Sri A.Radha Krishna Murthy

O.S.No.128 of 2016 Date: 31.12.2018

JCJ, Nidamanoor

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIDAMANOOR

PRESENT : SRI A.RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIDAMANOOR

MONDAY, THE THIRTY - FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

O.S.No.128 OF 2016

Between:-

Amanaganti Venkat Reddy… Plaintif

AND

1. Amanaganti Kalinga Reddy

2. Amanaganti Karunamma

3. Amanaganti Praveen Reddy (Suit is dismissed as not-pressed) …Defendants

This suit is coming on 27.12.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Raj Kumar, learnedCounsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.C.Koti Reddy, Counsel for the Defendant No.1 and of Sri J.Srinivas, Counsel for Defendant No.2, upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the having stood over the matter for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant

Nos.1 to 3 seeking for Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant

Nos.1 to 3 and their men from ever causing any sort of interference with the possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule

Property. [Herein after referred to as Suit Schedule Property]

2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF, SUCCINCTLY, IS AS FOLLOWS:

2.1Originally the Plaintiff’s grandfather by name Amanaganti

Pedda Mattaiah was the Pattadar of agricultural lands to an extent of

Ac.6-05 guntas in Sy.No.323 of Yerrabelli village. Pedda Mattaiah had to two sons namely Laxmaiah and Srinivas Reddy (Plaintiff’s father). After the death of said Pedda Mattaiah his two sons have partitioned the said land and sold out some of their lands except the Suit Schedule

Properties. The said Laxmaiah have no issues and hence the Plaintiff got the share of said Laxmaiah also and the Plaintiff became the absolute owner and possessor of Suit Schedule Properties. The Revenue

Page 1 of 5

O.S.No.128 of 2016 Date: 31.12.2018

JCJ, Nidamanoor

Authorities recognized the Title and possession of Plaintiff over the Suit

Schedule Properties, mutated his name in all the concerned Revenue

Records and Plaintiff was issued Pattadar Passbook and a Book of Title

Deed. The Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of Suit

Schedule Properties since the date of acquisition. The Defendant No.2 has land on the Western and South sides of Suit Schedule Properties and on 20-11-2016 the Defendants Nos.1 to 3 have tried to occupy the Suit

Schedule Properties and they are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Properties. Hence the

Plaintiff filed this Suit for Perpetual Injunction.

2.2The Defendant No.1 filed the written statement and

Defendant No.2 adopted the written statement of Defendant No.1. The

Suit against Defendant No.3 was dismissed as not pressed by the

Plaintiff as per the docket order dated 24-01-2017.

3. CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS, SUCCINCTLY, IS AS FOLLOWS:

The Defendant Nos.1 & 2 denied the material contentions of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has no land within the boundaries as mentioned in the Schedule and the boundaries are incorrect. The

Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.0-37¼guntas in Sy.No.323/2 and Ac.0-22¼guntas in Sy.No.323/7 i.e., total extent of Ac.1-19½guntas which is a single compact piece of land located in Yerrabelly village besides some other land. Similarly the Defendant No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.5-20guntas which is in two parts one is Ac.2-28guntas and another is Ac.2-32guntas located at

Yerrabelly village besides some other lands. The Plaintiff has no any piece of land under the suit survey number. Taking advantage of kinship and nominal records and without having physical possession, the

Plaintiff tiled this Suit. The Defendants filed O.S No.115 of 2016 against the Plaintiff and obtained Status-quo orders vide I.A.No.192 of 2016 and by suppressing all the above facts the Plaintiff filed this suit. Finally the

Defendants prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

Page 2 of 5

O.S.No.128 of 2016 Date: 31.12.2018

JCJ, Nidamanoor

4.Basing on the respective pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the Plaintif is in Lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of this suit?

2. Whether the Plaintif is entitled for the relief of

Perpetual Injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.During trial, the Plaintiff himself stepped into witness box as

PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-10 were exhibited. Despite conditional orders the Defendants did not choose to adduce evidence and their evidence was closed as per the docket order dated 03-12-2018.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for Plaintiff and the learned counsels appearing for Defendants Nos.1 & 2.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.ISSUE No.1: Whether the Plaintif is in Lawful

possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property as on

the date of filing of this suit?

8.1The Plaintiff, as PW-1 filed his Chief-examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint, no new facts have been testified and hence the chief affidavit of PW-1 is nothing but replica of plaint.

PW-1 categorically deposed that his paternal grandfather Peda Mattaiah was Pattadar and possessor of property to an extent of Ac.6-05guntas in

Sy.No.323 of Yerrabelli village. In order to substantiate said contention

PW-1 exhibited Exs.P-2 to Ex.P-4. A perusal of Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-4, it is quite clear that Peda Mattaiah was the Pattadar and possessor of said property. PW-1 also testified that his father and his senior paternal uncle have partitioned the above said property after demise of his paternal grant father. PW-1 further deposed that his Senior Paternal uncle has no issues and hence he got his share also. Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-7 discloses that the father of PW-1 was Pattadar and possessor of the Suit

Page 3 of 5

O.S.No.128 of 2016 Date: 31.12.2018

JCJ, Nidamanoor

Schedule Properties. PW-1 also testified that he succeeded the Suit

Schedule Properties and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 & Ex.A-9 fortifies the said contention. The testimony of PW-1 was remained UN-challenged.

8.2In order to encounter the testimony of PW-1, the Defendants did not choose to adduce evidence and hence whatever pleaded by them in their Written Statement is incorrect. From the UN-challenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-9 it is very clear that

PW-1 is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties.

This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

09. ISSUE NO.2 : Whether the Plaintif is entitled for the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for?

9.1It is the UN-challenged testimony of PW-1 that on 20-11-2016 and on 01-12-2016 the Defendants have tried to interfere with the Suit Schedule Property. This Court already held in issue No.1 that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule

Property. The lawful possession of the Plaintiff is to be protected and as such the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

10. ISSUE NO.3 : To What relief ?

In view of the observations and findings of this Court on issues Nos.1 & 2, this Court holds that the Suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

11.IN THE RESULT, the Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs by granting Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants Nos.1 & 2 and their men from ever interfering with the Plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NIDAMANOOR

Page 4 of 5

O.S.No.128 of 2016 Date: 31.12.2018

JCJ, Nidamanoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1AmanagantiVenkatNIL Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No. Date of Description of Document Document

Ex.A-1--Pattadar Pass Book

Ex.A-2--Certified copy of Pahani for the year, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58

Ex.A-3--Certified copy of Pahani for the year, 1959-60

Ex.A-4--Certified copy of Pahani for the year, 1975-76

Ex.A-5--Certified copy of Pahani for the year, 1990-91

Ex.A-6--Certified copy of Pahani for the year, 2000-2001

Ex.A-7--Certified copy of Pahani for the year, 2010-2011

Ex.A-8--Computerized Pahani for Sy.No.322/1/A, for 1426Fasli

Ex.A-9--Computerized Pahani for Sy.No.323/4/A, for 1426Fasli

Ex.A-1029.11.2016Certificate issued by Central Bank of India, Nidamanoor.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL ::

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NIDAMANOOR

Page 5 of 5

C.C.No.172/2018 Dt.31.12.2018

Accused Nos.1 to 5 present. Copies of case documents are furnished to them. Accused are examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation is explained and read over to them for the offence punishable Under Section 9(1) of Gaming Act in Telugu, for which they pleaded guilty. This court warned the accused and informed them about the punishment prescribed for the offense committed by them. Even then the accused admitted their guilt. Hence, this court feels that the guilt pleaded by the accused is voluntary, Hence, the accused No.1 to 4 are found guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 9(1) of Gaming Act and accordingly, they are convicted Under Section 252 Cr.P.C, for the said offence. On questioning with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused pleaded that they are having wife, children and old aged parents and they are depending on their shoulders and further pleaded that considering the offence committed by them is first offence, prayed that court to impose fine by taking lenient view. Having considered the submissions made by the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that instead of sentencing them to jail at once, imposing of fine would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default, they shall undergo SI for (07) days each for the offence punishable Under Section 9(1) of AP Gaming Act. The unmarked case property i.e., Rs.11,750/- deposited vide C.P.No.06/2018 in the form of FDR shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over. The item No.2 of unmarked case property. i.e., 104 playing cards shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Total fine amount comes to Rs. 25,000/-.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NIDAMANOOR

S.T.C.No.730/2018 Dt.31.12.2018

Accused is present. Copies of case documents are furnished to him. The accused is examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation is explained and read over to him for the offence punishable Under Sections 183 of M.V. Act in Telugu, for which he pleaded guilty. This court warned the accused and informed him about the punishment prescribed for the offence committed by him. Even then the accused admitted his guilt. Hence, this court feels that the guilt pleaded by the accused is voluntary. Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 183 of M.V. Act and accordingly, he is convicted Under Section 252 Cr.P.C., for the said offence.On questioning with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused pleaded that he is having wife, children and old aged parents and they are depending on his shoulders and further pleaded that considering the offence committed by him is first offence, prayed that court to impose fine by taking lenient view. Having considered the submissions made by the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that instead of sentencing him to jail at once, imposing of fine would meet the ends of justice.Hence, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/- in default, he shall undergo SI for (07) days for the offence punishable Under Section 183 of M.V. Act.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NIDAMANOOR

S.T.C.No.731/2018 Dt.31.12.2018

Accused is present. Copies of case documents are furnished to him. The accused is examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation is explained and read over to him for the offence punishable Under Sections 183 of M.V. Act in Telugu, for which he pleaded guilty. This court warned the accused and informed him about the punishment prescribed for the offence committed by him. Even then the accused admitted his guilt. Hence, this court feels that the guilt pleaded by the accused is voluntary. Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 183 of M.V. Act and accordingly, he is convicted Under Section 252 Cr.P.C., for the said offence.On questioning with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused pleaded that he is having wife, children and old aged parents and they are depending on his shoulders and further pleaded that considering the offence committed by him is first offence, prayed that court to impose fine by taking lenient view. Having considered the submissions made by the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that instead of sentencing him to jail at once, imposing of fine would meet the ends of justice.Hence, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/- in default, he shall undergo SI for (07) days for the offence punishable Under Section 183 of M.V. Act.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NIDAMANOOR

S.T.C.No.732/2018 Dt.31.12.2018

Accused is present. Copies of case documents are furnished to him. The accused is examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation is explained and read over to him for the offence punishable Under Sections 183 of M.V. Act in Telugu, for which he pleaded guilty. This court warned the accused and informed him about the punishment prescribed for the offence committed by him. Even then the accused admitted his guilt. Hence, this court feels that the guilt pleaded by the accused is voluntary. Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 183 of M.V. Act and accordingly, he is convicted Under Section 252 Cr.P.C., for the said offence.On questioning with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused pleaded that he is having wife, children and old aged parents and they are depending on his shoulders and further pleaded that considering the offence committed by him is first offence, prayed that court to impose fine by taking lenient view. Having considered the submissions made by the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that instead of sentencing him to jail at once, imposing of fine would meet the ends of justice.Hence, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/- in default, he shall undergo SI for (07) days for the offence punishable Under Section 183 of M.V. Act.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NIDAMANOOR