VIYYAPU DANAYYA Vs. PEETHALA APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of his title in the plaint 'B' schedule property, for a direction to the defendants to put him in vacant possession of the 'B' Schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'A' Schedule property.

(2.) As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff purchased Ac. 1.25 cts. of land bearing patta No.70 in Sy.No.82/1 under a registered sale deed dated 24-3-1977. However, by the date of purchase, the defendants were residing in a house ('B' Schedule property). The vendors of the plaintiff told him that the defendants have been residing in the said house, that they will vacate the same as and when demanded, that the defendants also agreed before the plaintiff to vacate the house as and when he demands, that however, in the month of October, 1979 when the plaintiff asked to vacate the same, they refused to do so, that they have been obstructing the passage towards Bheemunipatnam-Visakhapatnam road and that they also started leaving their cattle into the lands. Therefore, he filed the suit for the above mentioned reliefs.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement contended that the above allegations are false. The house, cattle shed etc. are in existence since the fime of their fore-fathers and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same more than 200 years, and they have been enjoying the same in their own right. The plaintiff has been trying to tag on the plaint 'B' Schedule property which is nothing to do with the 'A' Schedule property and they are not in the same survey number. It was further contended that the defendants have been drawing water from the well from the time of their fore-fathers and that there is a demarcated path from their house to the well and that the plaintiff has no right to question the same. The Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff has got valid title to plaint 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is absolute owner of plaint 'B' Schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of plaint 'B' Schedule property? 4. Whether the plaint 'A' and 'B' Schedule are correct? 5.Whether the plaintiff's vendor has got title and right to sell plaint 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties? 6.Whether the defendants are in permissive possession of plaint 'B' Schedule property? 7.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 8. To what relief? The Trial Court on issues 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the right over the 'B' Schedule property and as the defendants are admittedly in possession of plaint 'B' Schedule property, the plaintiff would be entitled to the injunction against the defendants so far as the plaint 'A' Schedule property is concerned. On appeal, the learned I Additional District Judge confirmed the finding of the Trial Court, regarding 'B' Schedule property and has also set aside the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the plaint 'A' Schedule property, as there was no need for the Trial Court to grant injunction against the defendants in respect of 'A' Schedule property, as the defendants contended that they have never interfered with the possession of the plaintiff.