P BUCHI REDDY Vs. ANANTHULA SUDHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9-12-1991 in A.S.No. 14/86 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Warangal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-5-1985 passed in O.S.No. 279/1978 on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Warangal. The parties herein are being referred as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The appellants-plaintiffs filed the said suit O.S.No. 279/1978 for the reliefof permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property which consists of open plots bearingNo. 13/776/Bmeasuring 110 Sq. yards and 13/776/C measuring 187 Sq. yards situated within the municipal limits of Warangal. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff purchased the plot bearing 13/776/B and the 2nd plaintiff purchased the plot 13/776/E from one Rukumini Bai (P.W.4) for valid consideration of Rs. 600/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively under two registered sale deeds Exs.A-1 and A-2 dated 9-12-1968 and from the date of purchase the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the said plots, that after purchase the said plots have been mutated in their names in the municipal records and that the defendant who has no interest or right in the suit plots is trying to interfere with their possession. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for the above said relief. Resisting the claim of the plaintiffs the defendant filed the written statement contending that the averments in the plaint are false that the suit plots belong to K.V. Damodar Rao (D.W.2) and the defendant purchased the same under the registered sale deed (the original of Ex.B-1) dated 7-1-1977 and he was put in possession of the same and that after purchase he approached municipality for permission for construction of a building and permission was granted and that he obtained a loan by mortgaging the land for construction of the house and that when he started construction the plaintiffs obstructed and that thereafter the plaintiffs filed the suit, and that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs' vendor Rukuminibai had no right in the suit property. The trial Court settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit property (house plots); (2) Whether the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plots; and (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction. During the course of trial P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant examined D.Ws. 1 and 2 and Exs. B-1 to B-11 were marked on behalf of the defendant, and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked as they were produced by the witness. The 2nd plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff got themselves examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. The plaintiffs' vendor Rukuminibai was examined as P.W.4. The defendant got himself examined as D.W.I and his vendor was examined as D.W.2. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned District Munsiff held on issue number one that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as purchasers from Rukuminibai on the date of the filing of the suit and on issue No. 2 that the defendant had interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs and on issue No. 3 that the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for and consequently the plaintiffs' suit was decreed with costs. Aggrieved of that judgment and decree the defendant preferred the appeal A.S. 14/83 to the District Court. The learned lower Appellate Judge on reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record reversed the findings of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs' suit for mere injunction without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable that it was the defendant who was in possession of the suit plots on the date of the filing of the suit and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction. Consequently the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate Court the plaintiffs have come with this Second Appeal.

(3.) Heard the Counsel on either side. Learned Counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs took me through the impugned judgment and also that of the trial Court and the evidence on record.