SUSHELAMMA Vs. BUCHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit, under Sec. 54 of the Specific Relief Act, for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit lands situated at Komreddipalli village, Wanaparti Taluk. The family of the defendants 1 to 4 owns lands at Two places; (1) Komreddipalli village in Wanaparti Taluk, and(2) Kumaralingampalli village in Atmakur Taluk. These lands were partitioned between the plaintiff and the members of the family of the defendants long earlier than 1956. As a result of this partition amongst all the members of the family, including the plaintiff, some lands in Kumaralingampalli fell to the share of the plaintiff and the suit lands fell to the share of Gopala Reddy, the husbard of the 1st defendant, and Govinda Reddi, the brother of Gopala Reddi. In the early part of 1956 Gopala Reddi committed suicide in Komreddipalli. The plaintiff was then the plaintiff being proved, he was entitled to permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit lands till he is evicted in due course. It is against this order that the 1st defendant has come up in appeal, It may be stated at the very outlet that though the 1st defendant had brought on record the testimony of as many as 9 witnesses to establish her possession of the suit lands, their testimony cannot prevail over the documentary evidence produced in the case. The Documents produced are the revenue records which were prepared by the village officers in discharge of their official duties. They consist of copies of pahani patraks, khasra pahani and revenue receipts.

(2.) The pahani patraks afford reliable valuable evidence as to the actual possession of arable lands. These pahanis clearly show that from the year 1957 onwards the plaintiff was in possession of these lands and had pesronally cultivated the same; Of course, the lands are not mutated in his name. He is not the pattedar of those lands. Yet there can be little deubt as to his being in possession there, of. The receipts produced clearly show that he had paid the land revenue The powthi book, stands in the name of Appanna Ramayya, who was the original owner and from whom the defendants' family had purchased the lands Khasra Pahani for the year 1956, 1957 and 1958 shows that in the year 1956 Gopala Reddi was the cultivator of the suit lands and in 1957 and 1958 the plaintiff was the cultivator; Thus it is clear from these revenue records that Gopala Reddi was in possession up to 1956, in which year he died, and that therefore, the plaintiff is in possessession of the suit lands.

(3.) In the absence of any other clear documentary evidence, it is difficult to accept the story of the 1st defendant that she as been actually cultivating the lands from 1956 onwards or that she is still in possession. It is clear from her evidence that she has even vacated her house and given possession of the same to the plaintiff. The testimony of her witnesses that it was she who got the lands cultivated or arranged for payment of land revenue.cantiot in view of this documentary evidence, be accepted. I agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court that after the death of Gopala Reddi, the plaintiff has been in posses of the suit lands. At the same time, it must be remembered that theie is little dispute that the suit lands had in partition fallen to the share of Gopala Reddi that he was the exclusive owner thereof and was in possession of the: same till his death. In the cultivation account of the year 1956 also, which is usually entered in the pahanis in the month of September or October of 1955, his name" is found as the cultivator of the suit lands. The question then is whether by reason of oral arrangement, if any, the right, title and and interest of defendant No.1 could be transferred to the plaintiff. It is no doubt true that as tht suit is only for permanent injunction, possession has its importance, but it must also be necessary that the plaintiff must have a right to continue in possession against the 1st defendant so as to be entitled 10 a decree as against her. If he is in possession by virtue of a valid contract, which casts duty on the 1st defendant not to interfere with his possession or to keep his possession in tact, it has to be necessarily established; otherwise, the possession of the plaintiff would be no better than that of a trespasser.