NUNNA VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. TOTA VENKATESHWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the second defendant against reversing judgment dated 14-7-1995 in AS No.42 of 1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Kowur, in OS No.782 of 1989 dated 10-3-1995 and decreed the suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction.

(2.) The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The respondents (hereafter called, the plaintiffs) filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining Nunna Venkatachalam (first defendant), Nunna Venkateswara Rao (second defendant and appellant herein) and Padilam Gangaraju (third defendant) from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the schedule property shown as 'A B C D E F' in the plaint plan, which is a house site admeasuring Ac.0.05 (out of total extent of Acs.4.90) situated at Dippakayalapadu Village of Kowur Taluk in West Godavari District. The plaintiffs alleged that they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since times immemorial, that they were living there raising thatched hut, that their father, Thota Venkanna, and his ancestors occupied the land and that the defendants tried to interfere with the enjoyment. They alleged that the property was also assessed to panchayat tax and it was given a number. They also alleged that under the sale deed dated 2-6-1965 executed by Padilam Venkanna in favour of G. Lakshmi Narasamma, the eastern boundary is cited as the house site of Thota Venkanna, father of the plaintiffs 1 to 4. Opposing the suit, second defendant filed written statement and his father, first defendant, filed memo adopting the same. The third defendant, who is related to defendants 1 and 2, filed separate written statement. It is their case that Thota Venkanna, during his lifetime, raised a thatched shed on the southern side of the schedule property and that the schedule property was always in possession of Padilam Venkanna, who was absolute owner. The defendants purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 25-4-1989 and obtained possession from the vendor. The second defendant constructed a thatched house on the northern side of the schedule property and has been residing therein. He also constructed a small thatched hut on the southern side for keeping goats or to lease out the same to others. On the request of the husband of third plaintiff, the same was leased out on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The suit schedule property was kept vacant till April 1989 by the vendor of the second defendant and, therefore, the payment of house tax does not arise. The first defendant went to the place of his father-in-law at Jangareddigudem about ten (10) years ago. At that time, he permitted the fifth plaintiff to reside in the house for sometime. After his return, the first defendant started living with the fifth plaintiff demanding her to vacate the house. In the meantime, first defendant occupied tank poramboke and erected a thatched house with a view to obtain patta. While denying other allegations, the defendants also denied the relevancy of the sale deed dated 2-6-1965 executed by Padilam Venkanna in favour of G. Lakshmi Narasamma.

(3.) The trial Court framed an issue to the effect that whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction. The trial Court doubted Exs.A2 to A4 house tax demand notices issued to the vendor of the plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession to suit schedule property and accordingly dismissed the suit. The appellate Court, as mentioned earlier, reversed the trial Court judgment and granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs placing reliance on Ex.A1 sale deed and Exs.A2 to A4 which are the documents evidencing payment of house tax to Gram Panchayat by the plaintiffs.