K MALLIKARJUNA VARA PRASAD Vs. K POORNACHANDER RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole defendant is the appellant. One K.Poorna Chandra Rao represented by his General Power of Attorney holder (GPA hodler), Smt P.Santhakumari filed a suit being O.S.No.67 of 1984 for declaration of title, delivery of possession and mesne profits from June, 1980 till delivery of possession. The Court of Subordinate Judge, Markapur, where the suit was instituted, dismissed the suit after regular trial. The Court of Additional District Judge, Ongole, however, allowed the appeal being A.S.No.43 of 1989 filed by the respondents decreeing the suit. This Judgment of the lower appellate Court is now assailed as vitiated by error of law. At the outset, the fact of the matter as summarized by the trial Court may be stated in brief. The parties are referred to as per the cause title in the suit.

(2.) One Krishnavajjula Ramabhupala Sarma (Sarma, for brevity), the father of the defendant was the owner of suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.11.42 in survey No.8 situated at Narsingapuram village. He allegedly sold the land to the plaintiff under registered sale deed, dated 14.10.1963, for a consideration of Rs.350/-. Plaintiff took possession and continued to be in possession to the knowledge of the defendant. He perfected title by adverse possession. When the land came under Ayacut, the defendant was tempted to occupy the land and in spite of objections by the plaintiff, the defendant entered upon the land forcibly in June, 1980. The plaintiff Poorna Chandra Rao died and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5 by virtue of the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No. 1039 of 1987, dated 22.12.1987.

(3.) The defendant opposed the suit. The institution of the suit by a holder of GPA without leave of the Court was pointed out. It is the further case of the defendant that the suit schedule property was not absolute property of Sarma and that it was ancestral property of Sarma and his brother Kotaiah, who was the adoptive father of the defendant. Sarma, his sons and defendant were co-owners and joint tenants of the property managed by the defendant because Sarma was very old by 1963 and his sons were staying elsewhere. The sale deed, dated 14.10.1963, allegedly executed by Sarma in favour of plaintiff is not true and is not supported by consideration. It is not binding on the defendant. The allegation that the possession was delivered to plaintiff was denied and defendant asserted that the plaintiff was never in possession within the statutory period to claim adverse possession.