M. NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. T.L. BADRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 21/7/2015 passed in O.S.No.855 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, the plaintiff preferred this appeal.

(2.) The suit O.S.No.855 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff- Mogulla Narasimha Reddy seeking to declare him as owner and possessor of the land and for perpetual injunction against T.L.Badraiah-first defendant and T.L.Pentaiah-second defendant in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.8.00 guntas in Sy.No.364 situated at Pudoor Village and Gram Panchayat, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter, 'the suit schedule land') and it is bounded by North: Survey H.No.363/1 (Part), 363/2 (Part) belongs to Thokala Ramaiah, South: Government land; East: Land belongs to B.Narasimha Reddy and stone crusher; and West: Land in Sy.No.364(P), 363/1(P) of M.Vidhyavathi. He would assert that he is in exclusive, uninterrupted, continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land since more than twenty years and that his name reflects in the pahani patrika of 1992-93 ROR of the Pudur Village. His physical possession over the suit schedule land is open to the knowledge of the defendants and that he has been exercising his right of ownership over it. He would further submit that he cultivated the suit schedule land and raised the vegetable crop, maize etc and that he fenced the land with barbed wire and that even now the land is in his physical possession and enjoyment. He would also assert that he acquired title by adverse possession and his possession was to the knowledge of the real owners and that the defendants are making efforts to dispossess him from the suit schedule land on 19/11/2006, 26/11/2006 and on 28/11/2006 by force. He would also assert that the names of the defendants are erroneously entered into the pahani patrika and that the Mandal Revenue Officer without verifying the revenue records wrongly entered the names of the defendants and that when he came to know about the same, he gave an application to delete their names and after conducting an enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer held that the names of the defendants from possessor column should be deleted vide Proceedings No.E/7393/2004 dtd. 24/3/2005 and amendment was also made in the record of rights by deleting the names of the defendants. He would also state that as the defendants are still claiming the suit schedule land, he is advised to file a suit for declaration and as such he filed the present suit seeking declaration of title by adverse possession, to continue him in the possession of the land and also sought for perpetual injunction.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, while denying all the material allegations they would assert that they purchased the suit schedule land through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.7653 of 1991. Since then onwards they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. Plaintiff is owner of a part of the land in Sy.Nos.363/1 and 363/2 and his wife is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.3.13 guntas in Sy.No.364 and also land in Sy.No.363/1 and that the said property of the plaintiff and his wife is situated exactly behind the suit schedule land belonging to the defendants. They also assert that taking undue advantage of the existence of their land behind the suit schedule land, the plaintiff made an impression that he is in possession of the suit schedule land and manipulated the revenue officials and obtained mutation proceedings in collusion with them and that several allegations were made against the said Mandal Revenue Officer for passing illegal orders, and as such the defendants preferred appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further, when they came to know about the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, they tried to get the certified copy of the order, but the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a letter dtd. 17/2/2007 saying that the records pertaining to the said proceedings were not available. Basing on the said letter, the defendants preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Appeal No.A2/1122 of 2007.