5-1988. The appellant, on the one hand, and the respondent, on the other hand, claimed that they are in possession of the respective properties purchased by them. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter-claim of the appellant/defendant, through its judgment dated 11-9-1997. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.No.52 of 1997. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court through its judgment dated 11-11-2004. Hence, this second appeal by the appellant.

(3.) Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court, both as to the genuinity of Exs.Bl and B2, as well as the lack of coherence, on the part of the respondent herein, as to the suit claim; without any basis. He contends that though the documents Exs.Bl and B2 are registered, and Ex.B2 was executed by none other than PW2, K. Ramulu, the common vendor, the lower appellate Court disbelieved the same, on the strength of mere denial by the said witness. He also submits that a minor discrepancy in the plan, attached to the counter-claim, on the one hand, and Ex.Bl on the other, was treated as the basis for denial of the relief to the appellant.