PAPPU SUSHEELA Vs. PAPPU KONDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful first defendant preferred S.A.No.405 of 2005 challenging the decree and judgment dated 08.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Bodhan, confirming the decree and judgment dated 12.02.1997 passed in O.S.No.30 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Yellareddy declaring that the plaintiffs are owners of suit schedule property and for recovery of possession. The unsuccessful first defendant preferred S.A.No.426 of 2005 challenging the decree and judgment dated 08.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.13 of 2003 (filed by the plaintiffs) on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Bodhan, granting mesne profits to the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that Balakistaiah and Venkaiah are sons of Pappu Kondaiah. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of late Balakistaiah through his first wife. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are the sons of late Balakistaiah through his second wife. The first defendant is the daughter and second defendant is the son of late Venkaiah. Balakistaiah acquired the suit schedule property along with some other property 40 years back and enjoyed the same as joint family property. Balakistaiah and Venkaiah have partitioned an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas and allotted Ac.0.37 guntas i.e., the suit schedule property to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2; an extent of Ac.0.38 guntas to defendant Nos.3 to 5; and Ac.0.38 guntas to late Venkaiah, who is paternal uncle of plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the extent of Ac.0.38 guntas fell to the share of their father, late Venkaiah. The plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property since 1976 - 77. The first plaintiff being a Teacher used to reside at Banswada and second plaintiff, who is a retired Teacher, never cultivated suit schedule property. On 11.09.1991, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 started digging a bore well in the suit schedule property as if the same belongs to them. The plaintiffs have applied for certified copies of Pahani Patriks for the year 1977 - 78 onwards; wherein the name of first plaintiff is mentioned as owner of suit schedule property and the name of the first defendant is shown in possessory column. The fifth defendant worked in Revenue department in various capacities and taking advantage of his official position, he manipulated the revenue records showing the name of first defendant in 'possessory column'. The first defendant is a handicapped woman since more than 40 years and the suit schedule property is not under cultivation. The defendants without any right whatsoever have taken possession of the suit schedule property in the year 1991. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(3.) The defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed the written statement admitting relationship between the parties, inter alia contending that late Balakistaiah and late Venkaiah acquired the suit schedule property jointly. In the family partition, late Venkaiah and late Balakistaiah got half share each including suit schedule property.