MANDA YADAGIRI Vs. GUJJULAVENKAT REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.98 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif, Bhongir, filed this Second Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the trial court in that suit, and affirmation of the same by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhongir, in A.S.No.10 of 1991.

(2.) The respondents filed the suit, for the relief of perpetual injunction, against the appellants. It was pleaded that the respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.410, admeasuring Ac. 1-26 guntas, at Mallapur village of Bhongir Mandal, having purchased the same on 27.12.1955, from one Smt.Ameena Begum, for a consideration of Rs.99/-. They pleaded that they are in continuous possession of the property, and have grown number of trees on it. Their grievance was that the appellants have attempted to cut the trees on 28.4.1981. Hence, they prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction. The appellants filed a written statement. They denied the title of the respondents. It was pleaded that the respondents have encroached into the suit land to an extent of 0-20 guntas in the year 1979, and that the dispute, in this regard, was referred to the elders of the village. They also pleaded that one of the appellants is a protected tenant, over an extent of Ac.8-25 guntas, including the suit land. Reference was made to the kasra pahani, patta certificate, etc.

(3.) The appellants filed an additional written statement, stating that the respondents have filed O.S.No.49 of 1979, by pleading the same cause of action and praying for the same relief, in the same court, and that even while the said suit was pending, the present suit was filed. Through its judgment, dated 25.2.1991, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S.No.10 of 1991, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhongir. The appeal was dismissed on 25.3.1994. Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the courts below have committed several mistakes. He submits that the trial court wrongly framed the issue, touching on the title, whereas, the suit was for the relief of injunction simplicitor. He further contends that the plea as to the effect of filing of second suit, on the same cause of action, was treated, as though it is the one touching on res judicata. He submits that the lower appellate court had not only committed the same mistakes, but also had proceeded on a wrong assumption of fact that O.S.No.49 and 1979 was got dismissed, as not pressed, by the time the present suit was filed. Though the respondents were served with notices, they have not chosen to enter appearance.