KATHALA YELLAIAH Vs. KATHALA CHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiffs are the appellants in this CMA. This appeal itself is directed against an order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar dismissing the application for injunction filed by the appellants herein against the respondents. The trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the matter and upon appreciation of the documentary evidence and material available on record came to the conclusion that the appellants herein are not entitled for any relief of temporary injunction in their favour. In the trial Court, Exs.A1 to A27 were marked on behalf of the appellants herein and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The appellants herein claimed to be in possession of an extent of Ac.15.09 gts. in Sy. No.144 situated at Chokkalonigudem, Kondurg of Mahaboobnagar District. It is their case that the petition schedule land originally belonged to one Nalamoni Ramaiah and on his death his wife Nalamoni Venkatamma succeeded to the same and continued in possession till the year 1974-75. It is their case that during the year 1975-76 appellants 1 and 2 have occupied an extent of Ac.7.00 and Ac.3.00 respectively and remained in possession thereof continuously without any interruption whatsoever from any one. They have set up the plea of acquisition of title by prescription. Appellants 3 and 4 claimed to be in possession of the remaining extent of Ac.5.09 gts. being the daughters of late Nalamoni Venkatamma. According to the appellants, the respondent herein got his name entered in the revenue records, namely, pahani patrik from the year 1989-90 to 1995-96 and also got his name entered in the column relating to possession of the said lands in the pahani patrik for the years 1975-76, 1978-79 and 1980-81 and on the basis of the said entries, an attempt was made by the respondent to dispossess them from the said lands. The respondent is alleged to have interfered with their possession on 15-7-1997. But the appellants have successfully resisted the illegal attempt of the respondent. It is under those circumstances, the appellants herein have filed the application for grant of temporary injunction.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent that he is the protected tenant of the entire extent of land and was in possession of the same. It is his case that appellants I and 2 herein tried to interfere with his possession and he made a representation before the Tahsildar, Shadnagar and on such representation, necessary directions were issued by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Inspector to protect his possession. However, appellants 1 and 2 continued their attempts to dispossess him and he was constrained to file OS No,25 of 1982 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Shadnagar for perpetual injunction. Further it is his case that during the pendency of the suit, he was dispossessed forcibly. Thereafter the suit was withdrawn by the respondent herein with a view to avail the remedy available to him under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'). The proceedings were accordingly initiated for restoration of possession before the Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar. While the rnatler stood thus, the appellants I and 2 herein have filed petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar purporting it to be under Rule 3 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Records (correction) Rules, 1956 for inclusion of their names in the tenancy records along with the name of the respondent. The same has been dismissed by the competent authority holding that the respondent alone is the protected tenant. Appellants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Joint Col lector, Mahaboobnagar and the same was also dismissed on 28-10-1991.