VADLA KRISHNAIAH Vs. NALLI NARASIMHAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of Venkatarama Sastry, J, allowing the Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants before us. They resisted the action of the plaintiff for a perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession of the suit land situate in Karpamulu village in Mahaboobnagar district. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit land from one Balanarayana (P.W. 4) who is the brother of defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 500 under Ex. A-1 dated 6-12-1960. P.W. 4 executed Ex. A-1 in his capacity as the manager of the Hindu joint family consisting of himself and his two brothers, defendants 1 and 2. Consequent on the execution of Ex. A-1, the plaintiff was put in possession of the land and since then, the plaintiff has been paying the land revenue. On 9-8-1970 when the plaintiff went to suit land to plough, the defendants objected to his cultivation and did not allow him to plough, the land. The plaintiff claimed possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and sought the relief referred to above.

(3.) The case of the defendants 1 and 2 (appellants) throughout has been that the plaintiff had not purchased the land from their brother (P.W. 4) and that, even otherwise, he has no authority to sell the suit land, which is an ancestral property. There are several other pleas viz., that there was no legal necessity; that the plaintiff colluded with their brother; and that the plaintiff never cultivated the land nor was he is in possession thereof. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court also was questioned on the ground that, consequent on the abolition of inams, the inam lands vested in the Government and as such, they cannot be alienated.