MADDU TATHA Vs. UTTARAVILLI NAGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, Rajam in A.S. No.9/1991 dated 21-3-1994 is assailed in this appeal. That appeal was against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Rajam in O.S. No.179/86, dated 2-4-1991. The suit was filed by the present respondent against the present appellants for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which is described as Survey No. 152 of O. Punja (mettu) with an extent of Ac.2.00 situate in Boddam village in Srikakulam district. That was contested by the appellants. They denied the plaintiff's possession and the lawful possession of the suit property in addition to setting up their own rightand possession over the same. The parties went to trial wherein the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.I and got examined two witnesses as per P.Ws.2 and 3 whereas defendant No.3 got himself examined as D.W.I and defendant No.l as D.W.2 and two witnesses as per D.Ws.3 and 4 respectively. By way of documentary evidence the plaintiff got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 and none by the defendant. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed for local inspection and he submitted his report which was read as evidence in the case. The learned Munsif after hearing both sides and on the basis of the evidence produced before him, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to permanent injunction and consequently dismissed the suit without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred theappeal A.S. No.9/91before the learned Sub-Judge. He after hearing both the sides set aside the findings of the learned Munsif and held that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit property and consequently allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession. Costs were also awarded to her. That has resulted in the present appeal. The reference to parties as plaintiff and defendants in the suit would be convenient and that will be done.

(2.) The following grounds styling as substantial questions of law are raised in this appeal:

(3.) The facts, controversies, evidence and the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court may require a brief record in the light of the grounds of appeal. The plaintiff claimed to be the D. Patta holder in Rc. No.2378/82 and Survey No.153 P. Punja (Mettu) with an extent of Ac.2.00 situate in Boddam village which is comprised in the suit property. The patta was issued to her in the year 1982. She claimed to be cultivating the land since the year 1982 and continued to be in possession till the date of the suit. Ex.A-1 is the D-patta issued to the plaintiff by the concerned authorities dated 2-5-1982. She paid land revenue to the suit land for the faslies 1392-94 under land revenue receipt Ex.A-2 dated 10-11-85. She alleged interference to her possession and cultivation of the suit land by the defendants. The defendants not only denied the issue of D-patta to the plaintiff in regard to the suit property but also the legality of the same. They also denied the possession of the plaintiff regarding the suit property much less her cultivation at any time till the date of the suit. On the other hand, they contended that the suit property forms part of the Koneru/water tank for the benefit of the village people regarding which no patta could have been issued to the plaintiff. They also set up their own right and possession over the suit property. The correctness of the suit schedule was also challenged. The following issues were framed by the learned Munsif: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaint schedule is correct? (3) To what relief? The learned Munsif held issues 1 and 2 against the plaintiff and consequently did not give any relief to her by virtue of the finding, on issue No.3. The learned Sub-Judge raised the following points for determination in the appeal: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction? (2) Whether the appeal can be allowed? (3) To what relief? Points land 2 were held in favour of the plaintiff resulting in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit for permanent injunction.