KONETI RAMCHANDRA Vs. G ANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.429 of 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle, are the appellants. They feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, in A.S.No.21 of 1989. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule property admeasuring about 1 1/2 acres at Punganur village of Chittoor District, was owned by one Smt. Rani Nanjammannidevi, the mother of the 1st defendant, and that the land was leased, in, or about 1940, to one Sri Koneti Manikyarayappa, the father in law of the plaintiff.' It was pleaded that ever since then, the land was in possession and enjoyment of the lessee, and since he died somewhere in 1972, being the scale legal heir, the plaintiff succeeded to the tenancy. The lessor is said to have died, some time 1974 and thereby, the 1st defendant became the lessor. The plaintiff complained that the 3rd defendant, claiming to be the transferee of the land, and the 2nd defendant, the maidservant of the 1st defendant, started interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. He claimed the relief of perpetual injunction against all the three defendants.

(3.) On behalf of fhe defendants, a common written statement was filed. It was pleaded that Rani Nanjammannidevi executed a will dated 26-01-1966, bequeoithing the property to defendants 1 and 2, and they in turn, entered into an agreement.of sale dated 24-10-1978 with the 3rd defendant and delivered possession of the suit schedule property. The sale deed is said to have been executed on 25-12-1978. The plea as to existence of tenancy was flatly denied and they pleaded that at no point of time, the plaintiff or his father in law were in possession of the suit schedule, either as tenants or otherwise. It was their case that the father in law of the plaintiff was the owner of the land adjacent to the suit schedule property and he was never their tenant. Objection as to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit was raised. Through its judgment dated 30-09-1988 the trial court decreed the suit. The 3rd defendant filed A.S.No.21 of 1989. The appeal was allowed on 07-04-1995, holding that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction.