MATHALURU BAJJAPPA Vs. MADAMANCHI VENKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judges Court, Anantapur, confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges Court Anantapur in Original Suit No. 72 of 1953, decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit properties.

(2.) The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that they are the absolute owners of the property described in the schedule thereto, the same having been acquired by their late father Venkataramanappa for consideration, from one Boya Kristappa, that the patta of the lands was issued in his name some 35 years before suit, that the plaintiffs father and after his death, the mother of the plaintiffs as their guardian and subsequently on the plaintiffs attaining majority the plaintiffs themselves, were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in their own right, that the said possession and enjoyment during the said period about 35 years were open, adverse & peaceful and consequently whatever defect there might happen to be in the title set up namely of the "acquisition for consideration, they must be deemed to have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession.

(3.) It is also alleged in plaint that the defendant obtained possession of the suit property, which consisted of about 40 acres of land, through court, by falsely and Fraudulently setting up his entitlement thereto, that the defendant had brought an order for valuation of the crops in the lands of the temple of Sri Rama to the extent of about 60 acres, in the same Survey No. 440-B in which the suit land is also included, and that under the cover of the order of Court "the defendant took away the crops from the suit land also on the ground that he was entitled to the same having given security". It is also claimed that the defendant had admitted the rights of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule lands in those proceedings. It is also alleged that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land, that his possession is, therefore, unlawful and no better than that of a trespasser. The plaintiffs prayed in the plaint for a decree declaring the plaintiffs absolute ownership of the suit land, for possession of the same by ejecting the defendant therefrom and for past and future mesne profits and costs.