K. HARI KISHAN Vs. BANDA BALRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order/decree dtd. 18/7/2019 passed by the learned XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1315 of 2017 in O.S.No.916 of 2017, the appellants, who are plaintiffs in the above said suit, have filed this appeal. The defendants in the said suit have filed I.A.No.1315 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, seeking rejection of plaint in O.S.No.916 of 2017. The trial court accepted the contentions of the respondents herein and allowed the I.A., rejecting the plaint filed by the appellants.

(2.) The appellants have claimed that the trial court erred in allowing I.A. with an observation that the suit filed by them is barred under Sec. 99 of the AP (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') by simply relying on the documents filed by the respondents inspite of the fact that they have also filed some documents and that the documents filed by the respondents are not proved by way of acceptable evidence. According to the appellants, as there is no proper record, there is an ambiguity with regard to the rights of the protected tenants as pleaded by the respondents. The appellants also claimed that the trial court committed error in allowing the application filed by the respondents without considering the record filed by them, though it has placed reliance on the documents of the respondents without sufficient proofs. They have also claimed Ex.P1, the alleged extract of protected tenancy referred to by the respondents was filed without proper translation, has been taken into consideration by the trial court. The appellants have claimed that there is no sufficient proof or evidence with regard to the alleged protected tenancy and as such, the trial court could not have allowed the petition filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC by going into the merits of the case.

(3.) The above said suit is filed by the appellants for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It was their case as per plaint averments that one V.Ramachandra Reddy was the original owner and pattadar of the land in Sy.Nos.336, 337 and 338 of Lemoor Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The grand-father of the appellants/plaintiffs by name Kasimshetty @ Uppari Achaiah along with another person namely Varadareddy were cultivating the lands in Sy.Nos.336 and 337 and they along with one Banda Ramaiah (Father of first respondent/D1) were cultivating lands in Sy.No.338 and they were jointly in possession of lands for cultivating the same. According to the plaint averments, the above said tenancy was on the basis of 'Koulnama'. They have also pleaded that the names of their grand father and Varadareddy were shown as possessors of the land in Sy.Nos.336 and 337, and name of grand father of appellant, Varadareddy, the father of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 were shown as possessors of land in Sy.No.338. For this purpose, they relied on the pahanies of the years 1955-1958 and subsequent pahanies. The appellants further claimed that after the death of their grand father, their father and Varadareddy cultivated the land in Sy.Nos.336 and 337 and they have also pleaded that for the purpose of convenient cultivation, Uppari Balraju used to cultivate the land in Sy.No.336, Uppari Narahari used to cultivate the land in Sy.No.337 whereas, the father of the plaintiffs namely Uppari Ramulu used to cultivate land in Sy.No.338. Subsequently, the father of the appellants, namely, Uppari Ramulu had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.6-26 gts out of Ac.13-13 gts of Sy.No.338 from the original pattadar and has obtained original pattadar passbook. The main suit has been filed by the appellants with a specific plea that after the death of their father, the appellants herein continued the possession of Ac.6-26 gts of land in Sy.No.338 which is shown as Suit Schedule property and they have further claimed that in their absence in the village, the respondents/defendants have occupied their land and got their names entered in the revenue records, as such, they sought for declaration of title and recovery of possession.