ADAPA TATRAO Vs. CHAMANTULA MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P., under Section 115 of C.P.C., is filed againsf the judgment and decree dated 24-11-2003, passed by the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in O.S.No.874 of 1999. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of Item-l of the plaint schedule, comprising of 50 cents, and for the relief of perpetual injunction, as regards Item-ll, admeasuring 30 cents. Both the bits are in Sy.No.32/2E of Karakuduru Village, of East-Godavari District. It was pleaded that she purchased the land through a sale deed dated 07-06-1973 in the name of her husband, and that ever since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Certain disputes were said to be pending between herself and Pedapudi Co-operative Society as regards the plaint schedule property. It was alleged that the petitioner herein had trespassed into Item-l of the plaint schedule on 18-07-1999, and had threatened to occupy Item-ll thereof. Therefore, she filed the suit for the relief referred to above. Petitioner filed a written-statement, denying the contents of the plaint. According to him, his wife is the absolute owner of Item-l of the plaint schedule, to an extent of 20 cents, which was purchased under a sale deed dated 06-05-1996 from one Mr.Kamireddy Sitaratnam, the daughter of the respondent. The husband of the respondent is said to have executed a gift, in favour of the said Sitaratnam.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.S.No.1 of 2004 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, through judgment dated 21-02-2006, on the ground that the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and that Appeal against the decree passed in such a suit is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act'), the trial Court ought to have concentrated on the questions, such as whether the dispossession took place within six months from the date of filing of the suit, otherwise than through course of law, and in the instant case, no such exercise was undertaken. He contends that the plaint as presented by the respondent, was defective, inasmuch as the relief of injunction, in respect of another item of property was also included. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though no specific issue, as such was framed, the trial Court was satisfied, that the ingredients of Section 6 of the Act were proved, and that the decree under revision does not warrant any interference.

(3.) The respondent filed the suit for the twofold relief of recovery of possession of one item of suit schedule property, and decree for perpetual injunction, as regards the other item. The tirst part ot the relief was claimed under Section 6 of the Act. It was for that reason, that the respondent did not claim the relief of declaration of title. At the initial stage, only one issue was framed by the trial Court, i.e. whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. At a subsequent stage, one more issue was framed, to the following effect: