KODUR PEDDA YELLA REDDY Vs. KODAR RAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the appellants-respondents- plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 1/2/2005 passed in A.S. No.22 of 2000 by the II-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 21/2/2000 passed in O.S No.11 of 1994 by the Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction.

(2.) The appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit contending that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 were the brothers and that their grandfather, by name, Papanna and the great grandfather of defendant No.1 were brothers. The father of defendant No.1, by name, Gopanna was the son of one Ramulu. The said Ramulu was the son of Pedda Venkanna, the younger brother of Papanna. The defendants were the son and wife of Gopanna. During the partition, the lands were divided and Gopanna sold the suit land in the year 1954 to the father of the plaintiffs under a private sale deed dtd. 11/5/1954. The plaintiffs were in possession of the said land since then and were paying land revenue and their names were entered in the revenue records. The defendants were trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs taking advantage of the fact that the name of the 1st defendant's father was in column No.1 of the pahani. The plaintiffs No.4 to 6 were brought on record as legal representatives of the plaintiff No.1.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement denying any private sale. They contended that if any sale was effected, the same would have been incorporated in the khasra of 1954-55 and the name of the father of the plaintiffs would have been recorded as purchaser in the khasra pahani of 1954-55. They further contended that there was a ban of alienation of the lands under Sec. 47 of the Tenancy Act between 1954 and 1969 and if such permission was not taken, the sale was void. On the basis of a private document, the title could not be passed to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs could not sustain the suit for the relief of declaration and for the consequential relief of injunction. They also denied that they interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs on 30/12/1993 and 23/1/1994 and tried to evict the plaintiffs. They contended that there was no cause of action to file the suit and the plaintiffs had no locus standi and prayed to dismiss the suit.