MADUPURU KESAVULU NAIDU DIED Vs. GOTTIPATI NARASIMHULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-12-1988 passed in AS No.107 of 1980 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24-3-1975 passed in OS No.75 of 1970 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chittoor.

(2.) The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit OS No.75 of 1970. The said suit was filed for declaration of the first plaintiffs title and for permanent injunction with respect to the suit property which consists of Ac. 10.56 cents in Paimaish No.42 situated in Pulicherlapalem village in Chandragiri taluq in Chittoor District. The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land originally belonged to the second defendant- Karenna as he got it under ryotwari patta issued by the Government in BPRT No.277/57, dated 26-4-1957. The first plaintiff purchased the suit property under two documents dated 10-8-1959; under the registered sale deed Ex.Al the first plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.3.97 cents; under the agreement Ex.A2 dated 10-8-1959 the first plaintiff purchased the remaining extent of Ac.6.59 cents and he was put in possession of full extent of Ac.10.56 cents on the same date and he remained in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property in his own right, title and interest. When the first defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property in the middle of October, 1969, the plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking the reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) The second defendant-Karenna remained ex parte. The first defendant resisting the claim of the plaintiffs filed his written statement contending that he purchased an extent of Ac.6.59 cents in Paimaish No.42 from the second defendant under registered sale deed dated 2-11-1967 (Ex.B1) for a consideration of Rs. 1,000.00and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land since date of sale in his favour, that the said extent of Ac.6.59 cents was included in the forest poramboke and that he got it released from the said forest poramboke by the Forest Settlement Officer by an order dated 16-12-1968 (F,x.B6) and that the plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of Ac.6.59 cents and that the plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable.