A VINAYANANDA REDDY Vs. T GURUNATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted O. S. No. 170 of 1987 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District. The respondents herein were the defendants in the aforesaid suit. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, costs of the suit and other reliefs.

(2.) IT was averred by the plaintiff that the property described in the plaint schedule is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The suit village was originally in the Zamindari Estate. The grandfather of the plaintiff named Raghava Reddy @ Chengal Reddy acquired the suit property and other properties from the then Zamindar of Punganur Estate long prior to the notified date under the Estates Abolition Act. After the abolition of Estate during the survey and settlement operations in the year 1960, ryotwari patta was granted for the suit land by the Board of Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh in the name of the plaintiff's grandfather. The suit survey numbers have been correlated to Paimash No. 58 part and since then the plaintiffs father has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land as of their own right. The grandfather of the plaintiff died leaving behind him his three sons viz. , A. Subrahmanyam Reddy, A. R. Krishnamurthy Reddy and A. Pratap Chandra Reddy and they succeeded to the estate of plaintiff's grandfather including the suit property. Both Subrahmanyam Reddy and Pratap Chandra Reddy were residing at different places and doing their professions leaving the father of the plaintiff named Krishnamurthy Reddy alone to look after the family properties. The father of the plaintiff became sick and unable to manage the estate of the family properties for the last two years. Hence the plaintiff being eldest member of the family was looking after the management of the suit schedule properties and other properties for the benefit of all the sharers. During the life time of plaintiff's grandfather, mango garden was raised in an extent of Ac. 100-00 out of the vast extent of the land possessed by their family leaving the rest as fallow due to personal inconvenience and financial constraints. The plaintiff came to know that the revenue authorities have not implemented the Board of Revenue orders of 1960 in the revenue records. After hectic efforts finally on verification of the records, Board of Revenue Orders were implemented in revenue accounts on 5-4-1986 in the name of plaintiff's family. Earlier to the implementation of the orders and before getting favourable orders from the Board of Revenue for the suit land and properties, the suit lands were classified as assessed waste lands and the plaintiff's family paid land revenue under 2-A system. The plaintiff and his ancestors have perfected their title even by virtue of adverse possession. The defendants are strangers and having no right over the suit schedule property. Inspite of the fact, at the instigations of persons, who were inimical towards the plaintiff's family, defendants are trying to trespass into the suit land under the guise of D. K. T. patta said to have been issued by the then Punganur Tahasildar for some part of the suit property. On 3-3-1987 the defendants started removing the bushes with the help of their men. Defendants never reclaimed the suit land and they never exercised their rights over any extent of the suit property. The Government authorities have no right to grant D. K. T. patta for the suit land in favour of the defendants. D. K. T. patta alleged to have been issued in favour of the defendants is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not in a position to resist the high-handedness of the defendants. Hence the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) ON appearance, the first defendant filed written statement. It was adopted by the 2nd defendant. It was denied that the suit schedule property was ancestral property of the plaintiff. It was averred that the suit property was originally correlated to Py. No. 57 but not 58 as pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff or his ancestors never enjoyed the suit schedule land. In fact, the suit land and the land adjoining to it consisting of Ac. 40-00 was originally in possession of one A. V. Ramachandra Reddy, who also tried to obtain ryotwari patta. But the Commissioner of Settlement refused to grant patta in his favour and assumed the land in B. F. R. T. 33/82/57 dated 29-5-1957 in the Office of Board of Revenue. Later on, he was also evicted by the Tahasildar on 2-7-1957. Plaintiff's grandfather was having Ac. 20-00 of land to the south of above said Ac. 40-00 of land for which the plaintiff's grandfather had filed an application in S. R. 4363/11/pro before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor in which he deposed that the suit land and the adjoining land together consists of Ac. 40-00 belonging to A. V. Ramachandra Reddy and the same was in Py. No. 57. Original Py. Nos. 56 to 59 were correlated to S. No. 351 with an extent of Ac. 593-25 cents and classified as assessed waste. In the year 1962 this defendant and his wife occupied the suit land to the extent of Ac. 4-20 cents covered by S. No. 420/3 and reclaimed the same. They spent huge amounts and brought major portion of it under cultivation. Thus, since 1962 the suit land is in possession and enjoyment of defendants and they continued in possession and enjoyment of the same till 1984. Then the Tahasildar was pleased to issue the D. K. T. patta for the suit land in favour of the first defendant and in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of S. No. 420/3. The defendants levelled the land by using buldogers and they have spent an amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. The mutation of the names of the plaintiff in the revenue records are all fabricated to defeat the rights of these defendants. The plaintiff being landlord managed the revenue authorities and fabricated all the documents. The suit land is not covered by the orders of Board of Revenue dated 9-12-1960 relied by the plaintiff. D. K. T. patta of these defendants is not cancelled and at the same time he was not evicted from the suit land. Thus the defendants are in lawful possession of the suit land. With these averments, it was prayed by the defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.