AGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGA RAO Vs. INDUKURI RAMACHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, in IA No. 788 of 1998 in OS No.98 of 1998 on 22-3-1999, whereby the application for temporary injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) On 29-10-1998, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents alleging that he is the owner in possession of Ac.22-76 cts. of land situated in village Agnigundala (for short 'the suit fields') and had raised cotton crop in about Ac.6-00 cts., maize and red gram crop in about Ac.8-00 cts. and tobacco in Ac.1-00 cts. and had ploughed the remaining suit fields for seedling, but the respondents had started threatening him to dispossess, therefore, the respondents should be permanently restrained from disturbing his possession over the suit fields. He also filed an application for temporary injunction and ex parte temporary injunction was granted. The respondents filed IA No.874 of 1998 for vacating the ex parte temporary injunction alleging that they have purchased the suit fields through registered sale deed dated 16-7-1975, Ex.Bl, and had been delivered the vacant possession of the suit fields on that day. They have further alleged that they have been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit fields and, therefore, ex parte temporary injunction should be vacated.

(3.) The lower Court found that though the sale deed, Ex.B1, had been executed in contravention of Section 17(1) A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Land Reforms Act'), but the sale deed is not void but it is voidable, because the word 'void' used in Section 17 of the Land Reforms Act should be read as voidable in order to be effective to the requirement of the Legislature as the intention of the Legislature is only to disregard the sales which have been made in contravention of Section 17(1) of the Land Reforms Act. The lower Court also found that there is recital in the sale deed, Ex.B1, regarding delivery of possession of the suit fields to the respondents and that the entries in the Adangal, Ex.B8, for Fasli 1408, equivalent to the year 1998-99, show that the respondents were in possession of the suit fields on the date of the institution of the suit. Holding so, the trial Court vacated the ex parts interim injunction order, and dismissed the application for temporary injunction.