A SIMHACHALAM Vs. B PYDAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1, 2 and 7 are the appellants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal in brief are that the first respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit against the appellants and the other respondents for declaration of title and possession alleging that in pursuance of the agreement to purchase the property in suit through Ex. A-1, dated 8-5-64, he had leased out the same to defendant No. 6 through Kadapa Ex. A-4 dated 7-2-1968 for a period of five years and thereafter had obtained the release deed Ex. A-5 through letter dated 27-5-73. After the surrender of lands, he started ploughing the suit lands. While so, on 30-5-1973 the appellants and other respondents disturbed his possession. Therefore, he had to file suit in O.S.No. 62/73 on 6-6-1973 for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing his possession; but the suit was dismissed as the first respondent had failed to establish his possession on the date of the suit. Thereafter, the first respondent-plaintiff had purchased the suitproperty from his vendors through the registered sale deed Ex. A-3 on 10-8-78 and therefore he is entitled to a declaration of title and to recover possession from the appellants and the remaining respondents. He has also alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the 7th respondent, i.e., defendant No. 7 had purchased a portion of the suit property and therefore he is a necessary party to the suit.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit alleging that in the earlier suit it was found that the agreement of sale Ex. A-1 and the alleged part payments evidenced by Exs. A-4, A-34, A-35 and Kadapa Ex. A-4 had been declared as fabricated documents and the title of the first respondent-plaintiff had also been investigated and it was found that he had no title to the suit property and he was not in possession even from the date of alleged agreement of sale Ex. A-l dt. 8-5-64. They have further pleaded that they were cultivating the suit lands from times immemorial through their ancestors and have acquired title by adverse possession. They have further pleaded that the suit is barred under Section 11 of C. P. C. as also under Order II Rule 2 C. P. C. The trial Court on assessment of the evidence on record dismissed the suit. This order was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit and decreed the suit as prayed for.