NALLAMILLI SATYANARAYAN REDDY Vs. NALLAMILLI CHINA VENKATA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are against Judgment and decree, dated 29. 12. 1989 in O. S. No. 207 of 1980 passed by the Court of Subordinate judge, Rajahmundry. A. S. No. 938 of 1990 is filed by defendants (hereafter called, defendants' appeal) and A. S. No. 1188 of 1990 is filed by sole plaintiff (hereafter called, plaintiff's appeal ). Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment, wherein the parties are referred to by their status in the suit.

(2.) NALLAMILLI Veerreddy, resident of gollalamamidada owned considerable extents of landed property including the land admeasuring Acs. 6. 79 cents in survey no. 127/3 situated at Uppalapudi village, near rajahmundry (hereafter called, suit schedule property ). Through his first wife Rajamma, he had two sons, namely, Peda venkatareddy and China Venkatareddy (plaintiff ). The former was given in adoption to Sabella Gangireddy, who is co-brother of veerreddy. After death of his wife Rajamma in 1940, Veerreddy married Lakshmi Devi, third defendant. Out of their wedlock, defendants 1 and 2, and four daughters were born. On 08. 05. 1949, Veerreddy executed a registered settlement deed, under which plaintiff was given suit schedule property. As he was minor, Sabbella Bulliamma, w/o Gangireddy, who is co-brother of veerreddy, acted as guardian. Each sharer under settlement deed was put in possession of their respective shares. Sabbella gangireddy managed the property upto 1951. Thereafter, Pulagam Gangireddy, son-in-law of Bulliamma managed plaintiff's property till 1972. As he was shifted to Mysore, plaintiff's father Veerreddy was entrusted with the management of property of plaintiff. After death of Veerreddy in 1979, defendants allegedly trespassed into suit schedule property, cut away six mango trees, eight cashew trees, nine teakwood trees and one hundred and fifty Palmyrah trees worth rs. 5,500/ -. Plaintiff, therefore, issued notice dated 30. 04. 1979 to which defendants got issued a reply, dated 03. 05. 1979, denying plaintiff's version. Therefore, plaintiff filed suit for declaration of possession, for recovery of Rs. 5,500/- being the value of trees cut by defendants. The plaintiff also prayed for mesne profits by amending plaint vide orders, dated 08. 02. 1982 in I. A. No. 1439 of 1981.

(3.) INITIALLY, defendants 1 and 2 were arrayed in suit. They field written statements. They admitted about settlement/partition deed, dated 08. 05. 1949 executed by veerreddy. They, however, denied possession of land by Sabbella Gangireddy, and thereafter Pulagam Gangireddy. They alleged that their father alone was in possession of land till his death and thereafter their mother came into possession. They also allege that their mother Lakshmi Devi purchased suit schedule property from plaintiff in 1968 for valuable consideration and that she alone was in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. They also contended that they perfected title by adverse possession. According to them, plaintiff received sale consideration in full, who refused to execute sale deed.