KALYANAPU RAMAYYA Vs. YADAVALLI SIVARAMAKRISHNA SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule lands together with past and future mesne profits till delivery.

(2.) Defendant No. 7 who was in possession of the plaint schedule lands as well as some other lands situated in Narasimhapuram village represented to the plaintiffs' father that he purchased the lands from the original owners, viz., protected tenants and entered into an agreement for sale dated 15-10-1964 in respect of Ac.62- 50 cents including the plaint schedule lands and delivered possession of the same to him. Ever since plaintiffs' father and thereafter plaintiffs' are in possession of the same. The plaintiffs' father got issued a telegraphic notice dated 13-1-1965 to the seventh defendant through his advocate for which the seventh defendant gave a reply dated 15-1-1965 admitting the execution of the agreement and expressed his willingness to execute the sale deed. But curiously the seventh defendant got filed an application by his wife on or about 19-4-1965 before the Tahsildar, Madhira for permission to sell the plaint schedule lands on the ground that she purchased the lands under the sale deed dated 11-1-1961 from her husband. The father of the plaintiffs sent objections dated 27-4-1965 through his advocate protesting grant of any permission prayed for by the wife of the seventh defendant and that he was in possession of the land under an agreement. The plaintiffs father also filed O.S.No.25 of 1965 against Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 herein, and obtained temporary injunction. While so, the seventh defendant with a view to set up defence in the said suit brought into existence a sale deed dated 10-11-1965 in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 5 executed by Defendant No.9. On the strength of the said sale, Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 forcibly entered into possession of the plaint schedule land in 1967. The suit O.S.No.25 of 1965 filed for specific performance was dismissed, but a decree for refund of the advance money was granted. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs in A.S.No.367 of 72 was also dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiffs purchased item-1 of plaint schedule property from Defendant No. 10 under a registered sale deed dated 4-4-1975 from V. Ramayya and V. Varadayya, protected tenants who got title. Likewise, plaintiffs purchased item-2 of plaint schedule under a registered sale deed dated 15-4-1975 from another protected tenant, Defendant No.11. When the appeal came up before the High Court, the plaintiffs wanted to produce the sale deed dated 4-4-1975, the High Court, however, while dismissing the appeal granted opportunity to the plaintiffs to seek reliefs on the basis of fresh title acquired or to be acquired by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently purchased item-3 of the plaint schedule under a registered sale deed dated 30-4-1975 from Defendant Nos. 12 and 13, sons of protected tenant, late Appireddy. Although Defendant Nos.1 to 5 were informed of the purchase of plaint schedule lands by the plaintiffs and requested to deliver possession of the lands, they did not comply with the said demand. Therefore the suit.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in their written statement while denying the material allegations contained in the plaint have stated that Defendant No.7 was never in possession, the finding in O.S.No.25 of 1965 that the plaintiffs were not in possession operates as res judicata, the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession and the suit is barred by time.