K. Sathyamoorthy vs R. Mohanudu
2023 Latest Caselaw 5243 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 SECOND APPEAL No.262 of 2007


JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment

and decree in A.S.No.127 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District

Judge, Chittoor, dated 13.10.2006, dismissing the Judgment and

decree in O.S.No.331 of 1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Chittoor, dated 28.08.2004.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent

herein is the plaintiff in the Original Suit No.331 of 1997 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.331 of 1997 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, with a prayer to declare the

title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for grant of

permanent injunction against the defendant and his men from

interfering with the plaint schedule property.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, partly

decreed the suit by granting permanent injunction and the suit in 2 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

respect of declaration of title of plaintiff over the suit schedule

property is dismissed. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful

defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before

the first appellate Court. The plaintiff has not filed any appeal

against the dismissal of title in the suit. The learned I Additional

District Judge, Chittoor, dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the

decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby,

the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way

of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will

be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint

averments in OS.No.331 of 1997, is as follows:

The plaintiff is an Ex-Serviceman and was retired from service

in August 1989 and he is a landless poor person and on his

application, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem assigned

the land to the plaintiff Under D.K.T.No.89/4/1403, dated 31.10.1993

and after observing all the formalities, delivered possession of the 3 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

same to the plaintiff and subsequently the plaintiff has been

personally cultivating the said land by raising ground-nut crop. The

plaintiff paid land revenue to the Government and also taken crop

loan from Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Bangarupalem and

discharged the loan. He spent more than Rs.10,000/- for reclaiming

the land. Government granted pattadar past book and title deed in

favour of the plaintiff by recognizing his possession over the land.

ii. The said land was originally assigned to one Karakala Subba

Naidu, who died on 24.01.1991. His wife predeceased him. He had

no issues. He executed a will deed dated 20.12.1979 in favour of

one Rajamma, who is the wife of his brother-in-law by bequeathing

half share in the schedule mentioned land. Rajamma took

possession of the land after the death of Kakarla Subba Naidu. At

the time of assigning of suit schedule land i.e., Ac.3.52 cents to

Kakarla Subba Naidu, he was living with his younger brother

Lingama Naidu. As such, the said Lingama Naidu was enjoying half

share in the suit land. On 18.01.1978 Lingama Naidu sold the same

to one Easwaramma, who is the wife of his brother-in-law and

delivered possession of the same. The said Easwaramma sold the 4 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

same to one D.Subramanyam Naidu, who is the brother-in-law of

Kakarla Subba Naidu. Thus, Subramanyam Naidu and his mother

Rajamma entitled the entire Survey number. Subramanyam Naidu

and his mother Rajamma migrated to Mekalasanipalle near

Punganur, in the year 1993. Prior to their migration, they jointly

relinquished their rights over the plaint schedule land to the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem. The Mandal Revenue Officer

having satisfied about the relinquishment of their rights, accepted

the relinquishment and cancelled the patta that was granted earlier.

Kakarla Subba Naidu had only one brother i.e., Lingama Naidu. His

half share was sold to Easwaramma. Subba Naidu was being

looked after by Rajamma and her son Subramanyam Naidu during

his last days. On cancellation of the patta in favour of Subba Naidu,

it was assigned in the name of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff

ploughed the land and made it ready for sowing dry crops, the

defendant, who has no right over the plaint schedule property, with

an intention to harass the plaintiff, is seriously contemplating to

interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is

constrained to file the suit.

                                   5                                VGKRJ
                                                            SA 262 of 2007

7. The brief facts of the written statement, filed by the defendant,

are as follows :-

The plaintiff is a rich-landlord having more than Ac.7-00 cents

of land near Walajah. The contention of the plaintiff that the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem has assigned the plaint schedule

property to the plaintiff in the year, 1993, is not correct. Originally, 35

years back Government granted D.K.T. patta in favour of Kakarla

Subba Naidu. The original patta granted by the Government was

lost. Kakarla Subba Naidu had one elder brother, Pedda Subba

Naidu and one Younger brother Lingama Naidu. They are nothing to

do with the suit schedule property. The defendant is the grand-son

of Peada Subba Naidu. Kakarla Subba Naidu was unmarried and

living with the family of the defendant. The defendant and his father

Chengalaraya Naidu looked after the welfare of Subba Naidu till his

death. Kakarla Subba Naidu had executed an un-registered sale

deed in a sound and disposing state of mind on 20.07.1990

bequeathing his property in favour of the defendant. Subsequently

he died on 24.01.1991. Till his death, he was in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant and his

father Chengalaraya Naidu were raising crops in the suit schedule 6 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

property on behalf of Subba Naidu. After death of Subba Naidu, the

defendant became entitled to the suit property and took possession

and started cultivating the same.

ii. The contention of the plaintiff that Subba Naidu executed a will

on 20.12.1979 bequeathing his half-share in the suit property to

Rajamma, is false. The total extent belongs to Subba Naidu alone

and his brothers have nothing to do with the suit property. The

contention of the plaintiff that after the death of Subba Naidu half

share was enjoyed by one Rajamma is incorrect. In the year, 1989

itself Rajamma and her family was migrated to Mekalavaripalle. One

Lingama Naidu was enjoying half share in the suit property also is a

false contention. The alleged sale of half share to Easwaramma on

18.01.1978 by Lingama Naidu is not valid sale. The allegation that,

Easwaramma sold the same to D.Subramanyam Naidu is also

denied by the defendant. The other contention that Subramanyam

Naidu and his mother became entitled to the entire survey number

and were in possession and enjoyment of the same is also denied

by the defendant. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of

the property from 24.01.1991. The alleged relinquishment of rights 7 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

by Subramanyam Naidu and Rajamma is untenable. The defendant

filed a suit against one Hanumantha Boyadu, who is the father-in-

law of the plaintiff in OS.No.188/1997 on the file of I Additional

Junior Civil Judge's Court, Chittoor. After serving of summons the

said Hanumantha Boyadu and the plaintiff herein conspired and

brought into existence the all the revenue records with the

assistance of political persons and with the help of Mandal Revenue

Officer. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the

suit property. The patta granted by Revenue Authorities is a created

one. In the year, 1995 the defendant applied for issue of patta in his

favour along with claim form and photo copy of the will executed by

Subba Naidu in his favour. The defendant preferred an appeal

before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor questioning the grant

of patta in favour of the plaintiff as illegal and the same is pending.

The defendant is also paying cist to the suit property regularly.

There is no cause of action. The suit for declaration of title is not

maintainable, as the suit is based on D.K.T patta, as such the suit is

liable to be dismissed, 8 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Chittoor settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of plaintiff

PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On

behalf of defendant DW1 to DW4 were examined and Ex.B1 to

Ex.B10 were marked.

10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, after

conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on

consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, partly

decreed the suit granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff

restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and

dismissed the suit with regard to declaration of plaintiff's title over

the plaint schedule property. Felt aggrieved thereby, the

unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in AS.No.127 of 2005 9 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

before the I Additional District Judge's Court, Chittoor, wherein, the

following points came up for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction?

2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the judgment of the lower Court?

11. The learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, i.e., first

appellate judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points,

as above, against the defendant/appellant and in favour of the

plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the appeal of the defendant. Felt

aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant in

A.S.No.127 of 2005 filed the present second appeal before the

composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by

mentioning the following substantial questions of law that arise for

decision of this Court:

1. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit partly granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff without the plaintiff establishing his possession of the suit property?

2. Whether the courts below could rely upon Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 documents which were non-est as the said documents were suspended under Ex.B10 orders?

                                  10                              VGKRJ
                                                          SA 262 of 2007

3. Whether the judgments and the decree are not vitiated since the material evidence of DW4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem was not taken into consideration?

4. Whether the decree of permanent injunction is sustainable against the real owner?

5. Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the rightful owner is the government is not vitiated in view of the evidence of DW4?

6. Whether the Courts below are right in granting injunction against the defendant in the light of the clinching evidence adduced by the defendant?

12. When the matter was before the composite High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the aforesaid substantial questions of

law raised by the appellant are considered by the composite High

Court of Andhra Pradesh on 02.03.2007 and admit the second

appeal. Therefore, the points relating to substantial questions of law

before this Court are:

1. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit partly granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff without the plaintiff establishing his possession of the suit property?

2. Whether the courts below could rely upon Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 documents which were non-est as the said documents were suspended under Ex.B10 orders?

                                    11                             VGKRJ
                                                           SA 262 of 2007

3. Whether the judgments and the decree are not vitiated since the material evidence of DW4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalem was not taken into consideration?

4. Whether the decree of permanent injunction is sustainable against the real owner?

5. Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the rightful owner is the government is not vitiated in view of the evidence of DW4?

6. Whether the Courts below are right in granting injunction against the defendant in the light of the clinching evidence adduced by the defendant?

13. Heard Sri K.V.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for

appellant/defendant and Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel

for respondent/plaintiff.

14. Point Nos.3 to 6:

Sri K.V.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/defendant

would contend that both the courts below erred in decreeing the suit

partly, filed by the plaintiff, by granting permanent injunction. The

learned counsel for appellant would submit that when suit for main

relief of declaration is dismissed by the Courts below, the Courts

below are not ought to have grant permanent injunction relief. With 12 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

these submissions, the learned counsel would contend that the

judgment of learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor in

A.S.No.127 of 2005 is to be set aside by dismissing the permanent

injunction granted by the trial Court.

15. Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for

respondent/plaintiff would contend that since the plaintiff's

possession is proved, the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the

appeal filed by the defendant. With these submissions, the learned

counsel for the respondent in the second appeal would contend that

the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. The relief of declaration

of title over the plaint schedule property in the suit is dismissed by

the trial Court which is not challenged by the plaintiff, therefore,

there is no need to decide the relief of declaration of the title of the

plaintiff. Therefore, the paramount question that falls for

adjudication in this appeal is whether the relief of permanent

injunction granted by the trial Court is legally sustainable or not?

The law is well settled that for granting simple relief of

permanent injunction, strict proof of title is not at all required.

                                 13                             VGKRJ
                                                        SA 262 of 2007

16. The plaintiff in order to prove his case relied on his self

testimony as PW1. As per his evidence, the suit schedule property

originally stands in the name of K.Subba Naidu in the revenue

record and he died in the year 1991 and his wife predeceased him

and they are issueless and the said Subba Naidu executed a will

dated 20.12.1979 in favour of one Rajamma bequeathing half of the

schedule property. He further deposed that after the death of Subba

Naidu, the said Rajamma was in possession and enjoyment of the

half of the suit property, Ex.A1 is the registered will. The remaining

half of the suit property was given by Subba Naidu to his brother

Lingama Naidu and he was in a possession and enjoyment of the

same. He further deposed that subsequently Lingama Naidu sold

his property to one Eswaramma, who in-turn sold to Subramanyam

Naidu, son of Rajamma and Ex.A2 is the sale deed in favour of

Eswaramma. He further deposed that Rajamma and Subramanyam

Naidu are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule

property. As per his evidence, in the year 1993, the above persons

surrendered the schedule property to revenue authorities as they

migrated to Mekalasanipalli of Punganur Mandal. It is not in dispute

that as per the contention of the plaintiff also the plaint schedule 14 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

property is originally belongs to the government. The contention of

the plaintiff is that on his application, the then Mandal Revenue

Officer verified and granted D.K.T patta in his favour over the suit

schedule property and Ex.A3 is the said D.K.T. patta and the

revenue authorities issued a pattadar pass book and title deed in his

favour under Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 and his possession is also recorded

in 10(1) adangal, Ex.A6 is the same.

17. A reliance is place by the learned counsel for the appellant in

the judgment in between Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (deceased)

through L.Rs Vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (deceased) through L.Rs

and others 1 and Shivalinge Gowda Vs. Puttaswamy Gowda 2 .

The facts in the cited decisions are there was a registered sale deed

in favour of defendant No.1 and the 1st defendant is the owner of the

property. Whereas the facts in the present case are the defendant

is not the true owner of the plaint schedule property, the government

is the rightful owner of the plaint schedule property. Even though

the defendant relied on an unregistered will Ex.B1 dated 20.07.1990,

the earlier registered will relates to the year 1979 is not at all

(2022) 2 CivCC 507 2 (2016) 5 KantLJ 630 15 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

referred in Ex.B1. Ex.B1 will is not proved by the defendant as per

the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. As stated supra, the original

owner of the property is government. The alleged testator either in

Ex.A1 or in Ex.B1 has no absolute rights over the plaint schedule

property. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the cited

decision are different to the instant case.

18. Another reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the

appellant in W.A.No.1538 of 1988 and W.A.No.1550 of 1988, dated

09.03.1999. Whereas in the present case, the material on record

reveals that this Court suspended the order of Revenue Divisional

Officer vide orders passed in W.P.No.17491 of 2005 with a direction

to government to dispose of the revision filed by the plaintiff against

the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The D.K.T.

patta issued in favour of plaintiff is not yet cancelled by the

government till so far.

19. The case of the defendant is also that the suit schedule

property is originally assigned land and it was given to Kakarla

Subba Naidu. Even in the written statement and evidence, the 16 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

defendant categorically stated that the suit schedule land originally

assigned land in favour of Kakarla Subba Naidu and the same was

assigned in his favour by the government. As per the evidence of

DW4-Mandal Revenue Officer, as per the revenue record, the D.K.T.

patta was issued in favour of Kakarla Subba Naidu, originally, for the

land to an extent of Ac.3.52 cents in survey No.85/1-A. Therefore,

there is no dispute that the plaint schedule property is originally

government land and it was assigned to the said Kakarla Subba

Naidu. The Government is not a party to the suit, as it is a suit for

declaration of title of plaint schedule property, in the absence of

government as a party, a declaration relief cannot be granted. But

the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction against the

others i.e., third parties until he is evicted under due process of law

by the government, but the plaintiff has to prove his possession over

the plaint schedule property and so also threat of dispossession.

20. The evidence of DW4-Mandal Revenue Officer goes to show

that, as per the revenue records, the patta in favour of Subba Naidu

is not cancelled and there is no record to show that the government

has taken over the possession of the land from Subba Naidu and no 17 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

notice was served on the original pattadar Kakarla Subba Naidu or

his legal representatives for cancellation of patta. As per evidence

of DW4, basing on the application of the plaintiff, the D.K.T. patta

was granted in favour of plaintiff, without cancelling the earlier patta

issued in favour of Subba Naidu under Ex.A3. Ex.A4 is the title

deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 04.04.1997 issued by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Ex.A5 is the pattadar pass book dated

04.04.1997 and the same are issued prior to filing of the suit itself by

the revenue authorities. Ex.A6 is the 10(1) and No.2 adangal, dated

30.06.1996, Ex.A7 is the two cist receipts. Ex.A7 shows that on

13.04.1997, the plaintiff paid land revenue to the government.

Ex.A8 is the 10(1) and No.2 adangal for faslis 1404 and 1405

corresponding to year 1994 and 1995. The name of the plaintiff and

his possession is noted in Ex.A8 to show the possession of the

plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. The name of the plaintiff is

shown as the pattadar and enjoyer in revenue adangal in Ex.A8.

PW2 supported the evidence of PW1. PW3 and PW4 also stated in

their evidence that the plaintiff is cultivating the suit schedule land.

                                18                              VGKRJ
                                                        SA 262 of 2007

21. Per contra, the defendant relied on the evidence of DW1 to

DW4. As per the evidence of DW1, the suit schedule land is

originally assigned land belongs to government and it was assigned

in the name of Kakarla Subba Naidu and the said Subba Naidu

executed Ex.B1 unregistered will dated 20.07.1990 and he died on

24.01.1991 and his wife predeceased him and he has no issues.

The evidence of PW1 goes to show that the said Subba Naidu

executed Ex.A1 registered will in favour of Rajamma, wife of his

brother-in-law under Ex.A1 registered will dated 20.12.1979 by

bequeathing his half share in the property, after the death of Subba

Naidu, testator, the Rajamma took possession of the said land and

Subba Naidu used to stay with his younger brother Lingama Naidu

and Lingama Naidu was enjoying half share in the land and the

Lingama Naidu sold the same to Eswaramma and the said

Eswaramma sold the same to Subramanyam Naidu and the

Subramanyam Naidu and Rajamma are enjoying the entire property

and they migrated to Mekalasanipalle and they jointly relinquished

their rights of the said land to government and subsequently the said

land was assigned to the plaintiff. As seen from the material on

record, the said Ex.A1 will dated 20.07.1979 is executed by Subba 19 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

Naidu infavour of Rajamma, which was registered in a registrar

office, much prior to the alleged Ex.B1 unregistered will, the

execution of Ex.A1 is not at all mentioned in Ex.B1. Naturally if

subba Naidu executed Ex.B1 alleged will in favour of the defendant,

certainly he ought to have mentioned the reference of Ex.A1 will in

the alleged Ex.B1. Moreover, in cross examination, nothing was

elicited from PW1 about the genuineness of Ex.A1 will. Ex.A1 will is

not at all denied by the defendant. There was no suggestion to the

plaintiff in cross examination by the learned counsel for defendant

that Ex.A1 will is not a genuine will. The fact remains Subba Naidu

died on 24.01.1991, the suit is filed in the year 1997.

22. The defendant relied on Ex.B2. As per Ex.B2 No.2 adangal

dated 10.07.1997 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer for the

faslis 1401 and 1402, the pattadar is Kakarla Subba Naidu and

encroacher is shown as Kakarla Satyamurthy, and the name of

Subba Naidu was struck off, the name of Irala Hanumantha Boyadu

was rounded off and the name of the defendant is written with pen

for the faslis 1401-1402 for the relevant years 1991 and 1992. The

same reveals for the faslis 1397 and 1398, the pattadar is Kakarla 20 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

Subba Naidu and the encroacher is also shown as Kakarla Subba

Naidu. Per contra, Ex.A8 No.2 adangal pahani issued in the name of

the plaintiff for the faslis 1404 and 1405 corresponding to the years

1994 and 1995 for the suit land by showing his possession. As per

Ex.A8 the pattadar is shown as R.Mohana Naidu i.e., the plaintiff

herein and enjoyer is also shown as R.Mohanudu. The suit is filed

in the year 1997, therefore, the trial Court by giving cogent reasons

held that Ex.A8 is the latest document than Ex.B2. As per the

evidence of DW4-Mandal Revenue Officer of the concerned Mandal,

the patta was issued in the name of the plaintiff and the same was

not cancelled till so far and the possession of the plaintiff is noted in

the revenue records and the same was not cancelled till so far.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, no importance will be given to

Ex.B2 and so also the documents relied on by the defendant i.e.,

Ex.B3 to Ex.B10. The defendant relied on the evidence of DW2 to

DW4 to prove the Ex.B1 alleged unregistered will dated 20.07.1990,

which is executed just prior to death of the testator of the alleged will

i.e., Kakarla Subba Naidu. As stated supra, the original will was

executed by Subba Naidu on 20.07.1979 by bequeathing his half

share in the property in favour of Rajamma and after the death of 21 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

Subba Naidu the said Rajamma took possession of the said land

and the said will is a registered will, but there is no whisper about

Ex.A1 will which is relates to the year 1979 in the alleged Ex.B1

unregistered will. The case of both the parties is that the schedule

property is an assigned land, belongs to government, therefore, no

importance will be given to the evidence of DW2 to DW4, since the

discrepancy about the non-mentioning of Ex.A1 in the alleged Ex.B1

is not explained by the defendant. More over the defendant is not

denying the Ex.A1 registered will executed in favour of Rajamma by

Subba Naidu. There was no suggestion to the plaintiff in cross

examination by the learned counsel for defendant that Ex.A1 is not a

genuine will.

23. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property is an extent

of Ac.3.52 cents which is a government land and the government

had issued a D.K.T. patta in favour of Kakarla Subba Naidu for the

suit schedule property and subsequently in the year 1997 the patta

was issued to the plaintiff. The material on record reveals that the

D.K.T. patta was issued by the revenue officials in favour of the

plaintiff and by taking into consideration of evidence of Mandal 22 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

Revenue Officer/DW4 and so also Ex.A3 to Ex.A8, undoubtedly it is

clear that the plaintiff is in a possession of the plaint schedule

property. The material on record reveals that there was a threat of

dispossession by the defendant. In such a case, the plaintiff is

entitled the relief of permanent injunction until he was evicted under

a due process of law by the government i.e., true owner of the

property.

24. The law is well settled that even if the plaintiff has no title, if he

is in settled possession of the property, even though he is a

trespasser, he is entitled for permanent injunction until he is evicted

under a due process of law. In the present case, the true owner is a

government, the plaintiff is not asking the relief of permanent

injunction against the government. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled

the relief of permanent injunction, against the defendant, until he is

evicted under due process of law and he is entitled to continue in

possession, because his possession is recorded in revenue records

Ex.A3 to Ex.A8, until he is evicted under due process of law. The

learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Revenue

Divisional Officer recommended the cancellation of D.K.T. patta in 23 VGKRJ SA 262 of 2007

favour of the plaintiff. It is a fact that the patta in favour of the

plaintiff is not cancelled till so far. The material available on record

reveals that this Court suspended the order of Revenue Divisional

Officer vide writ petition No.17491 of 2005 with a direction to

government to dispose of the revision filed by the plaintiff against

the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer. The D.K.T. patta issued in

favour of the plaintiff is not cancelled by the government till so far.

No patta was granted in favour of the defendant by the revenue

authorities and the name of the defendant is also not mutated in

revenue records by issuing pattadar pass book and title deed. The

material on record reveals that the plaintiff is in a possession and

enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of

the suit. Therefore, the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint

schedule property is to be protected until he is evicted under due

process of law. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are held

in accordance with law and there are no merits in the present appeal.

25. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

                              24                             VGKRJ
                                                     SA 262 of 2007

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 01.11.2023.

Sj
                       25                         VGKRJ
                                          SA 262 of 2007





     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




           SECOND APPEAL No.262 of 2007


                    01.11.2023

sj