MUKHYA PRANASWAML Vs. T U REGHAVENDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 155 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur (originally O.S.No. 725 of 1972 on the file of the Disu'ict Munsif Court, Guntur), questioning the decree and Judgment of the lower Court dated 5-3-1983 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed in view of the findings on issues 1 & 8 framed in that suit.

(2.) The appellant who is the plaintiff, is Sri Mukhya Pranaswami in the Uttaradi Mutt Building at Vijayawada by his trustee Sri Satya Pramoda Theerdha Swamuluvaru, represented by his power of attorney Agent M.V. Ramanacharya. He originally filed the suit against the defendants 1 to6 seeking the relief of permanent injunction contending that the plaint schedule land which is of a total extent of Ac. 22-47 Cents originally belonged to one Cuddapah Raghavendra Rao and one Srinivasa Rao, who made a gift of the said land to the plaintiff by executing a registered gift deed dated 14-1-1882 and the said gift was accepted on behalf of the plaintiff by the then Archaka of the plaintiff-Mutt. Ever since then, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the said land through its tenants and the income from the said property was being used for performing' Akhanda Deeparadhana' and other ceremonies for the Deity. In the year 1922 one Cuddapah Indirabayamma tried to cause obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and a civil suit in O.S.No. 248 of 1992 was also filed in me District Munsif Court, Guntur, between them and a compromise was effected in that suit between the plaintiff and Cuddapah Indirabayamma and as per the said compromise, Indirabayamma was given life interest in an extent of Ac.12-27 Cents on the western side in the suit land while the plaintiff continued to be in exclusive possession of the eastern plot of Ac.10-20 Cents and after the death of the said Indirabayamma, the above said extent of Ac.12-27 Cents on the western side was also to revert back to the plaintiff. Indirabayamma, who continued to enjoy the said western portion of Ac.12-27 Cents during her life time, died on 10-1-1961 and the plaintiff got into possession of the said land also and the entire suit land was then leased out to the tenants. The second defendant continued to be the tenant of the said extent of Ac.12-27 Cents while D-3 to D-6 continued to be the tenants of the remaining extent of Ac.10-20 Cents and they were cultivating the lands as tenants of the plaintiff who is the absolute owner of the said entire extent of Ac.22-47 Cents. While so, the first defendant began to lay claims for the suit land as the alleged adopted son of Indirabayamma, contending that she executed a will dated 30-12-1960 in his favour bequeathing the plaint schedule lands to himand he be came the owner of the said properties, the first defendant was also threatening to interfere with the possession of the tenants D-2 to D-6 in the suit land. As such, the suit was originally filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the first defendant for restraining him from interfering with such possession and enjoyment of the tenants of the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaint was amended and the relief of recovery of possession was prayed for from D-1 to D-7 as D-2 to D-6, who are the tenants, were said to have assigned their rights in the entire plaint schedule lands to D-1 & D-7 without having any right to do so, besides the relief of arrears of rent for the period 1970-71 and 1971-72 from the defendants and also for future profits for use and occupation from all the defendants.

(3.) Defendants 2 to 6 did not contest the suit. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, D-5 and D-6 died and their legal representatives were brought on record as D-8 to D-11 who did not also contest the suit. The first defendant alone contested the suit contending that he was the adopted son of Cuddapah Indirabayamma who executed a will on 30-12-1960 in his favour bequeathing her properties to him with absolute rights and after her death on 10-1-1961 he became entitled to the present plaint schedule lands; that the defendants 2 to 6 have also attorned to him and the plaintiff is not having any rights in the suit property and is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the suit. It was also contended by the first defendant that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the suit is also barred by limitation.