GADIPATTI VENKATAPPAIAH Vs. GURISETTI SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.256 of 1982 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Judge, Addanki, filed this Second Appeal. The three respondents are others. The appellant and the 1st respondent herein filed the suit against respondents 2 and 3 (for short the respondents) for the relief of perpetual injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 18.12.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.3 of 1997 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The appeal was allowed on 30.10.2002 and the decree of the trial Court was reversed. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) The appellant pleaded that the 1st respondent was assigned an extent of Ac.2.25 cents of agricultural land in the year 1971, through Ex.A.1, and that he purchased it through a sale deed, dated 06.01.1982, marked as Ex.A.2. He alleged that the respondents started interfering with his possession over the land without any basis. The respondents, on the other hand, pleaded that the assignment in favour of their brother, the 1st respondent, was provisional in nature and was for the benefit of the entire family. According to them, the 1st respondent left the village several years before the suit was filed and that the suit land was under their cultivation and occupation. They also pleaded independent rights, on the strength of the pattas granted in their favour, marked as Exs.B.1 and B.2, during the pendency of the suit. Reference was made to the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Civil Rules of Practice as well the entries in the Adangals.

(3.) Sri Ravi Shanker Jandhyala, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client proved that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit, as absolute owner, and that the trial Court decreed the suit, on finding that the respondents have no basis to interfere with the appellants possession. He submits that the lower appellate Court exceeded the scope of the suit and the appeal, in declaring that the sale through Ex.A.2 was hit by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Alienation) Act (for short the Act). He also submits that the pattas granted in favour of the respondents as well as the entries made in Exs.X.1 to X.13 were admittedly subsequent to the filing of the suit, and that they ought not to have been relied upon by the lower appellate Court.