P. JOHN NELSON Vs. V. BENJAMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No. 110 of 1996 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the trial Court'), preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment dated 10-04-1997, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to schedule property, for recovery of possession of part of schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants before the trial Court. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties before the trial Court will be adopted throughout this judgment.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs contending that the plaintiff occupied schedule property in the year 1975 and constructed a house in the year 1982. Schedule property was assigned to the plaintiff as per Andhra Pradesh Revenue Board Standing Orders (for short, 'B.S.O.') and granted D-Form patta for schedule property in his favour on 10-03-1982. As such, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of ABCD schedule property and he was in exclusive physical possession and enjoyment of schedule property. While the matter stood thus, on 16-03-1990, when the plaintiff was away to schedule property working as lecturer at Bobbili and his wife was at Vijayanagaram in connection with her employment, the defendants forcibly entered into schedule property, occupied MNCO portion of schedule property without any manner of right or title. As such, their occupation of MNCO portion of schedule property is illegal without any lawful entitlement. Therefore, the plaintiff, being the absolute owner of schedule property, is entitled to recover possession of MNCO portion of ABCD schedule property. While continuing in part of schedule property, the defendants openly threatened that they would occupy the other portion of schedule property. It is impossible for the plaintiff to resist the highhanded act of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff claimed consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property after delivery of MNCO portion of ABCD schedule property.