1, in August, 1959 he came to know that a rough patta was issued to second plaintiff companytrary to the decision of the Settlement Officer and thereafter he filed an application on 7th November, 1959 before the Rough Patta Correction Officer informing him about variance between grant and the order and prayed that the name of the second plaintiff be deleted from the patta and in her place his name and that of his brothers name be substituted.
Whether any of the suit properties were entrusted to any of the defendants in or about the year 1952?
1 his plea was that he purchased the land in dispute under a stamped agreement from Venkata Ramana Rao for a value of Rs.1600/ .
Defendant No.
20 of 1974 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, West Godavari District, Kovvur for recovery of possession in respect of land in dispute and for mesne profit.
44/3 situate at village Vijjeswaram, hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute.
1 that balance amount of Rs.400/ was sent by Money Order.
Plaintiffs thereafter preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.
The trial companyrt further held that defendant No.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial companyrt framed various issues including the following issues Whether the father of the 1st plaintiff late Venkata Ramana Rao died possessed of the plaint schedule properties?
Both the defendants died during the pendency of the suit.
Further plea of the first defendant was that he had perfected his title by adverse possession.
1 categorically stated that on 18th February, 1954 the Settlement Officer directed issuance of patta of the land in dispute along with other lands in their favour and he was all through waiting for the issuance of patta.
Thereafter the first defendant did number present the petition for substituting his name in the patta by deleting the name of the second plaintiff.
Plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit bearing O.S. No.
In the year 1974 when the defendant declined to deliver possession of the land in dispute, lawyers numberice dated 6th April, 1974 was issued calling upon the defendants to hand over the property.
According to him he paid Rs.1,000/ to Venkata Ramana Rao and a sum of Rs.225/ to one Bombothu Chitteyya who was the tenant and in possession of the land in dispute during 1943 and said tenant vide letter dated 16th June, 1943 relinquished his possession and delivered the land to defendant No.
1 and husband of plaintiff No.
Plaintiffs case further is that again in the year 1954 they shifted their residence to Kakinada for education of the first plaintiff and defendant No.
1 had purchased the land in dispute and on these findings the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
After the death of Venkata Ramana Rao, the second plaintiff claimed more money towards the sale of the land in dispute and plaintiff No.
1 i.e. elder brother of second plaintiff used to look after his property.
2, whereas original defendant Nos.
Said Venkata Ramana Rao died in the year 1948 and thereafter the plaintiffs came back to the village and started looking after the agricultural land including the land in dispute.
The heirs and legal representatives of the first defendant were substituted in his place and they had companytested the suit.
Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession in respect of several properties mentioned in schedule of the plaint and in the present appeal we are companycerned with Schedule I property i.e. four acres of land pertaining to R.S. No.
Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, preferred appeal before the High Court and the learned Single Judge by his judgment and decree dated 16.09.1987 dismissed the appeal.
1, aggrieved by the same, have preferred this appeal with leave of the Court.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
In the written statement filed by defendant No.
Venkata Ramana Rao was a Government employee and in his absence defendant No.
1 and 2 were brother and sister of the second plaintiff.
1 is the son of plaintiff No.
2, was the owner of land in dispute.
438 of 1988 and the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and decree dated 19.12.2001 allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt as well as of the appellate companyrt and decreed the suit.
1 responded to the numberice by his letter dated 27th May, 1974 denying the title of the plaintiffs and claiming himself to be the owner of the property.
PRASAD, J. Plaintiff No.
1 he filed reminder on 6th November, 1960 but it was returned by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 22nd November, 1960 with certain objections.
According to the plaintiffs their predecessor in interest viz.,
It is further case of defendant No.
1 was asked to look after the land in dispute.
one Venkata Ramana Rao, who happened to be the father of plaintiff No.
