LAWS(APH)-1976-4-32

RAM KISHTA REDDY Vs. NARISMHA RAO

Decided On April 23, 1976
RAM KISHTA REDDY Appellant
V/S
Narismha Rao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant, the plaintiff filed the suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the land bearing S.No. 203/2 measuring about acres 23.38 Gts, situated in Kalvakunta village. The plaintiff has admitted that the patta of the suit land stood in the name of one Mohammed Bilal but that it was so only nominally. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land for a long time. He relied upon the relevant Pahani Patraks and the land revenue receipts for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965 in support of his claim.

(2.) The defendant in his written statement contended that Mohammed Bilal was the absolute owner and pattedar of the suit land and that it was in the possession of Bilal till it was attached and custody thereof was taken by the Government on 15-4-1963. The defendant claimed to have purchased the suit property under Ex. B-16 which is a registered sale deed dated 3-8-1965 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000. The defendant also claimed that he was in possession of the suit land which was on the date of the sale as vacant land. It was urged that as the plaintiff had no manner of right or title or interest in the suit land no injunction would be granted.

(3.) It was found by the trial court that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit land on the date of suit and that the Government did not deliver possession of the suit land to Mohammed Bilal after attachment had and did not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land after the institution of the suit. On the question whether the defendant is the owner of the suit land, the trial court found that the sale in favour of the defendant was hit by Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In that view notwithstanding Ex. B. 16 sale deed it was held that the defendant was not the lawful owner of the suit property. The suit was therefore decreed by the trial court.