RENUKANTA MULLAIAH Vs. SIRCILLA RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.150 of 1980, in the Court of District Munsif, Huzurabad, is the appellant. He filed the suit against the 1st respondent herein, initially, and thereafter, the 2nd respondent was impleaded. The suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. It was decreed through judgment, dated 6.10.1989. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed A.S.No.26 of 1989, in the Court of District Judge, Karimnagar. The appeal was allowed on 31.3.1992, and the matter was remanded to the trial court, for fresh disposal. On remand, the trial court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 31.12.1992. The appellant filed A.S.No.7 of 1993, in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The appeal was dismissed on 29.3.1994. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) The appellant pleaded that his father, by name Pochaiah, and the father of the 1st respondent, by name Durgaiah, were sons of late Rajaram. According to him, his father died in the year 1943, and the father of the 1st respondent died in the year 1946. Since Durgaiah did not have any male issues, the appellant is said to have become absolute owner of the entire properties left by Rajaram, by survivorship. It was also pleaded that the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937, for short "the 1937 Act" was made applicable to the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, only with effect from 7.2.1953, and much before that date, Durgaiah died, and thereby, his wife, the 2nd respondent herein, did not succeed to his estate. The appellant further pleaded that he has been recognized as the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, and other lands, ever since the death of Durgaiah, and that the same is evidened by the kasra pahani, prepared in the year 1954-55, marked as Ex.A 4, and subsequent pahanies, which are marked as Exs.A-8 and A-15. He alleged that the 1st respondent tried to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property. he 1st respondent opposed the suit, by filing written statement. She pleaded that her father Durgaiah and the father of the appellant, Pochaiah, divided the ancestral properties in equal shares, and that the suit schedule property has fallen to the si rare of her father. She contends that the revenue records have also disclosed that she is in possession of the suit schedule property, immediately before filing of the suit, and that there was no basis for the claim of the appellant. The 2nd respondent almost :oed the land of the 1st respondent, but she died at a later point of time.

(3.) As observed earlier, though the suit was decreed at the initial stage, after remand, it was dismissed, and the same was affirmed by the lower appellate court.