Sri Raghurama Reddy vs Smt Rohini S Nair
2023 Latest Caselaw 7764 Kant

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1327 OF 2021
                        C/W
        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1325 OF 2021

IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1327 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI RAGHURAMA REDDY
    S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

2 . SRI BABU
    S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

   BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.380,
   REDDY COLONY,
   YAMALUR MAIN ROAD,
   YAMALURU VILLAGE,
   AND POST
   BENGALURU-560037
                                     ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VIJAY A M, ADV.)

AND:

1 . SMT ROHINI S NAIR
    W/O P RAVINDRAN
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                            2


2 . SRI P SADASHIVAN
    S/O LATE GOPALAN NAIR
    AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

   RESIDENT OF SAMRAT NO.803
   2ND D CROSS, 8TH MAIN,
   HRBR LAYOUT,
   2ND BLOCK
   BENGALURU-560043

3 . SRI HANUMAPPA
    S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
                                   ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI JAGAN, ADVOCATE)

    THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2021 PASSED IN
OS No.787/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1325 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI RAGHURAMA REDDY
    S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

2 . SRI BABU
    S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

   BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.380,
   REDDY COLONY,
   YAMALUR MAIN ROAD,
                            3


     YAMALURU VILLAGE,
     AND POST
     BENGALURU - 560 037
                                      ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VIJAY A M, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SMT NISHA RAVINDRAN
       W/O SRI P RAVINDRAN
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
       RESIDENT OF NO.24,
       HOMESTEAD
       ROAD ORPINGTON KENT UNITED KINGDOM BR 6
       6HW
       REPRESENTED BY HER OF POWER ATTORNEY
       HOLDER SRI P SADASHIVAN S/O LATE GOPALN
       NAIR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
       RESIDENT OF SAMRAT NO.803, 2ND D CROSS, 8TH
       MAIN,
       HRBR LAYOUT,
       2ND BLOCK
       BENGALURU-560043

2.     SRI HANUMAPPA
       S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI JAGAN, ADVOCATE)

    THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2021 PASSED IN
OS No.5294/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
                              4


     THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 5.9.2023 THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


                    JUDGMENT

RFA No.1325/2021 is filed by the defendant

Nos.2 and 3 under Section 96 of CPC for setting aside

the judgment and decree passed by the VII Additional

City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5294/2014

dated 12.03.2021 for having decreed the suit of the

respondent No.1/plaintiff.

2. RFA No.1327/2021 also is filed by the same

defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Section 96 of CPC for

setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the

same court in O.S.No.787/2014 dated 12.3.2021 for

having decreed the suit of the respondent

No.1/plaintiff.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

appellants and respondents.

4. The appellants in both appeals are defendant

Nos.2 and 3 and respondent No.1 in both these

appeals was the plaintiff before the Trial Court.

Hence, the rank of the parties are retained for the

sake of convenience.

5. Though the plaintiff filed separate suits, but

the defendants are one and the same and with

consent of both parties, both the appeals are taken

together for common disposal.

6. The case of he plaintiff in O.S.No.5294/2014

(challenged in RFA No.1325/2021) is that the plaintiff

represented by the GPA holder, the father of the

plaintiff, it is alleged that the plaintiff filed suit for

permanent injunction against the defendants,

contending that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute

owner of the property measuring 6 guntas, which is a

portion of land bearing Sy.No.61/2, Revenue Khatha

No.154 situated at Horamavu-Agara village,

K.R.Puram Hobli, which was acquired under the sale

deed dated 7.9.1996 ("hereinafter referred as suit

schedule property"). The khatha extract, RTC, Pahani

for the year 2011 stands in her name. The plaintiff

has been paying taxes regularly to the Village

panchayat, subsequently to the BBMP. The

defendants are utter strangers to the suit schedule

property, having no manner of any right, title or

interest over the property filed application before

Tahsildar and seeking cancellation of mutations in

Sy.No.61/1 and 61/2, Horamavu AGara village, KR.R.

Puram Hobli, Bengaluru, East taluk. The Tahsildar

dismissed the application of the defendants and the

plaintiff had no knowledge of the same.

Subsequently, the defendant filed R.A.No.644/2007-

08 which also came to be dismissed and they have

filed the Revision Petition No.340/2011-12 before the

Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner

allowed the writ petition, which was also not in the

knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing at

United Kingdom(U.K) along with her children and

they came to know only from the power of attorney

holder. Hence, filed this suit.

7. The case of the plaintiff in OS.No.787/2014

(in respect of RFA No.1327/2021) is that the plaintiff

file suit for injunction against the defendants, alleging

that the plaintiffs are the joint and absolute owner of

the property bearing dry lands measuring in all 3¾

guntas lying in Sy.No.61/2, Revenue Khatha No.154

of Horamavu-Agara village, KR Puram Hobli,

Bangalore East (earlier south taluk). The property

was acquired under sale deed dated 08.04.1996

(hereinafter referred as suit schedule property). The

khatha, M.R.Extract No.5/1996-97, RTC, Pahani for

the year 2011-12 stands in the name of the plaintiff

and the plaintiff is paying taxes regularly, initially to

the Horamavu Village Panchayat and thereafter to

BBMP. From the date of purchase, they are in

possession. The defendants having no manner of

right, title or interest in the suit schedule property.

They are trying to interfere by way of filing an

application before the Tahsildar for canceling the

Mutations in Sy.No.61/1 and 61/2. They also filed

R.A.No.644/2007-08 before the Assistant

Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division and the

same was dismissed. In the revision

RP.No.340/2011-12 before the Deputy Commissioner

and the same was allowed, which was not within the

knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also

approached the police for filing the complaint, but the

police directed to approach the civil court, hence filed

this suit.

8. The defendant appeared through their

counsel and filed written statement taking same

contention in both the suits as under.

9. It is contended that suit is not maintainable

the schedule property is non est property. There is no

6 guntas of land existing at any point of time in

Sy.No.61/2 and 61/1 suit and it was created and

manipulated documents. They have shown the wrong

boundaries. The said suit schedule property cannot be

identified. The entire land was 3 acres 16 guntas, the

sale deed was executed on 7.9.1996 fraudulently and

created mutations. The lands are still agricultural and

there is no conversion of land.

10. It is further contended that the land in

Sy.No.61/1 and 62/2 were previously numbered as

Sy.No.52 measuring 3 acres 16 guntas which was

vested with one Brahmin family possessed by one

Pattabhi Shastry of Ulsoor and after his demise his

children succeeded the said lands and thus 1/3rd share

of the land fallen to the share of his son Neelakanta

Shastry and it was sold by is wife Smt.Nanjamma

under sale deed dated 06.02.1895. Later, Sy.No.61

which was re-phoded and presently numbered as

Sy.No.61/1 and 61/2. The rectification deed of the

share purchase by above person and one Subbaraya

Shastry, Rama Shastry and Nanjunda Shastry who

had 2/3rd share have jointly sold in favour of

Sannappa and Devaiahnavara Muniyappa under the

registered sale deed dated 31.1.1898 with specific

boundaries, the land were in the joint names. They

are divided under oral partition and formed 1 acre and

28 guntas. Thereafter Sannappa sold 1 acre 28

guntas of southern portion of Sy.No.52 in favour of

one Jogappa S/o Kallubarada Muniyappa under sale

deed dated 13.3.1899. Later, Jogappa died and his

wife Smt.Bamma and son Munivenkatappa succeeded

the property and sold 1 acre and 28 guntas in favour

of Devaiah Channappa S/o Muniyappa under sale deed

dated 14.05.1927. The said Devaiah Muniyappa is

none other than the senior paternal uncle of Devaiah

Channappa Devaiahnavara Ramanna died leaving

behind Devaiah Channappa who become absolute

owner. He had two sons, Maluraiah and Devaiah.

During lifetime of Devaiah, the 2nd son of Channappa

was minor and they needed fund for family legal

necessities, approached Hanumappa @ Doddapillaiah

for loan and obtained Rs.500. Accordingly, he

executed registered mortgage deed on 31.03.1933.

They failed to redeem the mortgage even after 5

years, thereby the mortgagee Hanumappa became

absolute owner and the said mortgage deed was

treated as absolute sale deed as per its recitement.

11. It is further contended that Hanumappa who

is the grand father of defendant, had a son by name

Nanjundappa, who succeeded the property of his

father Hanumappa. After death of Nanjundappa, the

defendant succeeded the said lands in Sy.Nos.61/1

and 61/2 measuring 3 acres 16 guntas and later came

to know about the illegal alienations and creation of

legal revenue records. Hence, they challenged the

mutation entries before the Tahsildar, Assistant

Commissioner and later the Deputy Commissioner,

who allowed the revision in favour of the defendant.

There was a sanction of mutation in MRH No.27/2012-

13 which, depicts name of the defendant. Later, the

alleged purchaser approached the High Court in writ

petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner

and High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to

pass necessary orders by allowing the said writ

petition. The names of the defendants are still

showing in the RTCs. The defendant are in possession

of the property in question. Therefore, claim of the

plaintiff for purchasing the property under sale deed

07.09.1996 executed from Chikkamuniyappa does not

arises at all. As per sections 48, 7 read with 54 of

Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'TP

Act'), when a person do not possess any right, title or

interest over the property then question of

transferring the right in favour of the plaintiff does not

arises. If a Court Commissioner is appointed the true

fact will depict. Hence prayed for dismissing the suit.

12. The defendants also denied the sale deed in

favour of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, in respect of 3/4th

guntas of land contending that the sale deed of

plaintiff dated 7.9.1996 in favour of the plaintiff does

not arise at all. Hence prayed for dismissing the suit.

13. Based upon the pleadings, the Trial Court

framed the following issues in O.S.No.5294/2014,

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property?

        2) Whether the plaintiff proves that
           the defendants have interfered with
           her   peaceful   possession    and
           enjoyment    of    suit    schedule
           property?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction?

4) What order or decree?

     14.       The    GPA     holder    of    plaintiff    in

OS.NO.5294/2014      examined a        PW1   and   he     got

marked 5 documents and defendant No.2 examined as

DW1 and got marked 22 documents. After hearing

the arguments the Trial Court answered the issue

Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the

suit, which is under challenge.

15. The Trial Court framed 3 issues in

O.S.No.787/2014 as below,

1) Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the interference of the defendants is true?

3) What order or decree?

16. In O.S.No.787/2014 the plaintiff No.2

Sadashivan examined as PW1 and got marked 9

documents and defendant No.2 examined as DW1 and

got marked 22 documents . The defendants marked

documents are one and the same in both cases.

17. The plaintiffs also are one and same family

and represented by Sadashivan himself in

OS.NO.784/2014 and GPA holder in

O.S.No.1594/2014.

18. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments

answered the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and

decreed the suit on the same day both these appeals

are filed by the defendants Nos.2 and 3 as first

defendant died during the pendency of the suit.

19. The learned counsel for the appellants-

defendants, in both cases, strenuously contended that

the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is

not sustainable. The defendants are in possession of

the suit schedule property. By taking advantage of

the names appeared in mutation entry, both the sale

deeds were created and executed in favour of the

plaintiff in the year 1996. Even after the sale deed,

there are documents produced to show for having paid

taxes to BBMP, there is no khatha in the name of

plaintiff. The RTC extracts, mutation were all

pertaining to the year 1996. The suits were decreed

only based upon possession on the ground that 13

suits were pending. The judgment of the trial Court

holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit

schedule property by way of sale deed, is not correct.

The learned counsel further contended that the

ancestors of the defendants got the property in the

year 1933 itself by way of mortgage. If the mortgage

is not redeemed even after five years, it becomes

absolute sale deed and thereby, the defendants are

the successors of the suit schedule property. The

Deputy Commissioner's order reveals that it was in

favour of the defendants. The plaintiff did not

challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner, but

some other persons/site owners challenged the same.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any decree.

The plaintiff cannot take the weakness of the

defendants. There is no tax paid receipts produced

by the plaintiff. Ex.D.5 is the mortgage deed, which is

a crucial document in favour of defendants.

Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff has failed

to prove the lawful possession over the suit schedule

property. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeals

and dismissing the suits.

20. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-

plaintiff has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

It is contended that, in the writ petition, the High

Court set aside the order of the Deputy commissioner

and restored the mutation entries in favour of the

vendors of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's name in the

RTC. Once the sale deed is executed, the plaintiff

becomes the owner of the property. As per Section

54 of the TP Act, the sale deed was executed and it

was registered. There is no document to show that

the mortgage was redeemed. The mortgage deed was

90 years old. If the mortgage was redeemed, the

question of taking the contention that the defendants

become the owner of the property does not arise. The

defendants required to file a suit for foreclosure of the

mortgage, which was not done. The defendants have

not produced any document to show that they were

having better title than the plaintiff for purchasing the

property under the sale deeds. It is also contended

that if at all the defendants are the owners of the suit

schedule property, the tax paid receipts are not

produced from 1933-2012. Therefore, the claim of

the defendants is false and hence, prayed for

dismissing the appeals.

21. Having heard the arguments of learned

counsel for the parties, perused the records.

22. The points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the plaintiff has proved that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the defendants are trying to interfere in the possession as claimed in both suits ?

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court call for interference by this Court.

23. On perusal of the records, especially the

evidence of P.W.1 in both cases, the plaintiff claims

the right over the suit schedule property in respect of

33/4 guntas in Sy. No.61/2 and 6 guntas, a portion of

land in Sy. No.61/2 respectively. P.W.1, as GPA

holder of plaintiff in O.S. No.5294/2014 and the

plaintiff in O.S.No.787/2014 filed affidavit in lieu of

evidence and he got marked the sale deeds dated

7.9.1996 as per Ex.P.2 in O.S. No.5294/2O14 and

Ex.P.1-sale deed dated 08.04.1996 in O.S

No.787/2014 and the remaining documents such as

mutation register, Revenue record, tax paid receipts

were all also got marked. It is the categorical

contention of the plaintiff that plaintiff purchased the

property on 7.9.1996 and 8.4.1996 from one

Chikkamuniyappa, Nagaraja, Papanna, Suresh,

Madesh, Akkayymma and Siddamma. In both the sale

deeds, the recital available is that the property in Sy.

No.61/2 belonged to one Sonnappa and later,

Sonnpapa and his wife expired. Then their daughter

Munilakshmamma also expired. One Chikkappa, the

brother of Sonnappa got the land who is having two

sons namely, Dodda Muniyappa and Chikka

Muniyappa. As per the entry No.8/94-1995 dated

29.04.1995, Chikka Muniyappa becomes the owner of

the property, he paid up-to-date taxes and sold the

property to the plaintiff. The sale deeds produced by

plaintiff in both cases were not disputed by the

defendants.

24. On the other hand, the case of the

defendants is that the property was originally

belonged to a Brahmin family i.e., Sri Pattabhi Shastry

and after his demise, his children succeeded to the

property and thus, 1/3rd share of the property had

been fallen to Neelakanta Shastry, who sold the said

property and it was purchased on 01.08.1895 from

one Nanjamma. Subsequently, Subbaraya Shastry,

Rama Shastry and Nanjunda Shastry sold their 2/3rd

share in the property in Sy. No.52 under registered

sale deed 31.01.1898 in favour of Sannappa and

Devaiahnavara Muniyappa. There was oral partition in

respect of 1 acre 28 guntas in southern portion of Sy.

No.52. Thereafter, the said Sannappa sold southern

portion to one Jogappa on 13.03.1899 and the said

Jogappa died leaving behind his wife Byamma and a

son Munivenkappa. Byamma and Munivenkappa sold

the extent of 1 acre 28 guntas in favour of one

Devaiah Channappa on 14.05.1927. Devaiahnavara

Muniyappa was the senior paternal uncle of

Devaiahnavara Channappa. The said Devaiahnavara

Muniyappa and Devaiahnavara Ramanna died leaving

behind Devaiahnavara Channappa. Thus, Channappa

became the absolute owner after death of the

Devayanavar Ramanna. Channappa had two children,

namely, Malurayya and Devaiah. When the said

Devaiah was minor, his father Channappa, executed

mortgage in favour of Hanumappa @ Doddapillaiah on

31.03.1933 for five years. The said mortgage was not

redeemed even after five years, hence, Hanumappa

became the absolute owner. The said Hanumappa

was the grand father of defendants. Hanumappa had a

son by name Nanjundappa, who succeeded the

property and later, the defendants continued to be in

possession of the property. The defendants challenged

the RTC entries before the Tahsildar as well as before

the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.644/2007-08,

which was dismissed, but the Deputy Commissioner

allowed the revision petition in R.P. No.340/2011-12,

which was challenged by the some other persons

before this Court in various writ petitions and this

Court set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner

in the writ petition.

25. Defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.1

and he got marked 22 documents in both cases, the

copy of mutation entry, RTC extract were produced.

The copy of the sale deeds dated 06.02.1895,

31.01.1898 and 13.03.1899 were also produced and

those documents are not in dispute. However,

subsequently on 14.05.1927, Channappa and Devaiah

became owners. There was mortgage executed on

31.03.1933 in favour of Hanumappa, the grand father

of defendants. There was a condition in the deed that

if the mortgage was not redeemed even after five

years, Hanumappa, who is the grand father of the

defendants, becomes owner of the property in Sy.

Nos.61/1 and 61/2. The mortgage was not redeemed

and thereby, the defendants claimed the property

through the mortgage deed. During the cross

examination, D.W.1 admitted that there were various

sale deeds executed by Chikka Muniyappa and others.

Almost 13 suits are pending against the defendants.

It is not in dispute that there was mutation entry in

the names of the vendors of the plaintiff and also in

the revenue records. Subsequently, the entry in the

revenue records was challenged by the defendants

before the Tahsildar, which came to be dismissed.

Thereafter, they filed regular appeal which also came

to be dismissed. The copy of the order passed in R.A.

No.644/2007-08 is produced and marked as Ex.P.20.

The copy of the order passed in RP.No.340/2011-12

by the Deputy Commissioner is marked as Ex.D.18,

wherein the Deputy Commissioner allowed the

revision and set aide the order of the Tahsildar as well

as the Assistant Commissioner holding that

Hanumappa was the owner of the suit schedule

property. Admittedly, the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has set aside the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner in W.P. No.11469/2014 (KLR-RR-SUR)

on 29.02.2016 and has held that if the respondents

claims right under a fraudulent sale deed, they have

to establish in the civil Court. On the other hand, the

respondent's counsel produced the order dated

07.01.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.33896/2014

wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has allowed the

petition based upon the order passed by the another

Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.11469/2014, which

reveals that the plaintiff has already filed the petition

and got set aside the order of the Deputy

Commissioner. Admittedly, the defendants have not

filed any suit against the plaintiff and other purchasers

by challenging the sale deeds and to set aside those

sale deeds and to declare them as owners. On the

other hand, under sale deed-Exs.P.1 and 2

respectively in both cases, the plaintiff has purchased

the suit schedule property in the year 1996 and the

plaintiff continues to be in possession of the suit

schedule property. The tax paid receipts are

produced. Of course, after falling of the property

under BBMP, no taxes were paid by the plaintiff.

However, in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff

required to prove the lawful possession under the sale

deed and interference of the defendants. The validity

of the sale deeds cannot be looked into in the suit for

bare injunction. As per Section 54 of the TP Act,

when the sale deeds are produced for having

purchased the property, which was registered sale

deed, the plaintiff becomes the owner. If at all, the

defendants claim title over the property, they could

have filed a suit for declaration to declare their title.

Admittedly, they have not filed any suit. Merely

producing the mortgage deed claming right through

the mortgage deed is not acceptable. There is no

evidence from the defendants' side, as to whether the

mortgage is redeemed or not. The mortgage deed is

pertaining to the year 1933. No document is obtained

from the Sub-Registrar office to prove the contention

that the mortgage is not redeemed. There no suit filed

by the defendants for foreclosure of the mortgage in

accordance with law. Therefore, merely claiming right

over the property under mortgage deed is not enough

until the defendants establish their rights in the

competent Court of law.

26. That apart, there are 13 suits filed by

various persons against defendants which reveals that

there were various sale deeds executed by the

vendors who are owners of the property and one of

the suit in O.S. No.786/2014 has been decreed and

marked as Ex.D.22, which reveals that as many as 13

suits are filed against defendants. In all the suits, the

defendants have taken the similar contention and

trying to interfere with the suit schedule property.

Therefore, the contention of the appellants' counsel

that there is cloud over the plaintiffs' property, is not

acceptable. If at all, the defendants claim right over

the property, they have to establish in a suit filed

against the plaintiff and original owners. Therefore, I

hold that the plaintiffs are successful in proving that

they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property. On the other hand, the

defendants are trying to interfere with the possession

over the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for

injunction against the defendants is maintainable.

Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

27. In view of the above said observation, the

trial Court, on considering the evidence on record, has

rightly decreed the suit, which does not call for

interference. Though the appellants' counsel contends

that the plaintiff is required to file a suit for

declaration and injunction, but, in view of judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANATHULA

SUDHAKAR Vs. P.BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY L.RS

AND OTHERS reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2692, the

said contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants, is not acceptable to the present case on

hand. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court do not call for interference. Hence, I

answer point No.2 in the negative.

28. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals

are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals

filed by the appellants-defendants are hereby

dismissed.

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

AKV/CS ct-SK