PANCHAYAT OF KOKANASAYANAPALEM Vs. PAGOLU RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the orders of the 1st Additional District Judge, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam in I.A. No.191/98 in A.S. No.76/98, the present C.M.A. is filed by the Executive Officer, Kokanarayanapalem Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that there is tank in Rs.No.226 (Old Sy.No.l) situated in Kokanarayanapalem village. It is the case of the local washermen that the schedule property (tank) in question is their private land and by washing clothes as well as by catching fish in the tank they are eking out their livelihood. While things stood thus, for the first time during the year 1994 the Gram Panchayat tried to lease out the fishing rights in the tank by public auction. Questioning the action of the Gram Panchayat, the District Panchayat Officer as well as the auction purchaser, one Mr. Pagolu Ramaswamy, representing himself and other washermen of Gudur village filed O.S. No.262/95 seeking declaration of title in respect of the schedule tank and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the washermen community over the schedule tank and for the costs of the suits. During the pendency of the suit there was an injunction against the respondents from interfering with the possession of the tank by the petitioners. The 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, dismissed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 6-6-1998 solely on the ground that the source of title was not mentioned in any of these sale deeds. But, the fact remains that it is the case of the petitioners that since 1947 after abolition of the Estate they are in possession of the tank and the Gram Panchayat also admitted that for the first time they tried to lease out the fishing rights by way of public auction in 1994 and the tank was under possession and enjoyment of the washermen from 1947 to 1995 i.e., nearly 48 years, but the Junior Civil Judge did not consider the aspect whether the washermen perfected their title by adverse possession. Be that as it may, on an appeal preferred by the washermen, the 1st Additional District Judge in I.A. No.191/98 having considered these facts granted interim injunction pending disposa l of the appeal.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order the present C.M.A. has been filed. Mr. RajaRao appearing for Mr. Raghavendra Reddy strenuously contended that the Gram Panchayat not being a party to the proceedings is not bound by the injunction granted by the trial Court. The Counsel made such a statement perhaps on the basis that the Gram Panchayat was not made party defendant at the time of filing of the suit. But, subsequently the Gram Panchayat was brought on record as 4th defendant by filing I.A. No.919/96, which was ordered on 31 -12-1996. Hence, it cannot be contended that the Gram Panchayat is not a party to the proceedings and it is not bound by the injunction granted by the trial Court. Accordingly, the contention of the Counsel is rejected.