PADMATI BUCHI REDDI Vs. NANABOL JANGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the District Judge Nalgonda, given on 7th February, 1963 whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The necessary facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for possession of i acre and 31 guntas of wet land and 15 acres of dry land and for mesne profits. It was alleged inter alia that there was a compact area of 180 acres of dry land and 20 acres of wet land. This compact area has not been divided by metes and bounds between three different families which own this compact area. Padmati dandam and Pati families cultivate these lands jointly with 12 ploughs. Padmati family has got 8 ploughs while the remaining two families have got two ploughs each. The plaintiff belongs to Padmati family. Originally the share of the plaintiff was one plough, that is 0-1-4 share. Mallayya, husband of the and defendant Rajamma was having 0-1-4 share and his brother Rajayya was also having 184 share. Mallayya was the pattedar after whose death his 0-1-4 share devolved on his widow, Rajamma, the 2nd defendant. It was alleged that when Rajayya was alive Rajayya, and Rajamma (and defendant), wife of Mallayya, executed a registered gift deed for 0-1-4 share of land (that is one plough) in plaintiff's favour on 28th April, 1943 in view of the services rendered by the plaintiff to Rajayya and Rajamma. The plaintiff was put in possession in pursuance of the gift deed. The plaintiff was thus in possession of his own 0-1-4 share and the said gifted share of 0-1-4 and was cultivating 0-2-8 share. While so, in May, 1949, the 1st defendant, who is a nephew of Rajayya, dispossessed the plaintiff with the help of some communists and in collusion with Rajayya and Rajamma of his 0-1-4 share. He therefore claimed that he should be put in possession of his 0-1-4 share and also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100 per year.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 in their joint written statement denied the execution of the gift deed by Rajayya and Rajamma in favour of the plaintiff. Their allegation was that the plaintiff asked Rajayya and Rajamma to give him 0-1-4 share of land on lease at the rate of Rs. 30 per year and took them to Tehsil office and got a deed registered representing that it was only a lease deed. The plaintiff paid the lease amount to Rajayya and Rajamma for 1353 Fasli year. When they demanded for the next year the lease amount, the plaintiff turned round and stated that he was the owner and that he was not liable to pay the lease amount. It is only on this fact that Rajayya and Rajamma filed a civil suit in 1354 Fasli for the cancellation of the gift deed. The suit however was dismissed for default. It was contended that during the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff, Rajayya and Rajamma compromised under which the plaintiff relinquished his claim to 0-1-4 share. It is then in 1357-F. that the said Rajayya and Rajamma sold the suit land for a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the 1st defendant. It is in pursuance of this sale deed that the ist defendant is in possession. They raised the plea of limitation. They further raised a contention that since no permission was obtained from the Taluqdar under the Prevention of Alienation of Agricultural Lands Act of I349-F. hereinafter referred to as "The Act," the said gift deed is void and cannot be enforced in a Gourt of law.