CHIRIKI RANGA Vs. KAVELAMUDI REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS in nut-shell: The unsuccessful defendants being aggrieved of the Decree and Judgment made in O. S. No. 384/83 dated 27-7-1992, on the file of Subordinate Judge, vijayawada, had preferred this Appeal. The respondent/plaintiff in the said suit instituted the suit O. S. No. 384/83 aforesaid praying for the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after removal of the thatched house, for mesne profits and other ancillary reliefs. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 3 to 5 were added as the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant as per orders in I. A. No. 34/87 dated 23-3-1989. The learned Subordinate Judge, vijayawada, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues and additional Issues, recorded the evidence of P. W. to P. W. 6, D. W. 1 to D. W. 4, marked Exs. A-1 to A-44, Exs. B-1 to B-20 and after recording findings in detail, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent herein/ plaintiff in the said suit is entitled to recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and also granted mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month from the date of suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal was preferred.

(2.) RESPECTIVE pleadings of the parties: for the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendants" as shown in O. S. No. 384/83. The said suit was instituted by kovelamudi Rekha, represented by her power of Attorney Agent V. V. Bhoopal.

(3.) AVERMENTS made in the plaint: The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint as hereunder. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house site with a thatched house therein in Punnammathota of Vijayawada City. The said property was settled on her by her father sri K. Gopalakrishnaiah in July 1975 by a registered document towards her 'pasupu kumkuma' and thus it is her 'stridhana'. It was also pleaded that the father of the plaintiff in turn purchased the same from his brother Venkata Rama Rao in 1965 and earlier in 1964 the plaintiffs father and her five peternal uncles i. e. , sons of chandrasekhar Rao, partitioned the total extent of house site bequeathed to them by their paternal grandmother late Kancherla kotamma, w/o. K. V. Ramaiah, by a registered Will before her death in April 1958. Subsequent to the partition of the said house site that fell to their respective shares. It was also further pleaded that one ch. Bangaraiah, a trusted person of the household of this Kancherla family of kotamma, was allowed to reside in the block of land by late K. Kotamma before her death. After the bequest and subsequent partition of the site by the six brothers, the said bangaraiah's son Seethaiah purchased one of the plots (marked as G-1) at the extreme southern end in the plan prepared by brothers at the time of partition. Bangaraiah's daughter and her husband Appa Rao purchased another adjacent plot (marked as 'g') in the said plan from one of the brothers madhavarao. Thus the 1st defendant lived with her grand-father and her parents in the said premises till the early seventees. It was also further pleaded that the 1st defendant as the grand daughter of the said Bangariah and daughter of Apparao, was a member of the joint family originally. The plaintiff's father gopalakrishnaiah used to work as a professor in U. S. A. till 1972. After his return to India, he worked at Hyderabad in administrative Staff College. Some time after return of the plaintiff with her parents, the 1st defendant sought for and was allowed to live with her husband in 1972 in the old thatched house in the suit schedule site because of the old acquaintance and attachment of defendants' family with that of the elders of the plaintiff's family and eversince she was being allowed to occupy the said house, just out of the considerations for the old acquaintance and also because of the fact that plaintiff's family was living at Hyderabad, not needing the schedule property for purposes of constructing a pucca building. The uncles of the plaintiff and other close relations living in Vijayawada had been looking after the plaintiff's interest in the schedule property. It was further pleaded that in 1975 when the father of the plaintiff wanted to settle the schedule property on her, he informed the defendants about the transfer and asked them to vacate the site, but the defendants implore him for indulgence promising to comply with such a demand to vacate whenever necessary. In 1979, the plaintiff applied for and got her name entered in the municipal records as 'owner' of the property in the place of late Kotamma, after necessary enquiries. The property tax demands were being given to plaintiff's men and they as her agents and her predecessors-in-title had been paying all such taxes etc. It was also further pleaded that all these years since 1965 when the property was purchased by the plaintiff's father, taxes are being paid by him only for his men. It was also further pleaded that in april 1981 the plaintiff and her husband believing the oral representations of the defendants got a building plan approved and also secured permission of the Municipal authorities. At that time also the defendants pleaded for further accommodation. Thus the plaint schedule property always stood and continues in the names of either the plaintiff or her father and the predecessors-in-title. The defendants never gave cause for any suspicion about their intentions and the plaintiff or her father never thought it necessary to resort to any legal remedies, but in the last about one year or so, the defendants took wrong Counsel and are harbouring evil and selfish ideas of grabbing the valuable property and had been avoiding the plaintiff and her men and gaining time somehow or other. As time was passing, the plaintiff authorized her relation sri V. V. Bhoopal to deal with her property and the defendants occupying the thatched shed and when oral requests proved to be of no use, the said authorized person sri Bhoopal got a notice issued to defendants through his counsel on 29-1-1983. To the said notice, the defendants kept quiet for long but got a belated reply sent through their Advocate setting up false and absolutely untenable contentions stating inter alia that they purchased the property and resided in the house for the last 25 years without any let or licence and became absolute owners by adverse possession etc. Though it was not so necessary to refute such absurd contentions, the plaintiff's agent got a rejoinder notice sent with facts and particulars on 11-4-1983. It was also further pleaded that the plaintiff made it clear that the additions or alterations made by the defendants recently to the temporary thatched house were only made to complicate the matter for the plaintiff and that the defendants were at liberty to take all and if any belongings of the defendants when they vacate. It was further pleaded that there had been no response favourably even after the said notices to quit. The permission given to the defendants was expressly revoked and the stipulated time also had elapsed, but the defendants did not choose to vacate the schedule property and hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit property and for getting vacant possession of the same from the defendants.