STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR KURNOOL Vs. KATTUBADI FAKRUBI (DIED) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the Judgment of the District Judge, Kurnool, confirming the Judgment of the District Munsif, Nandyala in O. S. No. 148 of 1954.

(2.) THE appellant herein is the 2nd defendant, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, Kurnool. The Plaintiff 1st respondent died during the pendency of this appeal and her L. Rs. have been brought on record. The suit, had been laid by late Kattubadi Fakrubi for a declaration of her right to sites ABCD and CDEF measuring 12 ft. x 7 ft. and 15 ft. x 7 ft. respectively abutting her houses bearing Municipal Nos. 22/1 and 23/1 in the Nandyala Municipal area. She had also prayed for an alteration in the survey plan prepared for the Nandyal Municipal area wherein the said extents had been shown as part of street No. 1 bearing S. No. 30. It was her case that the demarcation by the Survey Office was wrong and that she was the owner of the sites in question. She was the purchaser of the sites and the houses under a registered sale deed dated 18 -5 -1943, Ex. A -1 and she had been in enjoyment of the sites in question. She erected a Zinc sheet verandah over the site CDEF and was running a shop in it. She enclosed the site ABCD with 'thatties'. It was her case that her predecessors -in -title were in possession of the sites for over 100 years. It was her further case that when the Municipality of Nandyal objected to her possession of these sites, she obtained decrees against the Municipality in O. S. 113 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif, Nandyal and O. S. 158 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif, Dhone and so established her right against the Municipality. It is seen that O. S. 158 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif, Dhone, was originally filed as O. S. 231 of 1951 in the court of the District Munsif of Nandyal. The present suit was filed on 12 -4 -1954.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif found that the sites formed part of 'Gramanattam', that the State was the paramount owner; but that the plaintiff had acquired title to the said sites by adverse possession. These findings were affirmed by the District Judge in Appeal. The state has preferred this second appeal.