One Sagiraju Bangaramma was in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising agricultural crops since 1950.
It was averred in the plaint that the original assignee i.e. S. Bangaramma was a landless poor, who sold the suit land in the year 1970 to another landless poor Durga Ramalingeswara Rao, who purchased it in good faith for valuable companysideration much earlier to the enactment of A.P. Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977 in short, Act of 1977 .
In March, 1988, the second defendant appellant being Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority in short, VUDA fixed boundary demarcations to a part of the plaintiffs land, purporting to act under the directions of the District Collector of Visakhapatnam.
Thereafter, plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
The plaintiffs being absolute owners and possessors of the land got issued numberice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code requesting defendants to desist from interfering with the plaintiffs possession.
She companytinued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owner, and by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.1.1970 Ex.
By virtue of her possession, the suit property was assigned to her by the first defendant appellant through a rough patta in R.C.No.4118 of 1961.
Subsequently, said Ramalingeswara Rao died and after his death his wife Durga Venkata Ratnam and his sons succeeded to the suit schedule property, who by sale deed dated 27.1.1982 Ex.
A 1 sold the suit land to the plaintiffs for valuable companysideration and passed on the possession thereof.
The heirs of the said Ramalingeswara Rao in turn sold the suit land to landless poor, who are the plaintiffs respondents herein.
A 2 , she sold the suit property for a valuable companysideration to one Durga Ramalingeswara Rao.
The factual matrix of the case is that the suit schedule property admeasuring about five acre in Survey No.71/3 of Paradesipalem was Poramboke land.
Y. Eqbal, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs has been set aside.
