VIJAYABHARATHI Y Vs. Y MANIKYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on merits.

(2.) Strictly speaking no question of law is involved in this case. The appellants who are the plaintiffs 2 to 4 in O.S.No.261 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Parchur and respondents in A.S. No.20 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Parchur have challenged the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Parchur allowing the appeal filed by the respondents dated 28-2-1997 as against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Parchur dated 21-3-1991. Reference to the parties in the status they occupied in the first Court would be convenient as plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.3.35 cts. described in plaint schedule which they deciphered as Plot No.A in the suit plan. The defendants resisted the suit. A trial was afforded to them where they adduced both oral and documentary evidence to comprise in the ocular testimony of the 1st plaintiff as P.W.I and two other witnesses as per P.Ws.2 and 3 and defendants 1 and 2 as per D.Ws.1 and 2 and another witness as per D. W 3 and by way of documentary evidence as per Exs.A-1 to A-18 for the plaintiffs and Exs.B-1 to B-3 for the defendants and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked as Court documents. Having heard both sides and with the materials before the Court, the learned Principal District Munsif, Parchur held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and accordingly decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge took a contrary view based upon the same materials after hearing both sides and set aside the Judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif and dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by that, this second appeal is preferred.

(3.) Mr. K. Harinath, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has raised the following legal grounds: The learned Subordinate Judge ignoring the entries in Exs.A-3, A-16, A-17 and A-18 and also Exs.X-1 and X-2 about the extent of the land belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants was wrong in holding the legal title of the suit property against the plaintiffs which he ought to have presumed by virtue of Section 6 of A.P. (Record of) Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books etc., Act, 1971. The inferences of the learned Sub-Judge against the plaintiffs is opposed to the evidence in the case and the admissions of the defendants and their own documents which amount to wrong inferences of evidence amounting to question of law requiring interference in Second Appeal. The learned Sub-Judge had failed to consider certain important circumstances and the documents in favour of the plaintiffs in support of the possession and the legal basis for possession of the suit schedule property. The learned Advocate Sri Subbarao for the respondents has contended that these questions of law will not arise in this case and even assuming that they arise, there is no error in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge who has on reassessment of the same materials and evidence came to a different conclusion. As regards the non-consideration of certain documents and circumstances by the learned Subordinate Judge, as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellants, the learned Advocate for the respondents contend that the material evidence was properly reassessed by the learned Subordinate Judge and in fact there is the report of the Commissioner showing the circumstance that there has been independent plots in the suit schedule survey number thereby indicating definite possession of each plot by the plaintiffs and defendants who are the members of the same family and the probable extent of the land which is less than what actually the plaintiffs are claiming. He also contends that there are no circumstances justifying interference by this Court regarding the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge.