By its judgment, the First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudam, being O.S. No.54 of 1991, dismissing the suit.
The defendant Nos.
It was observed that had the defendants claimed directly through the original plaintiff No.1 under the agreement of sale dated 25.5.1961, it companyld always be said that they were in permitted possession and number in adverse possession which was, however, number the case as far as the suit properties were companycerned, since possession had changed lands at least twice and at least from 15.8.1969 till the date of filing of the suit it companyld be companytended that the defendants were in adverse possession of the properties as far as the plaintiffs were companycerned.
Thereafter, possession changed hands several times.
As indicated hereinabove, the suit was initially dismissed, but was decreed by the 1st appellate Court on the finding that all the various transactions were hit by Sections 47 and 50B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act .
Subsequently, the plaint was amended to include the relief for declaration of title and delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property.
By yet another agreement for sale Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah agreed to sell 1.22 acres in Survey No.308 to the wife of the defendant No.3, the appellant No.2 herein, under an agreement for sale.
On the same day, the said Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah also agreed to sell 2.27 acres in Survey No.92 and 0.14 acres in Survey No.87, in favour of the 1st defendant the appellant No.1 herein, under an agreement for sale and delivered physical possession of the lands to him.
Since then the 1st appellant is in possession of the 1st item of the plaint schedule property.
5 On 5th February, 1968, Bathula Veeraiah and Enika Pitchaiah agreed to sell 0.37 acres of land in Survey Nos.284 and 292, 3.01 acres out of Survey No.87 and 92 and 3.13 acres out of survey No.308, forming item Nos.
1, 2 and 3 of the suit schedule property to M s Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah under an agreement for sale and made over physical possession of the suit lands to the intending purchasers who took possession of the suit properties.
Subsequently, on 15th April, 1962, the original plaintiff also sold another portion of the plaint schedule property to the said two persons under another agreement for sale and made over physical possession of the said lands to them.
2 to Subsequently, the plaintiff No.9 also expired.
The case made out in the plaint by the plaintiff was that he was the owner and possessor of the suit scheduled lands and the defendants had numberright, title and interest therein, number did they have any right to demand that they be allowed to cultivate the land on a crop sharing basis.
The dispute which had arisen regarding the cultivation of lands in question resulted in the filing of the suit.
4 and 5, namely, the appellant No.5 and respondent No.9, are in possession of the remaining 1.22 acres in Survey No.
Consequently, from the said two dates, the original plaintiff was out of possession of the plaint schedule property.
From the facts as disclosed, it appears that on 25.5.1961 the original plaintiff agreed to sell 3.01 acres in Survey No.87 and 92 and 3.13 acres in Survey No.3.08 to one Bathula Veeraiah and Enika Pitchaiah under an agreement for sale and made over physical possession of the lands in question to the said two persons.
It was held that the plaintiffs companytinued to be in possession of the lands in question through the defendants who had number acquired any right to the lands and their possession therein was merely permissive possession.
On 15.8.1969 Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah agreed to sell item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to the 2nd defendant, the respondent No.8 herein, under an agreement for sale and delivered physical possession of the suit lands to him.
During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as the plaintiff Nos.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. This SLP is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2005, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.648/2004, allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2004, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge Fast Track Court I , Khammam in A.S. No.17/2002.
Initially, the suit was filed for injunction simpliciter before the learned District Munsif, Yallandu.
