JAKKULA SHANKARAIAH Vs. AGGI BHEEMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dtd. 25/9/2013 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad, in A.S.No.24 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 22/9/2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, in O.S.No.14 of 2009. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking permanent injunction. By the judgment dtd. 22/9/2011, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for.

(2.) O.S.No.14 of 2009 was filed by Aggi Bheemaiah-plaintiff against Jakkula Shankaraiah and Jakkula Banaiah-defendants, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the land in Sy.No.20 of an extent of Ac.13.13 cents situated at Gampalapalli Villagee, Tandur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule land'). The plaintiff would submit that he purchased the suit schedule land on 28/2/2005 from Durgam Rajaiah for a valid sale consideration of Rs.92,000.00 through a registered Sale Deed bearing No.433 of 2005 and after receiving the entire sale consideration, possession was delivered to him and mutated the suit schedule land in his name in the revenue records also and accordingly the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tandur, had issued title deed and pattadar pass book. From then onwards the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. On 12/4/2009 while he was clearing the bushes in the suit schedule land, the defendants tried to evict him and also threatened to dispossess him, and as such, he filed the present suit.

(3.) The first and second defendants filed their written statement contending that one Sriramulu Chinnaiah was the owner and pattadar of the suit schedule land. The second defendant purchased the said land from him for a consideration of Rs.300.00 under ordinary sale deed and the first defendant is his brother and both of them are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. In the year 1984 when Sriramulu Chinnaiah and his agents tried to interfere, the defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.22 of 1984 seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed in their favour and that the plaintiff herein has no manner of right over the suit schedule land and the sale deed is not binding upon them, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.