PITTALA KISTAIAH Vs. GANTA LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful 1st respondent in AS No.4l of 1994 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, being aggrieved of the reversing Judgment and decree of OS No.737 of 1987 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Karimnagar, challenged the same by way of Second Appeal.

(2.) This Court on 10.6.1997 made the following order:

(3.) Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel representing the appellant-lst defendant made the following submissions: The learned counsel would submit that the reasons recorded by the Court of first instance are just and proper reasons and the appellate Court had reversed the well-considered findings without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The learned counsel would submit that the origin of the property in question appears to be by virtue of a patta granted in favour of the father of the parties to the litigation. The counsel in all fairness would submit that no doubt the appellant-lst defendant had taken a stand in the written statement that the same is ancestral property and he is the exclusive owner thereof. However, the counsel would submit that even in a suit for mere perpetual injunction the title also may have to be incidentally gone into and except the contradictory oral evidence and also the documentary evidence Ex.A17, an unregistered gift deed, said to have been executed by the father and several receipts brought into existence for the purpose of litigation, there is no other acceptable evidence placed before the Court. When that being so, the learned counsel would contend that even if Ex.A16 to be taken into consideration, then automatically by virtue of the death of the father, all these parties become co-owners and in this view of the matter, the relief of perpetual injunction granted by the appellate Court cannot be sustained. The leamed counsel had also taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and further pointed out to the relevant finding recorded by the appellate Court and would submit that at any rate the findings recorded by the appellate Court cannot be sustained even if the evidence: available on record as a whole be appreciated in a right perspective.