Nelavai Meenakshi Alia Tupili ... vs Nagareddy Damodar Reddy,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2751 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
 MAIN CASE No: S.A.NO.242 OF 2022
                                   PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl.                                                                                                    OFFICE
                                                                                                        NOTE
No.
       DATE                                             ORDER
2.    24.06.2022   KSR,J

                                                S.A.NO.242 OF 2022

                      Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellants.

                      The plaintiffs in O.S.No.394 of 2000 on the file of the Court of
                   Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore are the appellants herein. They filed
                   the above said suit for declaration and for recovery of possession of the
                   suit schedule property and also for recovery of Makta for the year March-
                   1998 to February-1999 and March-1999 to February-2000.

                      It is their specific case that the father of the plaintiffs purchased an
                   extent of Ac.1.77 cents in Sy.No.386/B of Eduru Bit I Village under a
                   registered sale deed, bearing document No.4368 of 1985, dated 30-04-
                   1985 from one Duvvuru Venku Reddy for a valuable sale consideration
                   and ever since they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said
                   property. In the said vacant land, the respondent/defendant took Ac.0.40

cents from the appellants for the purpose of straitening the fish tank bund on a yearly Makta. The sale deed was marked as Ex.A-1. As the defendant is not vacating and claiming ownership of the above said property by denying the title of the appellants, they filed the above suit.

On the other hand, the respondent/defendant disputed the title of the plaintiffs and he is claiming title under an oral partition from his jointly family members.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that he filed Ex.A-1 registered sale deed evidencing his title over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the respondent did not file any document evidencing proof of title over the suit schedule property.

On an elaborate discussion, the trial court dismissed the suit, which was confirmed by the first appellate court on the ground that there is a cloud in the title.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and for the following substantial question of law,

"Whether the judgments of both the courts below were vitiated by non considering the material evidence on record and misreading the evidence?

ADMIT the Second Appeal.

                                                                             _________________
                                                                             K.SURESH REDDY,J
                   TSNR
 Sl.                         OFFICE
                             NOTE
No.
      DATE          ORDER




             TSNR