RAVILLA DORASWAMY NAIDU Vs. AARL RANGAIAH NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Defendants Nos.2 and 6 are the appellants. They are aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi in A.S.31 of 1986 by which the Judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit for injunction in O.S.313 of 1978/O.S.No.208 of 1977 TPT have been reversed and decree for injunction has been passed.

(2.) . The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that Ac.1.77 cents of land in Sy.No.167 renumbered as Sy.No.167/15 (for short Suit Land) was assigned to some other person by Tahsildar, Puttur vide order dated 4-6-1970 because the pattedar did not cultivate the land within three years from the date of assignment. The Tahsildar, Puttur cancelled the patta vide order dated 15-12-1976 including other pattas and assigned the suit land to the plaintiff through order dated 3-1-1977. He was in possession of the same and had started cultivating the same. All the defendants started disturbing his possession over the suit land and, therefore, he is entitled to obtain a decree for permanent injunction against them. The second defendant filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff in toto. The defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 adopted the written statement of the second defendant and subsequently added defendant No.6 through his written statement alleging that the suit land was never allotted to the plaintiff and he was never in possession of the same. The Tahsildar, Puttur had granted a patta in favour of him in respect of the suit land vide order dated 4-6-1970 and since then the 6th defendant was in cultivating possession of the same.

(3.) The trial Court on assessment of documentary and oral evidence on record did not rely on the evidence of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that his evidence has been contradicted by his own witness P.W.2, that the entries in Ex.A-5 contradict his statement made on oath before it and that his statement is also falsified by his earlier statement on oath given before the Criminal Court in C.C.No.155 of 1979, certified copy of which is at Ex.B-1. It also did not rely on the revenue records which are at Exs.A-6 and A-7 on the ground that the same has not been signed by the Tahsildar who was the competent authority to put the signature on the same. The Trial Court holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was the pattedar of the suit land and was in possession of the same on the date of institution of the suit, dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi.