LAWS(APH)-2006-7-93

HIDAYATHULLA SHERIFF Vs. BONDILI KESAVA SINGH

Decided On July 12, 2006
HIDAYATHULLA SHERIFF, S/O LATE HAJIRULLEA SHARIFF Appellant
V/S
BONDILI KESAVA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the defendants in O,S.No.394 of 1979 in the Court of the District Munsif, Vizianagaram. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction. He pleaded that he purchased a house as well as abutting open land admeasuring 396 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.488 and 489 of Vizianagaram town, through a sale deed, dated 30.10.1977, Ex.A1, from one Ramakrishna Sri Krishna Thiwar. According to him, the appellants herein encroached into an area of 41' X 14'. He pleaded necessary ingredients, which constituted the cause of action.

(2.) The appellants resisted the claim of the respondent. They pleaded that the vendor of the respondent did not have any title or possession over the suit schedule property. It was alleged that the suit schedule property, along with the appurtenant land was purchased under a sale deed, dated 03.11.1973, Ex.B1, from D.W.2, who, in turn, had purchased the same through Ex.812, dated 17.04.1958. It was also alleged that the vendor of the respondent was not alive, by the time he executed Ex.A1. Through its judgment, dated 10.06.1987, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereupon, the respondent filed A.S.No.83 of 1987 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. The appeal was allowed on 16.03,1994. Hence, the second appeal.

(3.) Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that even according to the recitals in the plaint, the suit schedule land was in possession of the appellants much before the so-called purchase under Ex.A1 and in that view of the matter, the suit itself was not maintainable. He further contends that the trial Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that the vendor of the respondent was not alive by the time Ex.A1 was executed. The learned counsel points out that the lower appellate Court ignored several fundamental aspects and decreed the suit contrary to the settled principles of law.