1
O.S.No.348/2002
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR
PRESENT: Sri A.NAGARAJ, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
Wednesday, the 16th day of April, 2025
O.S . No. 348 of 2002
1. Maddi Bhagyamma, W/o Late Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about 69 years,Occu:Housewife, R/o H. No. 18-18/1, Kamala Nagar,Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Maddi Venkatamma @ Jyothi, D/o.Late Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occu: Housewife,R/o H. No.18-18/1, Kamala Nagar Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District
3. Maddi Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Reddy Aged about 38 Years, Ocs: Agriculture, R/o H. No. 18-18/1, Kamala Nagar. Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District
4. M/s Taurus Homes Private Limited Represented by its Chairman, K Prathap Reddy. S/o K Narayana Reddy Office at: Sy Nos. 108 to 111, Thattiannaram Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Impleaded as per the orders in 229/23 on 17-03-2023)
.......Plaintiffs
AND 1.M. Surender Reddy S/o Unknown Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o 3-1-74, Ramshankar Nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District.
2. S Vijaya Kumar S/o Unknown Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o 3-1-215, Nanamalki Choudi, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad 3 K. Janga Chary S/o K Lakshmi Narayana Age: Major, Oce: Business, R/o-P. No. 135, Mallikarjunagar, Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Vasumathi W/o J Mahendar Reddy, Age, Major, Occ: Unemployed, R/o.4-12-34/3, Dwarakamain Nagar Colony, Vayupru, Ranga Reddy District.
5. G. Laxma Reddy S/o Late Yella Reddy Aged about 50 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Peddamberpet, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2
O.S.No.348/2002
6. P. Sudha Rani W/o Sudeer Reddy Age: Major, Occ: Unknown R/o 7-24-5A, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Ranga Reddy District,
7. M. Sumithra Reddy W/o M. Surender Reddy Age. Major, Occ: Unknown R/o 3-1-74, Ramshankar Nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District.
8. N. Shankar Reddy S/o N. Gandaiah Goud Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
9. R.Kasaiah, S/o.Lakshmaiah, R/o.Hayathnagar (N+M), Kawadipally, Ranga Reddy District,
10. M.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Late Rajireddy, R/o.15-4/A/1, Srikrishna Nagar, Road No.5, Dilshuknagar, Ranga Reddy District.
11. D Ashok Reddy S/o Papi Reddy, Plot No. 83, Salnagar, V. Puram, Hyderabad.
12. C. Sridevi W/o Pundarikam,Age: Major, Occ: Unknown R/o Plot No. 9, Kodandanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.
13. P Laxma Reddy S/o Prabhu Reddy R/o Habsiguda, Street No. 8 Ranga Reddy District
14. Smt. Shazadi Begum W/o Late G. Mahaboob Ali Aged about 67 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o 9-4-86/81/10B, Safdarjung Colony. Hyderabad. (Added as per orders in I.A.No. 134 of 2007, dt: 27.11.2008)
15. B Manga W/o Raju Goud Aged about 32 Years, Occ. Household, R/o 3-7-112/20/2/1, Mansoorbad, Ranga Reddy District.
16. B Pavani W/o Anil Kumar Goud R/o 3-7-112/20/2/1, Mansoorbad, Ranga Reddy District. (Added as per orders in I.A. No. 136 of 2007, dt: 27.11.2008)
17. B. Rambabu, S/o. Sadanand Goud, Aged 31 years, R/o. 3-7-112/20/2/1, Mansoorabad, Ranga Reddy District.
18. A Kamala W/o Krishnaiah (Died LRs 28,29) Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Household, R/o Plot No. 102, H. No. 7-1-45/6/102, Samyukta Apartments, Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet, Opp. KK Function Hall, Hyderabad.
19. A Venkata Krishna S/o Krishnalah Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No. 102, H. No. 7-1-45/6/102, Samyukta Apartments, Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet, Opp. K K Function Hall, Hyderabad (Added as per orders in I.A.No.853 of 2009, dt: 26.02.2010)
20. Jagarlamudi Samrajyam W/o Late 1 Apparao 3
O.S.No.348/2002
Aged about 75 Years, Occ: Household, R/o 16-106, Sri Kodandarama Nagar, Near Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-36.
21. Jagalamudi Sri Krishna S/o Late Apparao Aged about 40 Years, Occ: Business, R/o 16-105, Kodandarama Nagar, Near Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-36. 22.Vejendla Choudary S/o V Ramakrishnaiah Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Varabhra Palem, Ponnur, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
23. Smt. Gaddipati Chitti, W/o G. Hari Krishna Aged about 59 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o C/o J Apparao, 16-106, Sri Kodandarama Nagar, Near Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-36.
24. Gouse Mohiuddin S/o Md. Nizamuddin Aged about 78 Years, Occ: Turner, R/o 30-3-1152, Doodhbowli, Fatehdarwaza, Hyderabad.
25. Vejendla Venkateswarlu S/o Ramakrishna Aged about 51 Years, Occ: Veterinary Vaccinator, R/o Varabhra Palem, Ponnur, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
26. Jagarlamudi Gayathri Devi W/o J Sambasiva Rao Aged about 46 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o C/o Smt. J Samrajyam, R/o 16-106, Sri Kodandarama Nagar, Near Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad- 36. (Added as per orders in I.A.No.236 of 2009, dt:26.02.2010.) 27.Padmaja Gondhi, W/o.Krishna Murthy Gondhi, Aged about 62 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o.H.No.5601, Wagon Wheel Avenue, Abilene Taxas, USA.
28. Smt.Shailaja Amilneni, W/o.Sagar Konduru, Aged about 57 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o.H.No.5601, Wagon Wheel Avenue, Abilene Taxas, USA. D27 and D28 are added as per orders in IA No.549/2023
dated 09.08.2023)
............Defendants
This suit is coming before me on this day 03-02-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff No.4, Sri Mohan Rao, Advocate for D5, D7, D8, D10 to D12, Sri B.Suresh, Advocate for D13, Sri.K.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for D14 to D17, Sri M.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate for D19 to D24, Sri M.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for D27 and D28.and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
: J U D G M E N T :
1.Originally the suit is filed by plaintiffs No.1 to 3 against D1 to D12 for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property Sy.No.108 admeasuring 4
O.S.No.348/2002
Ac.18-23 gts, Sy.No.109 admeasuring Ac.21-22 gts, Sy.No.110 admeasuring Ac.19-15 gts, Sy.No.111 admeasuring Ac.11-19 gts as clearly mentioned in the schedule; restraining the D1 to D12 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule properties. Subsequently plaintiff No.4 was impleaded himself.
Thereafter the D4 to D28 were also impleaded on subsequent dates.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 by name Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties total admeasuring Ac.70-39 gts in
Sy.Nos.108, 109, 110 and 111. He died in the year 1982 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs to his estate. During his lifetime, he cultivated the lands by raising crops season wise. After the death of said Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy, the plaintiff No.1 cultivated the lands with the help of his brothers by raising seasonal crops. As on the date of death of Satyanarayana Reddy, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were small kids. During his lifetime, Satyanarayana Reddy filed a declaration under Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regularization) Act, 1976 vide Cc No.13043/76. Initially the Land Ceiling authorities have declared the declarant as surplus landholder to an extent of 2,61,944.61 Sq.mtrs by way of its orders dated 28-04-1994. On coming to know about the same, the plaintiff
No.1 got filed objections stating that declarant died leaving the plaintiff No.1 and other two children plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and further stated that the lands are purely agricultural lands and the same do not come under the master plan. Considering the objections, finally, the plaintiffs lands were treated as agricultural lands and not vacant lands. Accordingly, they declared that there was no surplus holding by the landlord.
Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 used to cultivate the lands according to her convenience and maintained possession. Due to improper raining, she could not raise the crops on time and kept the land sometimes ideal. Due to non operation of agricultural works, waste 5
O.S.No.348/2002
plants and bushes grown up in the suit lands, in order to keep the lands ready for the next season, the plaintiffs cut the waste plants and bushes by engaging labor from 05- 04-2002 and made arrangements to plough the lands with the help of a tractor.
Meanwhile, the defendants without any manner of right over the schedule property came there and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from suit lands on 15-04-2002 with the help of 25 unsocial elements. The plaintiffs made them clear that they are absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule land for the last 55 years and resisted their illegal attempts with the help of workers, tractor operator and villagers. While the ploughing work was in progress, the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands on 16-4-2002. But the plaintiffs with the help of workers resisted their attempts. The defendants left the place stating that they will come again with great force and occupy the suit lands and none can stop them.
The defendants are strangers and have no right, title or interest over the suit lands. But only with a malefide intention they are making attempts to occupy the suit lands with the help of unsocial elements. The plaintiffs are herewith filing the Pahanis from 1973 till date to show their title and possession over the suit lands apart from Ceiling orders.
The defendants are strangers and if they are not restrained, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss. They cannot maintain the possession without help of the court. Hence the suit.
3.After impleadment of plaintiff No. 4, it is further contended that plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 have sold the entire schedule property for valid sale consideration in favour of plaintiff No.4 under a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA No.8160/2002 dated 25- 01-2002 and delivered the possession in its favour. The plaintiff No.4 also mutated its name in revenue records as purchaser and possessor vide proceedings
No.B/633/2005 dated 20-06-2005 issued by the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue 6
O.S.No.348/2002
Officer. So far as cause of action also, it is mentioned that on 25-01-2002 when the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 sold the schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.4, the cause of action arose for plaintiff No.4 from that date.
4.D1, D2, D4, D6, D9 and D10 remained exparte. D27 and D28 are brought on record as legal heirs of D18.
5.D5 filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. The relationship of the plaintiffs with Maddi
Sathyanarayana Reddy and he died leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs to succeed to the suit properties are denied. It is further contended that Maddi Satyanarayana
Reddy Reddy died in the year 1982. He died leaving his wife and children but not the plaintiffs. It is also denied that after death of Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy, plaintiff No.1 was cultivating the suit lands with the help of her brothers and plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 were minors. It is also denied that before the Land Ceiling authorities, the plaintiff No.1 has filed objections and due to which the authority has issued proceedings that there was no surplus land. It is also denied that the dates of cause of action are created for the purpose of the suit only. The defendants are in possession of the schedule properties by way of plots. As such, the question of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties as rightful owners does not arise and the entries in Pahani does not create any right or title or possession over the suit properties by the plaintiffs. The revenue records are false and created for the purpose of the suit. It is further contended that when Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy were the owners and possessors of the lands in Sy.Nos.108 to 111, total admeasuring Ac.70-39 gts and they being the absolute owners, executed a registered GPA on 18-08-1980 in favour of one M.V.Rangachari S/o.Appalachari, authorizing him to convert the lands into plots and to sell the lands. In pursuance of said GPA, said Rangachari converted 7
O.S.No.348/2002
the lands into plots and obtained layout from Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, he sold out the plots on behalf of Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy in favour of different persons under different registered sales. They also sold plot Nos.1 to 149 in favour of Radha Krishna House Building Co-operative Society under different registered sale deeds dated 05-08-1981. The said Society in turn allotted the plots to its members and conveyed them through registered sale deeds. After purchase of the plots, the members also sold the plots to different persons including some of the defendants. The defendants and the third parties who purchased the plots are in possession of their respective plots. The entire suit lands were sold by GPA holders during the lifetime of Sathyanarayana Reddy and Bal Reddy only. Thus, the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule properties does not arise and the plaintiffs are not the owners or in possession thereof. In view of increasing of the prices within the surroundings of Hyderabad, the plaintiffs with the assistance of her brothers created revenue records and filed the present suit. When once the land is converted into plots and sold to different individuals, again making entries in revenue records is against to law and it has no evidentiary value. The contention of the plaintiffs that
Satyanarayana Reddy cultivated the land till his death and thereafter the plaintiffs are maintaining the possession; is absolutely false and incorrect. Purchasers of the plots made several applications, approached the several authorities for formation of roads by removing the garbage and waste; dumped by the municipality nearby the suit land.
Some of the defendants and other purchasers approached the police for the illegal activities of the plaintiffs. The suit filed for mere grant of injunction is not maintainable and the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6.D8, D10 to D12 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by D5.
8
O.S.No.348/2002
7.D7 filed a written statement contending that suit is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that one Suryarjung was the pattedar of Survey
No.108 to 111 of Thattiannaram up to 1951. The husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 3 purchased the said property and got mutated his name in the revenue records in the year 1952. Thus, the suit schedule property is self acquired property of said Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy. Both of them executed GPA in favor of M.V.Rangachari S/o.Appalachari under registered document
No.128/80 dated 19-09-1980. After demarcating the land into plots, they have sold away the schedule property to many prospective purchasers through their GPA holder.
The D7 is one among such purchasers. D7 does not know about the U.L.C.
proceedings and she used to visit her plots along with her husband. It is denied that the plaintiffs used to cultivate the schedule properties. The story is concocted and created by creating the dates of cause of action. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the dates of cause of action i.e. 15-04-2002 and 16-04-2002. In order to obtain some orders from the court by suppressing the true and material facts, the plaintiffs came to court with unclean hands. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs to D7.
8.D13 filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 filed the suit against D1 to D12 for grant of perpetual injunction claiming that the suit schedule property is ancestral in nature and after the death of Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy, the plaintiffs succeeded to the estate. Subsequently, plaintiff No. 4 was impleaded as if he is the agreement holder and possessor of the schedule property. D13 was impleaded as agreement holder of plot from the bonafide purchaser of plot sold by Maddi
Satyanarayana Reddy along with so many plots sold by him to other purchasers through registered sale deeds. The very suit itself is collusive in nature, accordingly the 9
O.S.No.348/2002
allegations set out in the plaint are denied except some of them are admitted. It is admitted that the husband of plaintiff No.1/Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy was the owner and possessor of suit schedule Sy.Nos.108 to 111 total admeasuring Ac.70-39 gts of
Thattiannaram village. But after 1980, neither Satyanarayana Reddy nor the plaintiffs
No.1 to 3 are in possession of the property. It is denied that Maddi Satyanarayana
Reddy died in the year 1982 and there is no truth in the version of the plaintiffs that they suceeded to the suit lands after the death of Satyanarayana Reddy and they were dry lands purely cultivating on rain. It is also denied that plaintiff No.1 cultivated the lands with the help of her brothers. It is also denied that during the lifetime of
Satyanarayana Reddy, he filed a declaration before the Land Ceiling authority and on the objections of plaintiffs, they could get orders that there was no surplus land. It is also denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule property after the death of Satyanarayana Reddy. The dates of cause of action are created and the story mentioned in the cause of action para is also false and created. It is also denied that the defendants interfered with their possession over the schedule property. The question of interference by the defendants over the suit lands does not arise, as the defendants and other plot owners are in possession of their properties. It is further contended that Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy was Kabiz-e-Khadim and original
Pattedar was Surayarjung and Satyanarayana Reddy was granted Ryothwari Patta in the year 1951. As such, the suit lands are self acquired property of Satyanarayana
Reddy. In view of family arrangements, the suit schedule lands along with some other lands stood jointly in the name of Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy.
Both of them executed a registered GPA document No.128/80 dated 19-09-1980 in the name of M.V.Ramangachari. In pursuance to the said powers conferred by
Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother, the entire extent of land was divided into house 10
O.S.No.348/2002
plots and sold to various persons in between the years 1980 and 1981. As borne by the records, their agent Rangachari sold away 840 house plots of various dimensions to the purchasers for valid sale consideration. The plaintiffs have no subsisting right over the schedule properties and their predecessors in title have already sold away the schedule properties to various persons. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts. Based on the some stray entries that the schedule property is still agricultural land, the present suit is filed. The purchasers of house plots are numerous and residing at various places.
Taking advantage of the same, plaintiffs tried to interfere with their possession over their respective plots by way of illegal and high handed actions. As such, the D7, D13 filed a complaint before Police, Hayathanagar on 18-09-2004 for the offences under
Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC vide Cr.No.429/2004. The plot owners formed into association and registered the same in the name of “Madhura Nagar Plot Owners Association” and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief and the suit may be dismissed with exemplary costs to D13.
9.After impleading the plaintiff No.4, D13 filed additional written statement on 15- 09-2005 contending that the plaintiffs have filed a false claim and during the course of time, plaintiff No.4 was added. In view of mutually exclusive and self contradictory statements between the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and the newly added plaintiff No.4 on the other hand, D13 required to file the additional written statement. As per the contention of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 they themselves have continuously been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and now the plaintiff No.4 represented by the counsel pleads to the effect that he paid entire sale consideration and became owner of the suit property since 25-01-2001 under an agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed in his favour by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for relief of perpetual 11
O.S.No.348/2002
injunction which is an equitable relief. As such, the alleged pleading of plaintiff No.4 is varying with the pleadings of plaintiffs No.1 to 3. Thus, all the plaintiffs have come to court by suppressing the various material facts and with unclean hands. Thus, they are not entitled for getting any equitable relief of injunction. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
10.D13 has also filed the additional written statement after impleading D27 and
D28 on 21-06-2023 contending that the delivery of possession of suit schedule property to plaintiff No.4 is denied and the allegations are false and created. It is also denied that the suit property was mutated in the name of plaintiff No.4. The date of cause of action in favour of plaintiff No.4 as 25-01-2002 is also denied. The GPA holder(Rangachari) of Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother sold about 840 house plots to various persons, as such, the suit of the plaintiffs for grant of injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are neither owners nor possessors of the schedule property at any point of time, as such, the question of alleged interference also does not arise. The suit is also barred by limitation and the suit is to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
11.D15 to D17 filed written statement contending that the suit of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 against D1 to D12 for grant of injunction claiming that the schedule property as ancestral in nature after death of Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy is filed by the plaintiffs and subsequently the plaintiff No.4 was impleaded as an agreement holder and possessor of the schedule property. D15 to D17 are impleaded subsequently as the owners of the plots. Subsequently, the defendants are impleaded as owners of the plots having purchased the plots from them as bonafide purchasers from Maddi
Satyanarayana Reddy who sold the plots to many other persons. The suit is collusive in nature as such, the allegations set out in the plaint are false. It is admitted about the 12
O.S.No.348/2002
ownership and possession of the suit Sy.Nos.108 to 111 but after 1980 neither Maddi
Satyanarayana Reddy nor the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the possessors as they have already sold out the property. It is also denied that Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy died in the year 1982. It is also denied that during his lifetime, Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy gave declaration before the Land Ceiling authority and on the objections raised by the plaintiffs, the authorities have issued proceedings in favor of the plaintiffs as non surplus land. It is also denied that the plaintiff No.1 was cultivating the land with the help of her brothers according to her convenience after the death of Maddi
Satyanarayana Reddy. It is also denied about the growing up of waste plants in the lands due to non cultivation. The dates of cause of action and the alleged interference of the D1 to D12 and others is all false and created for the purpose of the suit. It is also denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule property. The question of interference by the defendants and their men does not arise. The alleged interference by the defendants does not arise as they are in possession of the property as plot owners. The dates of cause of action are all false. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. It is further contended that husband of plaintiff No.1 was Kabiz-e-Khadim and original pattedar was one Surayarjung. Husband of plaintiff No.1 being Kabiz-e-
Khadim was granted Ryothwari Patta in the year 1951 as such, the schedule lands were self owned properties of Satyanarayana Reddy and in the family arrangements the names of Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy and Bal Reddy were jointly mentioned in the records and both of them have executed a registered sale-cum-GPA document
No.128/80 in favor of M.V.Rangachari and he sold the entire extent by making it as house plots in between 1980 and 1981 to the tune of nearly about 840 house plots for valid sale considerations and put the individual plot owners into possession. As such, all the purchasers including the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of their 13
O.S.No.348/2002
respective plots and continued the same to the knowledge of everyone including the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs knowing about the fact very well without any interest or subsisting interest over the schedule property have filed this false suit for wrongful gain. The defendants have also filed complaint before police vide Cr.No.429/2004 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC against the plaintiffs. All the plot owners have formed an association and registered it in the name and style as “Madhura Nagar plot owners”. The suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
12.D18 has filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limini. He purchased plot No.84 admeasuring 300 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.108 to 111 within the boundaries situated in
Thattiannaram village having purchased the same from Jagarlamudi Appa Rao. It is further contended that his vendor purchased the same from Maddi Satyanarayana
Reddy and Bal Reddy through their GPA holder. It is contended that they converted the land into house plots and sold through their GPA holder and in the year 1980 and 1981 near about 840 house plots were sold out by laying layout. The plaintiffs have filed the false suit with concocted documents. The D18 also taken the similar pleas as taken by the D13 and D15 to D17 with regard to the acquisition of property by Maddi
Satyanarayana Reddy and Bal Reddy, but contended that they converted land into house plots and sold out to various purchasers. As one of the purchasers, D18 is in possession and enjoyment of the plot No.84 and the plaintiffs taking advantage of the fact that the purchasers of house plots are numerous and residing at various places, tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the extents of plots purchased by them. The plot owners have also formed into an association. The present suit is filed only to grab the property and to knock away the properties of the defendants. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
14
O.S.No.348/2002
13.D19 also filed a written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as they are guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. It is contended that Maddi Satyanarayana
Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy were the owners of Sy.Nos.108 to 111 admeasuring
Ac.70-39 gts and as the absolute owners they executed a GPA on 18-08-1980 in favour of M.V.Rangachari authorizing him to convert the lands into house plots. In pursuance of the same, he obtained Grampanchayat permission layout and sold to various persons. They also sold land in favour of Radha Krishna Housing Buildings
Cooperative Society and in turn they allotted house plots to its members and conveyed the possession through registered sale deeds and now the all the plot owners including the defendants are in possession of their respective plots. Thus, there is no land left out on the site to succeed by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as the legal heirs of
Satyanarayana Reddy. All the entire land was sold out by GPA holders during the lifetime of Satyanarayana Reddy through registered sale deeds. D19 has purchased 10 plots. In view of raising of prices, plaintiffs No.1 to 3 have taken the assistance of plaintiff No.4 and hatched a plan and got mutated the name of plaintiff No.4 in revenue records by obtaining some false papers and filed the present suit. The land is converted into non agricultural land as such, the Mandal Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for change of name in revenue records without notice to the persons interested. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for wrongful gains and they are liable to be prosecuted for perjury. The defendants and other purchasers approached several authorities for formation of roads by removing the garbage and waste dumped by the municipality near the suit land and they also approached the police to prevent the illegal activities of the plaintiffs. The suit filed for 15
O.S.No.348/2002
mere injunction simplicitar is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs.
14.D20 to D24 have filed a memo adopting the written statements filed by D18.
D19 has filed a memo adopting the written statement of D18. D27 and D28 have filed a memo adopting the written statement of D18.
15.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial on 15- 07-2017.
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
(ii) To what relief?
16.On 02-09-2024, an additional issue was framed as under:
Whether the cause of action for plaintiff No.4 survives?
17.Initially, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW1 on behalf of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and as he did not turn up for further evidence, his evidence was eschewed and the suit of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 was dismissed on 02-04-2023. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Plaintiff No. 4 was examined as PW1 and Exhibited Exs.A1 to A24. He also got examined one D.Yadi Reddy as PW2. On the other hand, D13 was examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B18 were marked on his behalf and D17 was examined as DW2 and got marked Exs.B19 to B28. K.Anand Swaroop/GPA holder of D19, D26, and D27 was examined as DW3 and got marked Exs.B29 to B49.
Issue No.(i) and Additional Issue dated 02-09-2024:
18.Originally the suit was filed by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 against D1 to D12 seeking perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and their enjoyment over the suit schedule property Sy.Nos.108, 109, 110 and 111 total admeasuring Ac.70-39 gts within the boundaries as shown in the schedule. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 have claimed the property stating that they succeeded to the said 16
O.S.No.348/2002
property from their ancestor Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy. It is also their contention that during his lifetime, Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy filed declaration before the Urban
Land Ceiling Authority vide CC No.13043/1976 and though the authorities have declared that declarant as a surplus land holder to the extent of 2,61,944.61 Sq.mtrs through orders dated 28-04-1994, the plaintiff No.1 through their advocate got filed objections stating that the declarant died leaving the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as his legal heirs and contended that the lands are purely agricultural lands, as such, the question of application of ULC does not arise. Accordingly the ULC authorities have declared that there was no surplus vacant land held by the land holder. The plaintiffs have further contended that they used to raise the crops seasonally and as there were no rains the waste plants and bushes were grown up. In order to clear the bushes the plaintiffs engaged the labor on 05-04-2002 to plough the land with a tractor.
Accordingly on 15-04-2002 while they were supervising the land for cultivation, the defendants with the help of 25 other unsocial elements interfered with their possession and they also interfered on 16-04-2002.
19.On the other hand, all the contesting defendants have admitted about the ownership of late Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy over the Sy.Nos.108 to 111 total admeasuring Ac.70-39 gts but it is their contention that during his lifetime only, Maddi
Satyanarayana Reddy executed a registered GPA document No.128/1980 dated 19- 09-1980 in favor of one M.V.Rangachari and got laid housing plots and accordingly, the said Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy sold the plots through their GPA holder to the extent of 840 plots to various purchasers in the year 1980- 1981. As such there was no land existing for the plaintiffs much less the agricultural land as claimed by them. It is also their contention that the defendants and other purchasers are in possession of the schedule properties by way of plots to the extent 17
O.S.No.348/2002
purchased by them. Taking advantage of stray entries in the pahanis, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit only to harass the defendants and to extract amount from them and they prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. Subsequently, after filing of the suit, plaintiff No.4 also got impleaded on his application vide IA
No.872/2005. It is the contention of the Plaintiff No.4 in the said application that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and their lease holders have jointly executed agreement of sale- cum-GPA document No.8160/2001 in favor of the Plaintiff No.4 on 25-01-2002 and for valid sale consideration of Rs.71,00,000/- and the same was paid to the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and their lease holders. After impleadment, the plaintiff No.4 has not filed any further pleadings. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 did not lead evidence except filing chief affidavit of plaintiff no.4 as PW1 and did not come forward for his evidence for years together inspite of conditional orders passed by my learned predecessor, as such, his evidence was eschewed on 24-02-2023 and the suit of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 was dismissed.
20.Since plaintiff No.4 was continuing the suit after dismissal of the suit of plaintiffs
No.1 to 3, he filed IA No.229/23 on 17-03-2023 seeking amendment of pleadings and the said application was allowed on 28-03-2023 by my learned predecessor.
Accordingly, Para No.4(a) and 7(a) are impleaded in the original plaint. In para No.4(a), it is mentioned about the purchase of the schedule property by plaintiff No.4 under agreement of sale-cum-GPA and his name was also mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B/633/2005 dated 20-06-2005 issued by the MRO, Hayathnagar.
In para No.7(a) cause of action is shown as 25-01-2002 when the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 sold the suit property in favour of plaintiff No.4. Except the above said pleadings, there are no other specific pleadings taken by the plaintiff No.4.
18
O.S.No.348/2002
21.Plaintiff No.4 examined its Chairman Mr.K.Pratap Reddy as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A24. He deposed his evidence reiterating the averments made in the plaint filed by plaintiffs No.1 to 3 including the flow of title to the plaintiff No.4 and the date of cause of action as 25-01-2002 for the plaintiff No.4. Plaintiff No.4 is claiming the property under Ex.A23.
22.On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendants that the alleged Ex.A23 was also cancelled by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 in the year 2005 and in this regard, the
D13 filed Ex.B17/registered cancellation of AGPA executed by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff No.4 vide document No.1877/2005 dated 20-10-2005. It is also the argument of the land counsel for the defendants that suppressing the fact of cancellation of Ex.A23 vide Ex.B17, the plaintiff No.4 is continuing the suit against the defendants only to harass and extract the amounts from the individual plot owners. It is also their argument that the plaintiffs without any manner of right or title over the suit schedule property after 1980-81 have created a litigation 20 years after the sale of the property in favour of various purchasers by the original owner Maddi Satyanarayana
Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy; by creating certain documents, revenue records and got impleaded their names in the pahanis and filed the present suit and litigating the matter for more than another two decades and harassing the innocent small plot owners to extract the amounts in view of the hike in the value of the property. Hence, it is prayed by the counsels for defendants that suit is to be dismissed with exemplary costs against the contesting defendants.
22.Though it is the contention of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and 4 that they got ULC proceedings in their favour, no such ULC proceedings are filed except the pahanis and the mutation proceedings in favour of plaintiff No.4 vide Ex.A1. As per Ex.A1, the
Tahsildar has based on the report of the MRI has ordered to incorporate the name of 19
O.S.No.348/2002
plaintiff No.4 in the possessory column for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, subject to outcome of the cases pending in various courts in respect of the suit schedule properties. Ex.B1 is dated 20-06-2005. Plaintiff No.4 is claiming the property under agreement of sale-cum-GPA (Ex.A23), wherein the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and their leaseholders Gangireddy Chandra Reddy, Maddi Narsimha Reddy, P.Bhoopathy
Reddy, Gangireddy Sathya Reddy, Gangireddy Bhoopal Reddy have executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of the plaintiff No.4 for a sale consideration of
Rs.71,00,000/- and out of the total sale consideration, the plaintiff No. 4 paid
Rs.69,00,000/- as on Ex.A23 and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-will be paid in due course.
23.As seen from Ex.A23, at page No.6, the market value of the suit property Ac.70- 39 gts is shown as Rs.1,42,00,000/- @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, but the entire schedule property was sold only at Rs.71,00,000/- i.e., at half of the market value as shown in
Ex.A23, but no explanation is given in Ex.A23 either by plaintiffs No.1 to 3 or by plaintiff
No. 4 in their pleadings as to why the Ex.A23 was executed in favour of plaintiff No.4 for only Rs.71,00,000/-, though the value of the property is Rs.1,42,00,000/- even as per their contention. In the entire Ex.A23, nowhere it is mentioned that plaintiff No.4 was not given any possession of the schedule property and he was only authorized to sell, execute the sale deeds in favour of prospective purchasers and also to enter into agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of any other purchasers and can deliver the possession in respect of the said transactions.
24.The contents of Ex.A23 gives an understanding that the plaintiff No.4 is only authorized to act on behalf of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and he has also not paid entire sale consideration to the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 even as per their agreement and he is only authorized to deliver the possession on behalf of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 but not on his 20
O.S.No.348/2002
own as the purchaser under Ex.A23 but as a holder of agreement of sale-cum-GPA.
Ex.A23 was executed on 25-01-2002. Ex.B17 was dated 20-10-2004 and it was registered vide document No.1877/2005 on 20-06-2005 for the endorsement of Joint
Sub-Registrar, R.R.District. As per Ex.A1/proceedings in favour of plaintiff No.4 mutating his name in respect of the suit schedule property is dated 05-06-2005. Thus, the plaintiff No.4 has suppressed the fact of cancellation of the Ex.A23 vide Ex.B17 and obtained the Ex.A1 proceedings in its name in the month of June, 2005 i.e., four months after the cancellation of the Ex.A23. Thus, the plaintiff No.4 cannot have any right or title over the schedule property to continue even as the agreement of sale- cum-GPA holder on behalf of plaintiff No.1 to 3.
24.Coming to the evidence of PW1, in the cross-examination, he has stated that plaintiff No.4 has not given any authorization to him to pursue the case and similarly he has also not obtained any permission from the court to pursue the matter on behalf of the plaintiff No.4 company. He further stated that he has filed chief affidavit on behalf of plaintiff No.4 only but not on behalf of plaintiffs No.1 to 3. In view of non filing of any authorization on behalf of plaintiff No. 4 company and in view of his evidence that he has filed only affidavit on behalf of plaintiff No.4 but not on behalf of plaintiff No.1 to 3, the evidence of PW1 on behalf of any of the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 is not maintainable and he is not authorized to depose anything on behalf of the plaintiffs No.1 to 4. Further, though his evidence on behalf of any of the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 cannot be taken as he is not authorized to do so, still I want to scrutinized his evidence to decide the case on merits.
25.PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that he does not know whether
Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy have executed GPA in favor of
M.V.Rangachari vide document No.128/1980 dated 19-09-1980 and also pleaded 21
O.S.No.348/2002
ignorance that said Rangachari made a layout converting the suit schedule property into plots and sold to various third parties and all the purchasers have formed an association as “Madhura Nagar Plots Owners Association”. He further stated that he has not filed the ULC proceedings and pleaded ignorance about execution of Ex.B17 by cancelling the Ex.A23. He further stated in his cross-examination that he did not file any separate statements or pleadings except the pleadings of plaintiffs No.1 to 3. In the cross-examination done by D19, a suggestion is put to PW1 that he entered into agreement of sale-cum-GPA on 25-01-2002, only on the ground to clear the title and fight the dispute with his own money and the suit is filed at his instance only but he has denied the same. He has also denied the suggestion that he knows about the sale of land to third parties. As seen from Ex.B17, it is specifically mentioned at page No.3 of
Ex.B17 that the GPA holder i.e., plaintiff No.4 agreed to clear the litigation and prosecute and take all measures to clear the property from disputes and litigation if any, bt till date, he has not acted upon the Ex.A23. As such, it was revoked, cancelled and invalidated from the date of Ex.B17. It is also mentioned in page No.4 of Ex.B17 that the GPA holder plaintiff No.4 knows pending of cases vide OS No.69/2001, OS
No.1798/2000 on the file of II Addl.Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District and OS
No.100/2002 on the file of II Additional District Judge, R.R.District and he has assured to clear all the litigations. At page No.4 of Ex.B17, it is clearly mentioned that the GPA holder knows about pending of cases vide OS No.69/2001 and OS No.798/2000 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District, but he has created another litigation and filed OS No.100/2002 on the file of II Additional District Judge,
R.R.District and further, he is creating so many problems in the above lands against to the interest of the principals i.e., plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and not making any representation
before the proper courts and he has also damaged the Kunta Cheru by removing the
22
O.S.No.348/2002
Katta for which the government has objected. As such, the GPA holder plaintiff No.4 has escaped from the work and not responding to the principals plaintiffs No.1 to 3, as such, Ex.A23 was revoked.
26.The contents of Ex.B17 clearly goes to show that Ex.A23 is executed nominally by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 in favor of plaintiff No.4 for a lesser price of Rs.71,00,000/- only to clear the litigations over the suit schedule lands. Thus, from the contents of
Ex.B17 it is clear that all the defendants are disputing the title and possession of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 over the suit schedule property and it is their specific contention that the suit schedule property was already sold by original owners Maddi Satyanarayana
Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy through their GPA holder in favor of various persons including the defendants and since the date of purchase from the year 1981 onwards the defendants and other purchasers are in possession of plots purchased by them in the suit survey numbers. As such, the plaintiffs have come to the court by suppressing the said fact and they are not in possession of the schedule property as shown in the schedule.
27.In Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors reported in AIR 2008 SCC 2033 equivalent to 2008 (4) SCC 594 has held at para No.14 that:
“But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not 23
O.S.No.348/2002
proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.”
28.In this case, the defendants are not disputing the title of Maddi Satyanarayana
Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy, but only disputing that they have already sold out the property in the year 1980-1981 under Ex.A1 through their GPA holder
M.V.Rangachari. As such, the plaintiffs have no possession over the schedule property.
The plaintiffs have not filed any documents to show their title over the schedule property except the pahanis which show stray entries of name of plaintiff No.1 in possessory column in some of the pahanis. As seen from the Pahaies/Exs.B47 to B49 and the pahanis filed by the plaintiffs, the possessory column is kept blank during the years 1987-88, 1992-93, 1993-94 and as on the date of filing of the suit or subsequent thereto, in the possessory column, the plots are shown. In this case, the plaintiffs did not lead any evidence on their title, but simplify filed the suit for mere injunction. In such a situation, when the possession of the plaintiffs is in dispute over the schedule property, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to seek for declaration and other consequential reliefs of injunction, etc., as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs P.
Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors . The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held in the above said judgment that where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and it does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession with or without a consequential injunction is the remedy. In this case also, the plaintiffs have not filed any documents to show that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 have suceeded to the property held by Maddi
Satyanarayana Reddy and they were issued any title documents. As such, even their title is also under cloud and so also the possession thereof. Thus, the remedy available for the plaintiffs is only to file the suit for declaration and for consequential reliefs of 24
O.S.No.348/2002
injunction. But the plaintiffs have filed only suit for injunction without filing any substantial evidence of either oral or documentary to show that they are in possession of the schedule property and having title over the suit schedule property. Further, they have also failed to prove that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property within the boundaries as shown in the schedule.
29.Though the suit of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 was dismissed for default for non- prosecution on 24-02-2023, they continued the matter through plaintiff No.4, but however they filed IAs No.1072/2024, 1073/2024 and 1074/2024 seeking permission to appoint a new Advocate, to set aside the dismissal order passed against them.
Those IAs were dismissed on contest on 23-01-2005, but the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 have not preferred any appeal against these orders and continued the matter through plaintiff No.4. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 is already dismissed and holds good, and the suit of the plaintiff No.4 is only to be decided.
30.The boundaries of schedule of property is totally differing with the boundaries of schedule as mentioned in Ex.A23. The individual boundaries of Sy.Nos.108 to 111 and the common boundaries as shown in the Ex.A23 are totally different. When the cause of action para of the plaint is considered, the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 have come to the court by suppressing the fact of execution of Ex.A23 in favor of plaintiff No.4 in the month of
January, 2002 and filed the suit in April, 2002 stating that they are in possession of the property and cultivating the same showing the cause of action in April, 2002 as 15-04- 2002 and 16-04-2002. On the other hand, plaintiff No.4 has also not taken any specific plea that the cause of action also arose in his favor even on the dates as mentioned in the original plaint except showing the date as 25-01-2002 i.e., sale of property under
Ex.A23/ registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA. The plaintiff No.4 has not shown any specific date of cause of action of interference by the defendants restraining the 25
O.S.No.348/2002
plaintiff No.4 from enjoying the suit schedule property. Further as seen from Ex.A23, no specific delivery of possession was made in favor of plaintiff No.4. Hence, I find that the plaintiff No.4 or plaintiffs No.1 to 3 failed to prove the dates of cause of action, incidental title and possession over the suit schedule property . The plaintiff No.4 has also failed to prove any specific date of cause of action in respect of his possession over the schedule property and the interference against his possession. As such, I find that the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 have come to the court with unclean hands by suppressing the fact of the sale of the property by the orignial owners Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother Bal Reddy way back in the year 1980-81. Hence, Issue No.(i) and
Additional Issue dated 02-09-2024 are held against the plaintiffs and in favor of the
defendants.
Issue No.(ii):
31.In the light of discussion made above under Issue No.(i) and Additional Issue
dated 02-09-2024, I find that though the suit schedule property was sold out by Maddi
Satyanarayana Reddy and his brother under Ex.A1 through their GPA holder way back in the year 1980-81 which are supported by the oral and documentary evidence of defendants that they are in possession of the individual plots from 1980-81 onwards by way of housing plots. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 taking advantage of a stray entry in the name of plaintiff No.1 in possessory column in some of the pahanis on and off have created a litigation by executing Ex.A23 in favor of plaintiff No.4, 20 years after the sale of the property in favor of third parties. Further, they have continued the litigation for more than two decades without seeking appropriate relief of declaration of title and consequential reliefs inspite of the specific averments of defendants denying the title and possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, in view of the findings on the above issues and discussion made above, I find that the suit of the plaintiffs is to be dismissed with 26
O.S.No.348/2002
exemplary costs of Rs.5000/- each to the contesting defendants. Accordingly, the Issue
No.(ii) is held.
In the result, the suit of the plaintiff No.4 is dismissed with exemplary costs of
Rs.5,000/- each to the contesting defendants.
Dictated to Stenographer by electronic audio mode, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of April, 2025.
IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
CC of pahani for the year APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:
PW1 – K.Prathap Reddy DW1 – R.Laxma Reddy PW2 – D.Yadi Reddy DW2 – B.Rambabu DW3 – K.Anand Swaroop
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1:CC of proceedings of the Dy.Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer dated 20- 06-2005. Ex.A2:CC of pahani for the year 2001-02 dated 15-04-2002 Ex.A3:CC of pahani for the year 2000-01 dated 15-04-2002. Ex.A4:CC of pahani for the year 1999-2000 dated 15-04-2002. Ex.A5:CC of pahani for the year 1996-97 dated 01-04-2002. Ex.A6:CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 dated 01-04-2002. Ex.A7:CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 dated 01-04-2002. Ex.A8:CC of pahani for the year 1993-94 dated 01-04-2002. Ex.A9:CC of pahani for the year 1992-93 dated 01-04-2002. Ex.A10:CC of pahani for the year 1987-88 dated 01-04-2002. Ex.A11:CC of pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.A12:CC of pahani for the year 1984-85. Ex.A13:CC of pahani for the year 1982-83. Ex.A14:CC of pahani for the year 1981-82. Ex.A15:CC of pahani for the year 1980-81. Ex.A16:CC of pahani for the year 1979-80. Ex.A17:CC of pahani for the year 1978-79.
27
O.S.No.348/2002
Ex.A18:CC of pahani for the year 1977-78. Ex.A19:CC of pahani for the year 1976-77. Ex.A20:CC of pahani for the year 1974-75 Ex.A21:CC of pahani for the year 1973-74. Ex.A22:CC of pahani for the year 1983-84. Ex.A23:CC of agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 25-01-2002. Ex.A24:CC of certificate of incorporation dated 10-01-2002.
For Defendants:
Ex.B1:CC of GPA document no.128/80 dated 19-09-1980. Ex.B2:CC of registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.2744/2002 dated 22-07-2002. Ex.B3:CC of registered sale deed document No.930/1981 dated 09-02-1981. Ex.B4:CC of registered sale deed document No.931/1981 dated 09-02-1981. Ex.B5:CC of registered sale deed document No.938/1981 dated 09-02-1981. Ex.B6:CC of registered sale deed document No.939/1981 dated 09-02-1981. Ex.B7:CC of registered sale deed document No.6568/2003 dated 24-12-2003. Ex.B8:CC of registered sale deed document No.1092/1981 dated 10-04-1981. Ex.B9:CC of registered sale deed document No.3004/2004 dated 26-03-2004. Ex.B10:CC of registered sale deed document No.1752/1981 dated 22-04-1981 Ex.B11:CC of registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.1685/2006 dated 13-03-2006. Ex.B12:CC of registered sale deed document No.984/1981 dated 10-02-1981. Ex.B13:CC of registered sale deed document No.840/1981 dated 05-02-1981. Ex.B14:CC of registered sale deed document No.664/1982 dated 29-01-1981. Ex.B15:CC of registration of Madhura Nagar Plot Owners Welfare Association No.2256/2004 dated 23-11-2004. Ex.B16:CC of covering letter with regard to change body. Ex.B17:CC of cancellation of AGPA document No.1877/2005 dated 28-10-2004. Ex.B18:CC of pahanies for the year 1954-55, 1955, 58, 1971-72, 1974-75, 1980-81, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 issued under RTI Act. Ex.B19:CC of agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.3222/2002 dated 26-08- 2002. Ex.B20:CC of sale deed document No.2061/1981 dated 18-03-1981. Ex.B21:CC of sale deed document No.2057/1981 dated 18-03-1981. Ex.B22:CC of agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.3220/2002 dated 26-08- 2002. Ex.B23:CC of sale deed document No.1856/1981 dated 06-03-1981. Ex.B24:CC of sale deed document No.2056/1981 dated 18-03-1981. Ex.B25:CC of sale deed document No.2557/1981 dated 02-04-1980. Ex.B26:CC of sale deed document No.1150/1981 dated 13-02-1981. Ex.B27:CC of sale deed document No.1865/1981 dated 06-03-1981. Ex.B28:CC of sale deed document No.1148/1981 dated 13-02-1981.
28
O.S.No.348/2002
Ex.B29:Original GPA dated 06-12-2022. Ex.B30:CC of sale deed executed in favour of A.Venkata Krishna Rao dated 20-01- 1982. Ex.B31:CC of sale deed executed in favour of A.Venkata Krishna Rao dated 25-01- 1982. Ex.B32:CC of sale deed executed in favour of A.Venkata Krishna Rao dated 20-01- 1982. Ex.B33:CC of sale deed executed in favour of A.Venkata Krishna Rao dated 25-01- 1982. Ex.B34:CC of sale deed executed in favour of A.Venkata Krishna Rao dated 24-01- 1982. Ex.B35:Cc of sale deed dated 25-01-1982. Ex.B36:CC of sale deed executed in favour of A.Kamala dated 17-07-1982. Ex.B37:CC of sale deed executed in favour of A.Kamala dated 17-07-1982. Ex.B38:CC of sale deed dated 17-07-1982. Ex.B39:Cc of sale deed dated 17-07-1982. Ex.B40:CC of cancellation of AGPA document No.1877/2005 dated 20-10-2004 executed by Maddi Bhagyamma and others. Ex.B41:CC of pahani for the year 1978-79. Ex.B42:CC of pahani for the year 1980-81. Ex.B43:CC of pahani for the year 1992-93. Ex.B44:CC of pahani for the year 1994-95. Ex.B45:CC of pahani for the year 1997-98. Ex.B46:CC of pahani for the year 1998-99. Ex.B47:CC of pahani for the year 1999-2000. Ex.B48:CC of pahani for the year 2002-03. Ex.B49:CC of pahani for the year 2004-05.
IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar