LAVU SRI KRISHNA RAO Vs. MOTURI NAGENDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.1998 in O.S.No.28 of 1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, wherein the trial Court, while dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction granted alternatively preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of half share in the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and allotted the remaining half share to the 4th defendant and allowing the plaintiff to be in possession of three rooms and restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the same till a final decree is drawn and the plaintiff is allotted his specific half share.

(2.) The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.28 of 1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. The respondent herein filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties comprising 435.6 square yards of site in Survey No.125/16 and six rooms thereon situate in Aganampudi village, Gajuwaka Mandal.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to Pattabhi Ramaiah from whom it was purchased by Lavu Venkata Rama Rao under registered sale deed dated 2.4.1980 and the plaintiff after completing his graduation in Medicine took the suit property on lease from L.Venkata Rama Rao under lease deed dated 31.1.1988 and improved the same and opened a Clinic-cum-Nursing Home in five out of the six rooms and opened a Pharmaceutical shop in the sixth room in 1988. After the death of L.V.Rama Rao on 16.11.1988, his wife Amaravathi succeeded to his estate including the plaint schedule property and while leaving for her native place in Krishna district after the death of her husband, she sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.85,500/- under a registered sale deed dated 16.02.1989 and ever since, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property in his own right. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and defendant No.4 is wife of defendant No.3. L.V.Rama Rao was also one of the sons of defendants 3 and 4. Defendants 3 and 4 got issued a registered notice dated 26.3.1989 alleging that the suit property was purchased by defendant No.3, but, kept in the name of L.V.Rama Rao, benami, that it is joint family property of defendant No.3 and his sons and on the death of L.V.Rama Rao, his 1/5th share devolved on his mother Subbamma-defendant No.4 and also demanding payment of rent at the rate of Rs.450/- per month. Plaintiff got issued a reply notice. The plaintiff alleges that on 17.5.1989, he left for his native place Eluru and when he returned on 19.5.1989, he found that all the furniture and wherewithal in his Nursing Home were found thrown on the street and the plaintiff learnt that defendants 1 and 2 have forcibly entered the nursing home and the medical shop with rowdy elements and caused damage to the premises and forcibly removed the inpatients. Smt. Shaik Pyari, a female nurse working in the clinic gave a report to the Gajuwaka police, who registered a case in Crime No.335 of 1989 and later arrested defendant No.1. The plaintiff complains that on release from jail, defendant No.1 along with defendant No.2 and others tried to forcibly occupy the plaint schedule property. He, therefore, filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, wherein he has been running a nursing home. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and defendants 2 to 4 adopted the same. Defendant No.1 denied the averments of the plaint and contended that the plaint schedule property belonged to the joint family of defendant No.3 and his sons defendants 1, 2 and deceased L.Venkata Rama Rao having been purchased with the joint family assets, but, however, the sale deed was obtained in the name of L.Venkata Rama rao, who was the eldest son and all the members of the joint family were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property and in one of the rooms, defendant No.1 started Amaravathi Engineering works. The defendants further contend that the marriage of L.V.Rama Rao with Amaravathi was never consummated as Amaravathi has not attained puberty at all and hence she did not acquire the status of wife of Venkata Rama Rao. According to the defendants, defendant No.4, the mother alone was Class 1 heir of late L.Venkata Rama Rao. They further plead that the plaintiff approached defendant No.3 and late Venkata Rama Rao seeking lease of two rooms on a monthly rent of Rs.450/- agreeing to vacate as and when demanded and the plaintiff fell in arrears of rent from 1.12.1988. According to them, the lease deed dated 31.1.1988 is a forged document and the same is not binding on them. They further plead that as Amaravathi had no right to the suit property, the alleged sale deed dated 16.2.1989 said to have been executed by her in favour of the plaintiff is neither valid nor binding on the defendants and the said document is fraudulently brought into existence. Thus, according to the defendants, the plaintiff was only a tenant in respect of two rooms and the defendants are in possession of the remaining four rooms and so the plaintiff is not entitled for any injunction.