POTHURAJU Vs. B V SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal No. 400 for 1975 arises out of O. S. 232 of of 1970.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are as underO.S. 232: Plaintiff filed O. S. 232 of 1970 for evicting defendants 1 to 11 from the suit land which is an agricultural land bearing survey No. 79/6 admeasuring Ac. 5. 08 cents. Admittedly the suit land belonged to defendants 1 to 5. Defendants 1 and 3 died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 12 and 13 are the legal representatives of defecdent 3. First defendant is the father of deltndents 2 to 5. They constituted a joint family. Defendants 1 to 5 and one more son of the first defendant, who was at the time of the transaction was alive and who died subsequently mortgaged the suit land to defendants 6 and 7 on 27-3-1937 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- under the document Ex. A-2. It was a usufructuary mortgag. Defendants 6 and 7 were put in possession of the suit land. In 1965 the first defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan in order to discharge his debts including the mortgage debts. Plaintiff lent to him a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 27-3-1965 under agreement Ex. A1 which provided that defendants 1 to 5 would execute a usufructuary mortgage of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Out of the said sum of Rs. 4,000/- the plaintiff directly paid Ks 1,000/- to defendants 6 and 7 under endorsement Ex. A-8 and discharged the mortgage debt of defendants 1 to 5. Thereupon plaintiff obtained possession of the suit land from defendants 6 and 7.

(3.) In April 1965 defendants 6 to 11 obtained a usufructuary mortgage of the suit land from defendants 1 to 5 for a sum of Rs- 5,000/- and forced their entry into the suit land, it led to the institution or criminal proceedings under section 144 Cr. P. C. against the plaintiff and an exparte interim order was made therein. After the expiry of the period of that order there was a fresh quarrel between the plaintiff on one hand and defendants 1 to 11 on the other, it led to the institution of fresh proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. In those proceedings defendants 6 to 11 were found to be in possession. Therefore the learned Magistrate directed that defendants 6 to 11 be put into possession of the suit land.