RAJOJI Vs. PATNAM HANMANTH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the concurrent judgments passed in A.S. No.32 of 1992 on the file of the learned District Judge, Mahboobnagar and O.S. No.51 of 1985 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

(2.) The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. According to them, they purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas each, partly in Survey No.323/A and partly in Survey No.326/A of Pomalpally Village, Shadnagar Taluk, through sale deeds, dated 7-9-1977 (Exs.A1 and A2). They pleaded that an unregistered sale deed (Ex.A.l), dated 11-5-1972, was executed by the vendor, Sri Ramji, S/o.Buddoji, before Ex.A.2 and A.3. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, pleaded that he purchased an extent of Ac.1.19 guntas in the same survey numbers from the same owner, through the sale deed, dated 14-11-1973 (Ex.B.l). The appellants filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent, in turn, filed a counter-claim for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. On 30-9-1992, the suit was dismissed and the counter-claim was decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S.No.32 of 1992 before the Court of District Judge, Mahboobnagar. The appeal was dismissed on 28-11-1992. The appellants filed S.A.No.121 of 1995 before this Court. The second appeal was allowed, through judgment, dated 27-10-2002 and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate Court. After such remand, the lower appellate Court dismissed A.S.No.32 of 2002 once again, through its judgment, dated 28-11-2003. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the Courts below committed error in not applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar, 1991 A.W.R 65. He submits that though the sale deeds (Exs.A.2 and A,3) were registered on 7-9-1977, they relate back to 11-5-1972, on which date, an unregistered sale deed, Ex.A.l, was executed in their favour. He further submits that the counterclaim of the 1st respondent for recovery of possession ought not to have been entertained, in the absence of relief for declaration of title.