D NARAYANA REDDY Vs. M PULL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inasmuch as both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and as common questions of law and fact are involved, they can be disposed of together. O.S.No.17 of 1992 was filed on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagarkurnool, seeking the relief of declaration of title and for consequential injunction. The first defendant in the said suit filed O.S.No.10 of 1992 on the file of the self-same Court seeking the identical reliefs as against the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.17 of 1992. Thus, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.17 of 1992 are the defendants in O.S.No.10 of 1992 and vice versa. A common trial was conducted by the learned Subordinate Judge in both the suits and at the culmination of trial, eventually, the suit, O.S.No.17 of 1992, ended in dismissal and O.S.No.10 of 1992 ended in a decree. Assailing the said judgments and decrees, two appeals came to be filedl in A.S.No.46 of 1995 as against the judgment in O.S.No.17 of 1992 and A.S.No.47 of 1995 as against the judgment in O.S.No.10 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The learned II Additional District Judge, after having heard either side, eventually dismissed both the appeals. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.17 of 1992 are now seeking to file the S.A. No.851 of 2006 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.10 of 1992 are now seeking to file S.A.No.877 of 2006. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought for, it may appear apparently that the facts in issue in both the suits are pure questions of fact. However, Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, represents that the only substantial question of law that arises in these two appeals is, as to whether the judgments and decrees are vitiated in having not considered the relevant admissions made by the defendants in O.S.No.17 of 1992 in another proceeding, while being examined as witnesses therein, or not.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. The land in dispute in O.S.No.17 of 1992 is covered by Sy.No.149 admeasuring Acs.9.31 guntas and the land in dispute in O.S.No.10 of 1992 is covered by the same Sy.No.149 admeasuring Acs.9.31 guntas. Thus, both the extents put together make up Acs. 19.22 guntas situate adjacent to each other on east-west direction in Allapur Village. While it is the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.17 of 1992 that they all constitute a joint family and the entire extent of Acs. 19.22 guntas of land covered by Sy.No.149 belonged to the father of the first plaintiff, by name, Venkat Reddy alias Venkaiah and that the names of the fathers of the defendants were wrongly mutated in the revenue records as possessors thereof and the father of the first defendant himself admitted that they had no concern with the said land; it is the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.10 of 1992 that their fathers Chinna Bucha Reddy and Pedda Bucha Reddy were the protected tenants of the disputed land and they were granted ownership certificate on 05-03-1954 by the Deputy Collector, Nagarkurnool, and since then they were the owners and their names were mutated in the revenue records. In view of the above competing claims where both parties claim the relief of declaration of title, a common trial was conducted as aforesaid on a joint memo filed by both the counsel. The plaintiffs, who filed the suit, O.S.No.17 of 1992, have been treated for convenience sake as plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the other suit, O.S.No.10 of 1992, have been treated as the defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs strongly relied upon an admission said to have been made by the first defendant while deposing in connection with O.S.No.73 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagarkurnool as P.W.1. The deposition has been marked as Ex.A1. The Court below extracted the admissions in Ex.A1 inter alia in its judgment. For brevity and better understanding, they may be extracted hereunder thus: "The land bearing Sy.No.149 was never in possession of my father or mine. Myself and my father are not concerned about that land." The father of the first defendant also examined in the said suit as P.W.5 and his deposition has been marked in this case as Ex.A2. He is said to have been made another admission as under:

(3.) The defendants in O.S.No.73 of 1980 are said to have been the plaintiffs in the instant case. Inasmuch as the defendants claim occupancy rights and certificate having been granted in the names of their fathers, as the owners, but the real owner is admittedly the father of the first plaintiff. In that view of the matter, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that both the judgments are vitiated in having not considered these two admissions. Admittedly, the deponent in Ex.A1 and the deponent in Ex.A2 are alive. One of them is the party to the suit, obviously. Having regard to the above facts, it is to be seen as to whether any illegality or error of jurisdiction that has been committed by both the Courts below.