POTTE RAMANNA Vs. MUKKA RAJANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No.1062 of 2005 arises out of A.S. No.85 of 2001 and O.S. No.43 of 1996. Second Appeal No.1174 of 2005 arises out of A.S. No.84 of 2001 and O.S. No.163 of 1996. The defendants are appellants. As the plaintiffs and appellants are one and the same and the trial Court as well as appellate Court disposed of the matter by common judgment, it is expedient to dispose of both these appeals by common order. The parties are referred to by their status in suit.

(2.) One Boya Madanna @ Potte Madanna was owner of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in Survey No.506 of Atmakur Village in Anantapur District. He was also in occupation of assigned land admeasuring Acs.4.80 in Survey No.454-2 of the same village. He died on 6-4-1991. After his death, one Akkamma and her elder son Mukka Rajanna filed O.S. No.43 of 1996 for permanent injunction restraining defendants Potte Ramanna and Kamakka from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.506. Subsequently, the two plaintiffs filed I.A. No.725 of 1999 to delete Akkamma as plaintiff No.1 and add her other three sons Ramanjaneyulu, Akulappa and Dhanunjaya as plaintiffs 2 to 4. While the suit was pending on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, the plaintiffs in O.S. No.43 of 1996 also filed O.S. No.163 of 1996 on the file of the same Court against Kamakka restraining her from in any manner interfering with plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.454-2. The plaintiffs in both the suits allege that Boya Madanna @ Potte Madanna had no children and he treated Akkamma who is his neice as his daughter, that Akkamma was looking after Boya Madanna, who was living with her till his death, and that on 24-1-1991 Madanna executed registered will bequeathing his property in favour of the plaintiffs. They also allege that after the death of Madanna, they approached the Mandal Revenue Officer and got the property mutated in the name of the plaintiffs and have been paying the cist regularly when the defendants threatened to occupy the suit land by force. The case of the defendants in O.S. No.43 of 1996 and the sole defendant in O.S. No.163 of 1996 is similar. They allege that Kamakka is the daughter of Potte Madanna that she is alone the legal heir to succeed to the estate of Madanna, that the Will dated 24-1-1991 is fabricated by Village Administrative Officer by using an imposter and that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property.

(3.) Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed six issues and two additional issues in O.S. No.43 of 1996 and framed seven issues and two additional issues in O.S. No.163 of 1996. The plaintiffs examined three witnesses and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16. To prove their case and also to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendants examined three witnesses and marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the execution of Ex.A.1, Will, by Potte Madanna came into existence under suspicious circumstances. The trial Court also held that the defendants failed to prove their case and came to the conclusion that plaintiffs proved their possession by filing Exs.A.6 and A.7, which are copies of Adangals for Faslis 1398 to 1405. Accordingly, both the suits were decreed.