NAMMI VENKATA SWAMY Vs. NODAGALA SANYASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P. Sri raghuram, the learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri Kowturu Vinay kumar, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE 1st respondent in this second appeal is the plaintiff in the suit O. S. No. 277/80 on the file of Principal District Munsif, visakhapatnam. The plaintiff instituted the suit as against defendants 1 to 11 at the first instance praying for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the permanent tenant with the rights of occupancy in relation to the plaint schedule property and further for a consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 8 restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment in relation to the plaint schedule property. Defendants 12 to 23 were brought on record as per orders in la. No. 1 175/92 dated 19. 9. 1992.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the suit. The learned District Munsif, Visakhapatnam in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the Issues, recorded the evidence of PW. 1 to PW. 4, d. W. 1 to D. W. 4, marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 7, exs. B. 1 to B. 9 and after recording appropriate findings, came to the conclusion that the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants 1, 3, 5 to 10, 12 to 23 granting the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the permanent tenant with rights of occupancy of the plaint schedule property and consequently granted the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1, 3, 5 to 8, 12 to 19 from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 8 and 12 to 19, being aggrieved of the said Judgment and Decree made in the aforesaid suit carried the matter by way of Appeal A. S. No. 148/95 on the file of II Additional District judge, Visakhapatnam and the appellate court having framed the Points for consideration at Para 8, proceeded to discuss the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Court of first instance commencing from paras 9 to 32 and further referred to the decisions in Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, 1989 (4) SCC 131, k. Krishna v. T. T. Devasthanams, 1995 (2) ALD 696 (DB) = 1995 (2) ALT 122 (DB), Gajuwaka Gram Panchayat v. M. V. Suryanarayana, 1995 (2) ALD 174 (DB)= 1995 (2) ALT 113 (DB), Kanhaiyalal v. Dr. D. R. Banaji and others, AIR 1958 sc 725 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the same, appellants 11 to 14 and 17 further carried the matter by way of the present second appeal.