THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.785 OF 2001 29-11-2010 BETWEEN; N.Rajaiah son of Peda Veeraiah ...Appellant vs. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Karimnagar and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.785 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed by the second claimant in O.P.No.127 of 1994 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. An extent of Ac.7.21 guntas of land in Sy.No.337/A situated at Chinthakunta village was acquired and an award was passed and there was a dispute with regard to title to the property to the above extent, the matter was referred to the Court. According to the case of the first claimant, who is the 2nd respondent herein, the father of the appellant herein by name Peda Veeraiah sold the schedule property under a simple sale deed and delivered the possession of the property and consent decree was suffered in O.S.No.15 of 1984 dated 22-05-1984 and thereafter the father of the appellant filed O.S.No.402 of 1986 for cancellation of the decree at the instance of the appellant and his brother. It was subsequently dismissed on a compromise petition dated 24-09- 1987. The second respondent who is the appellant herein claimed that the property belongs to his father which is ancestral property and his brother has got a share. There was an oral partition in 1989 and his brother Ramesham has relinquished his share and thereby he is exclusively entitled to the property. According to him, the decree obtained in O.S.No.15 of 1984 is a fraudulent one and consequently he has filed O.S.No.228 of 1990 for the relief of declaration and cancellation of decree in O.S.No.15 of 1984 and it is pending. Therefore, he pleaded that he is entitled for the amount. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as RW.1 and also examined RWs.2 and 3 and Exs.B-1 to B-21 were marked. The appellant herein examined himself as RW.4 and marked Exs.B-22 and B-23. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the claim of the appellant and held that the first claimant who is the 2nd respondent is entitled for the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the appellant is the owner of the acquired property and entitled to the possession? (2) Whether the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (3) To what relief? POINTS:- There is no dispute about the fact that the father of the appellant was the owner of the property and series of litigation was followed during the life time of the father of the appellant and also by appellant. As can be seen from the Ex.B-1, the father of the appellant suffered a consent decree thereby accepting the first respondent as the person entitled to the rights in the property. Thereafter, he filed a suit for cancellation of decree in O.S.No.409 of 1986 as can be seen from Ex.B-2 and that was also dismissed. Exs.B-4 to B-20 goes to show the possession and enjoyment of the property with the first claimant who is the second respondent in the appeal. Even after the death of the father of the appellant, he himself filed O.S.No.228 of 1990 and that was also dismissed as can be seen from Ex.B-21. Therefore, as matter stands, the entire decrees of the court, and the several proceedings are in favour of the first claimant. The appellant herein has been unsuccessful in challenging any of those decrees and the binding nature on him. A feeble attempt was made at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant that what was sold is only under a simple sale deed and the property is ancestral property and the father alone could not have sold the property. This argument has no legs to stand since it was not claimed before the lower court and on the other hand the father was the manager of the family and unless it is shown that the sale affected by him is for the illegal or immoral purpose, they are binding on the other members of the family. Therefore, for all the reasons, since the rights of the first claimant have been recognized by the courts, the appellant cannot claim any benefit. The lower court has rightly rejected the claim and we do not find any grounds to interfere in this appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 29th NOVEMBER 2010. TSNR