1
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::
PITHAPURAM.
Present:-Ms.A.Vasanthi, XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram.
Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025
OS.No.64 of 2015
Between: 1.Yerramilli Venkata Subbarao, (died) 2.Y.Janaki,
3. Y.R.L. Swamy,
4. K. Sitamahalakshmi,
5. Y.S.N. Murthy, 6.P.B.T. Sunder,
7. I. Rajeswari Devi,
8. Y.S.R. Murthy, (Plaintiffs 2 to 8 added as per orders in IA No. 388 of 2016 dt. 25.07.2017)
...Plaintiffs.
-And- 1.State of A.P Rep by the District Collector, East Godavari District, AP.
2. Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram,
3. Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal, 4.VRO, Srungavruksham village,
5. M/s Nasa Association for social awareness Rep by its director Smt. Jyothi Premadas,
6. Divisional Engineer, AP Housing Board, NFCL Road, Kakinada. 7.Junior Engineer,AP Housing board, MROs office, Tuni.
8. Koyya Rarnudu,
9. Nernala Surya Rao,
10. Juttarapu Satyanarayana,
11. Pulugu Apparao,
12. Boddapati Pedda, 2
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
13. Rajala Nookaraju,
14. Bandi Sathibabu,
15. Pallavi Ramudu,
16. Thota Lakshmi Narayana
17. Kanukuri Ramana,
18. Thota Nookaraju,
19. Mallika Sathibabu,
20. Kutam Sathibabu,
21. Thota Ramana
22. Kutam Lakshmi Narayana,
23. Thupakula Venkata Lakshmi,
24. Panjapi Venkata Lakshmi,
...Defendants.
This suit came before this Court on 21.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.S.R Murthy, Sri.V.S.N. Murthy, Advocates for plaintiffs and Assistant Government Pleader for D1 to D.4, D.6, D.7 , and petition against D.5 is dismissed as not pressed, and D.8 to D.24 are set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title, for recovery of possession and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties and such other reliefs.
2. The brief contents of the plaint are that the plaintiffs great Grand father Y.
Ramachandrudu acquired extensive properties including the plaint schedule property through a registered sale deed dt. 5.7.1910, vide Doc No. 434/1910 and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later he died intestate leaving 3
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
behind him, his seven sons. Since then the entire properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of his sons till they partitioned the properties orally in the year 1930. In that partition an extent of Ac 34.44 cents of land covered under RS No.
249 situated at Srungavruksham village, Thondangi Mandal, which is a part and parcel of the plaint schedule property and some other properties devolved upon Y.
Venkatachalam and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute rights and title and later he died intestate in the year 1933 leaving behind his two sons Y. Satyanarayana, father of the plaintiff and Y. Ramachandrarao, who is the younger brother of Satyanarayana. They partitioned the properties devolved upon them from their father orally in the year 1946 and in that partition the extent of
Ac.34.44 cents of the above referred land and some other extent of the lands situated at Srungavruksham village and one house property devolved upon the share of Y. Ramachandrarao.
The said Y.Ramachandra rao executed a registered release deed on 31.8.1947 vide Doc No. 3838/47, in favour of his brother Y. Satyanarayana, who is the father of plaintiff. As per the said release deed Y. Satyanarayana became the owner of schedules 1 and II described in the said release deed which includes an extent of
Ac.34.44 cents of land in RS No. 249 of Srungavruksham village. The registration extract of the registered release deed is herewith filed as Doc No. 2. Since then plaintiff’s father Y.Satyanayana was in possession and enjoyment of the properties 4
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
described in the Release deed schedules 1 and II with absolute rights and title. The said Satyanarayana died intestate leaving behind him three sons including plaintiff and one daughter. Later they partitioned their family properties orally in the year 1957.
While so in the year 1970 the government laid Pampa Chanel under the award No.3/1970, DT.27.02.1970. At that time the land for an extent of Ac. 34.44 cents was sub-divided as RS No. 249/1 A3 for an extent of Ac.2.08 cents, 249/1A1 for an extent Ac.2.09 cents and 249/1D for an extent of Ac.2.15 cents and etc., which are not relevant to this suit. In that afore said oral partition an extent of
Ac.2.15 cents situated in S No.249/1D devolved upon the share of Y. Venkayamma the sister of the plaintiff. The said Y. Venkayamma is in possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute rights and title. In that oral partition an extent of
Ac.2.08 cents in S No. 249/1 A3 devolved upon the plaintiff herein. Y.V.Subbarao.
The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute rights and title.
The plaintiff submitted that the government recognized the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as well as his sister and their names were mutated in
Revenue records and land Revenue was being collected from them. While so
Smt.Y. Venkayamma gifted away her share of property Ac.2.15 cents in S No.
249/1D which was in her possession and enjoyment in favour of plaintiff by 5
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
executing a registered gift deed dated 29.03.2012 which he accepted and she delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff. However the Revenue authorities issuing pattadar pass book and title deeds the extent as Ac.1.50 cents in
S.No.249/1D instead of Ac.2.15 cents in the name of Y. Venkayamma. The plaintiff contemplates to take steps for rectification of the said mistake in the revenue records. Since the date of the Gift deed the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property for an extent of Ac. 2.15 cents also along with his property of an extent of Ac.2.08 cents which is devolved upon him in oral partition in RS No.
249/1 A3 situated at Srungavruksham village with absolute rights and title.
The plaintiff submitted that even though plaintiffs sister Smt.Y. Venkayamma gifted away her property of an extent of Ac2.15 cents in RS No.249/1D, to the plaintiff by executing a registered gift deed, the name of the plaintiff was not mutate in revenue records so far. The revenue authorities has not been taken any action to incorporate the changes in revenue records and in pattadar passbook and title deeds, even though proper documentary evidence was submitted and even after so many representations were made by the plaintiff in that regard.
The plaintiff submitted that his father was in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.9.44 cents in RS No. 249 situated in Srungavruksham village,
Thondangi Mandal. But by mistake the said extent of Ac.9.44 cents was noted as government land in revenue records , but later it was discovered by revenue 6
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
authorities that it did not belong to Government and that it belonged to the plaintiffs father. On 28.7.1959 the revenue Inspector of Thondangi issued a notice to the plaintiffs father requesting him to attend before Tahsildar to take possession of the land covered as Raju cheruvu, in S No. 249 by giving receipt to them in pursuance of the proceedings of Deputy Tahsildar, Tuni in ref. J.2661/59, DT. 18.7.1959. The plaintiffs father attended before the Deputy Tahsildar and has taken possession of the land Ac.9.44 cents by giving acknowledgment to them. The Xerox copy of the notice is herewith filed as a Doc No. 3. Hence, the said land is also under the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff along with plaint schedule properties since long time, as the next heir of his father and as per oral partition between his brothers and sister.
The plaintiff submitted that out of the above Ac.9.44 cents an extent an
Ac.1.05 cents was voluntarily given by him for laying the Valasapakalu road to facilitate easy passage for the public. An extent of about Ac.0.20 cents was dug for a “Kunta” by his ancestors for storing of surplus rain water which comes from up fields for usage of agricultural purposes and for cattle. The Government has taken possession of 0.65 cents out of the remaining extent of 8.19 cents for laying Pampa
Channel. This was done without intimation to the plaintiff. Therefore, the remaining extent of land measuring Ac.7.54 cents is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff till date.
7
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
The plaintiff submitted that unfortunately again his land in S No.249/2 was noted as tank poramboke in Revenue records by some revenue officials, who were anemically disposed towards him with an intention to dispossess him from the land.
In fact there is no tank at all in existence on ground in the land except the “Kunta” which was dug by the plaintiff’s ancestors for their agricultural purpose, in which the public have no right to enter or trespass.
The plaintiff submitted that at present he is possession and enjoyment of
Ac.7.54 cents in S No. 249/2 and an extent of Ac.2.15 cents in S No.249/1D, Ac 2.09 cents in S No. 249/1A1 and Ac.2.08 cents in S No.249/1A 3. Defendants 8 to 13 taking advantage of the plaintiffs old age and helplessness, with an intention to grab the suit property demanded the plaintiff to sell away the land to them for the price offered by them. When the plaintiff declined to sell the land to them at the incredibly lowest rate offered by the above said defendants 8 to 13, they bore grouse against the plaintiff and egged on by the support of some wily local political leaders trespassed the aforesaid Ac.2.15 cents in 249/1D and Ac.2.08 cents in RS.
No.249/1A3 illegally and high highhandedly without any manner of right.
Thereupon, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his right and for recovery of possession of the schedule property and for consequential injunction in OS 134/2014 on the file of VI Addl. District judge, Kakinada against the defendants 8 to 13 who illegally and high highhandedly trespassed in that suit schedule land. The 8
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
said suit was transferred on the file of Hon’ble XII Addl. District judge, Pithapuram and the same is pending for adjudication. An order of injunction was granted in that suit against the defendants. In that suit it was also mentioned that the defendants in that suit are trying to trespass into the present suit land also.
The plaintiff submitted that while the above said suit is pending the 5th defendant herein dug 8 inches diameter bore in the suit land high handedly, without the knowledge or concern of the plaintiff and in collusion with the trespassers who are defendants 8 to 24 . The said Act of the 5th defendant is illegal, high handed and unlawful. In this regard, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice dated 17.11.2014 to the 5th defendant, marking a copy to the District Collector, East Godavari
District, Kakinada for taking necessary action. Office copy of the said notice is here with filed as Doc No.4. On the same day, another notice was also issued to the defendants 3 and 4 marking again a copy to the 1st defendant/District collector, EG.
District. Office copy of that notice is herewith filed as Doc No.5. On 17.12.2014 the plaintiff got issued another registered notice to the defendants 3 and 4 marking a copy to the 1st defendant/District collector, EG. District Kakinada. Office copy of that notice is herewith filed as Doc No. 6. Having received the said notices they neither cared to reply nor took any action in that regard. The 5th defendant’s director
Premadas died about three months back and so his wife Jyothi Premadas is looking after the affairs of NASA in this area and hence her name was shown as 9
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
representing the 5th defendant. The defendants 2 to 4 neither reply to fulfill the request nor take any action in this regard. The 5th defendant without giving any reply kept silent. However on 29.11.2014 the plaintiffs counsel received a notice from the 1st defendant District collector East Godavari District that necessary instructions were given to the 2nd defendant for taking appropriate action. But so far no action was taken in this regard. The copy of the notice received from the 1st defendant District collector is herewith filed as Doc No.7. Hence this suit.
The plaintiff further submitted that recently he came to know that the defendants 14 to 24 who trespassed and raised thatched houses in a portion of the suit land of Ac. 7.54 cents on southern side, are also trying to influence the revenue authorities with the aid of powerful local politicians to get pattas for the suit land and in that process the defendants 6 and 7 came to the land on 22.9.2015 and got it measured and are proclaiming that they would construct permanent sheds and allot them to eligible persons as if it is a government land. If they are allowed to do so irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff.
3. Notice given to other side.
4. The 3rd and 5th defendant filed written statements.
D.1, D.2, D.4, D.6 and D.7 adopted the written statement of D.3.
D8 to D.24 were set exparte.
10
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
5. Written statement filed by the 3rd defendant and he completely denied the contents of the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to ask the prayer mentioned in 1 and para XVII of plaint. The plaint schedule property ie, an extent of Ac.7.54 cents in S No. 249/2 is not the property of the plaintiff and it is the property of the Government as per the Government record along with the other land. This defendant submitted that the government property cannot be partition by themselves and those partition are cannot be taken into consideration.
This defendant submitted that in the R.S.R the total extent in S No.249 is Ac.
34.44 cents later it was subdivided as:-
S. No.249/1A an extent of Ac.21.94 cents as Ryothuwari land.
S No. 249/1B an extent of Ac.0.06 cents as Poramboke PWD Canal.
S No.249/1C an extent of Ac.0.85 cents as Poramboke PWD Canal.
S No. 249/1 D an extent of Ac.2.15 cents as Yerramsetti Satyanarayana.
S No. 249/2 an extent of Ac.9.44 cents as Poramboke tank.
These entries were made in 1957 and later 1969. Hence this defendant submits that the plaint schedule property Ac.7.54 cents mentioned as zeroyit land is not correct and it is poramboke tank as per the records and hence the property belongs to the government but not to the plaintiff and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismiss with exemplary costs. This defendant submitted that the further allegations mentioned in para XI to XIV are not correct and the plaintiff has 11
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
to strictly prove the same and this defendant submit that the cause of action mentioned in para XV is not correct and those cause of action is concocted for the purpose of this suit and the value of the plaint para is not correct and the plaintiff is not entitle to ask the prayer mentioned in the plaint. This defendant submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be dismiss for non joiner and misjoinder of parties. This defendant submitted that only to grab the government property the plaintiff filed this false suit by concocted the material allegations. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismiss with exemplary costs
6. Written statement filed by the 5th defendant and denied the material allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted that the suit is not maintainable under law.
In any view the plaintiff is having no right or title or possession in the said land covered under gift deed. In any view all the brothers of the plaintiff and sisters of the plaintiff are necessary parties to be added. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The documents filed by the plaintiff are not correct and not true, valid and binding. It is true 5th defendant director Premadasa three months back, so his wife Jyothi Premadasa is looking after the affairs of NASA is true.
The plaintiff is put to strict proof that the plaintiff is having title and possession in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is having no title or possession in the schedule property. The secretary grampanchayat Srungavruksham village is necessary party to be added. The suit is bad for non-joinder of the 12
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
necessary party. The section 80 CPC notice is not given to 1 to 7 defendants. No seperate petition disponeesing section 80 CPC is filed and no prior permission of the Hon'ble Court is obtaining with that regard
The value of the suit is not correct. The court fees paid is not correct.
M/s NASA association is established for social awareness for the purpose mainly for S.C and ST community with intention to promote and uplift weaker sections and their life by providing amenities such as by providing drinking water facility by digging handpumps borewells by constructing toilets and also providing health camps and also maintained orphan Asrams and also free medical aid camps on every second saturday and also to develop waste Konda Porambokes etc, having known the facilities being providing by 5th defendant. The Sarpanch
Srungavruksham alongwith Panchayat Secretary Srungavruksham made an application to the 5th defendant by requesting to provide handpump bore in panchayat poramboke vacant site in which S.T.(Pamuluvaru) religion people are living by the side of R&B Road, dt.5.10.2014 in which Sarpanch signed and also countersigned by Panchayat Secretary Grampanchayat Srungavruksham prior to this on 3.9.2014 some villagers of Srungavruksham village i.e. D18, D23, D17,
D20, D14, and others voluntarily made an application by requesting since the government is not providing any facility for any drinking water to them. Inspite of repeated demands due to lack of funds requested 5th defendant to provide hand bore pump and also with other facts. After considering their requests 5th defendant dug bore well at the request of schedule trible villagers and also Sarpanch and
Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Srungavruksham village dug bore well in
Panchayat poramboke, Srungavruksham village. Prior to that a tom-tom was also got effected by 5th defendant men by intimating to the villagers Srungavruksham and surrounding villagers that handbore pump would be dug in the poramboke
Srungavruksham panchayat in S. T. (Pamula religion) people huts side by the side 13
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
of R&B road in porambok and also intimating that some facility could be utilised by the villagers needed. The said hand borewell pump is to be installed without any charge by the 5th defendant as a charit on the application of made by the villagers.
The plaintiff is not entitled for any damages as claimed. The plaint allegations do not show any allegation that the plaintiff suffered mental agony, physical stress and stra and he underwent treatment.
The cause of action does not support the same. In any view damages claimed by the plaintiff is more. There is no personal grieviences by the 5th defendant against the plaintiff. Infact the 5th defendant does not know the plaintiff at all.
After receiving the notice 5th defendant mediated the matter through village elders through plaintiff.
7. Basing on the pleadings of both parties to the suit, the following issues are framed for trial by my Predecessor.
1.Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner over the plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of plaint schedule property by evict the defendants 5,8 to 24?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled consequential permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 5,8 to 24 to remove the structures illegally put up by them in the suit schedule property ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from 5th defendant ?
6. Whether the suit schedule property in survey No. 249/2 an extent of Ac.7.54 cents is a poramboke land as contended by the 3rd defendant ?
14
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
7. Whether the suit schedule property is exclusive property of the government.
8. Whether the 5th defendant dug bore well in the suit schedule property without taking any expenses and he is liable to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff?
9. To what relief ?
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 are marked.
9. On behalf of the defendants chief affidavits of D.W.1 to D.W.3 were filed, but the evidence of D.W.1 was eschiewed and D.w2 and D.W.3 are examined. No documents are marked.
The suit against D.5 is dismissed as not pressed at the time of trial.
10. Heard arguments of the learned counsel of plaintiff and defendants (1 to 4, 6 and 7)
The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments and argued by reiterating the plaint averments. He further argued that to prove the case of the official defendants, who are D1 to D.4, D6 and D7 have not filed any documentary evidence to show that it is a tank proamboke . Mere allegations in written statement are not conclusive proof unless and until it shall be proved by way of filing documentary evidence and further, it is a well settled preposition of law that the facts admitted need not be proved as per the sec. 58 of Indian Evidence Act. In the present case there were many admissions as 15
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
referred supra by D.w2 and D.W.3 who are the official witnesses in their cross examinations.
Defendants 8 to 24 have no semblance of right, title or interest in the suit property and they are rank trespassers in illegal occupation of the plaint schedule property taking advantage of the facts that the 1st plaintiff is residing in a far away place on employment. The very fact that they have raised huts/sheds in the plaint schedule property without a scrap of paper to prove their right, title and interest in the property shows that they have silent support of the powerful local politicians who could influence the revenue authorities to help threse illegal occupants.
11. In the light of the foregoing facts and circumstances and the admissions made by Dw2 (D3) and Dw3 (d4) the plaintiffs submits that their case as set up in the plaint is amply proved and thus the Hon'ble court may pleased to pass a judgment and decree in their favour as prayed for in the plaint with costs and he relied on the following judgment:
2021 (4) ALD 166 (TS)
EJ David vs Addtional Collector, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy
district, Telangana state.
12. On the other hand the learned AGP argued that if the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule, then why they have filed suit for recovery of possession of property. The plaintiff really had 16
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
ownership over the paiht schedule property then it is the bounden duty of plaintiff to support their case with relevant documentary evidence. In fair adangal and wet land record he survey no.249 disclosed as cheruvu .To grab the property of goverment the plaintiff colluded with 5th defendant Nasa.
13. Upon perusal of the material on record, a thoughtful consideration is given issues wise as follows:-
ISSUE NOs.1,6,7 :
These three issues are answered together for the sake of convenience.
Perused the plaint, written statement of D.3 and D.5 and evidences of Pw1,
Dw2 and 3 and Exhibits Ex.A.1 to A.12 and also other material on record.
To prove the case of the plaintiff’s, Y.Sree Ramachandra Murthy, himself examined as Pw1 and marked Ex.A.1 to A.7.
Further in support of the plaintiff’s case Ex.A.8 to A.12 are marked through
D.W.2 during his examination before the court.
14. On the other hand D.W.2 and DW.3 are examined, in support of the case of defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7.
The evidence of Pw1 shows that he filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the plaint contents and during cross examination he deposed that He did not mention anywhere about the names of Children of Y.Ramahnadra Murthy. The extent of property held by Y. Ramachandrudu and its details are not mentioned 17
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
either in plaint or in his chief affidavit.He cannot say the names of seven sons of Y.
Ramachandrudu are not fully mentioned in plaint or his chief affidavit.
Except his oral statement there is no document to show that Ac.34.44 cents of land covered under R.S No.249 at Srungavruksham village and some other properties devolved upon Y. Venkatachalam during oral partition. There is no documentary evidence to show that partition was affected in the year 1930. He does not know whether boundaries to the property covered under Ex.A.1 are mentioned there in or not. Y. Venkatachalm had two sons by name Y.Satyanarayana.There is no documentary evidence to show that there was partition in the year 1946 between
Y.Satyanarayana and Y. Ramachanrarao since it is oral partition. Y . Satyanarayana is his grand father. It is no where mentioned, what are the properties that were fell to the share of his grand father Y. Satyanarayana in the partition of 1946.
Y.Satyanarayana had 3 sons and one daughter. His father is one among them.There is no document to show that family properties were partitioned in 1946 among the children of Y. Satyanarayana. Y. Ramachnadrao had children. The brothers and sister of his father are not shown as parties to the present suit. They have not filed any record showing possession and enjoyment of Y. Ramachandrudu of the property covered under Ex.A.1 till his death. They have not filed any record to show that his great grand father Y. Venkatachalam was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.33.44 at Srungavruskham.
18
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
The present suit filed by his father (venkata Subbarao) they impleaded as a party in this suit after death of his father. He has not verified whether the land in S
No.249 was belongs to government since 1910 to till date as per the record of
Rights . He know that the land with an extent Ac.34.45 cents covered under the S.
No.249/2 is Poramboke. He admitted that as per 1423 fasali the land covered under
S.No.249-2 is cheruvu (pond).
He denied a suggestion that the land covered under S.No.249 ie, AC.34.44 cents was sub divided as 249/1A an extent of Ac.21.94 cents as Ryothuwari land,
S.No.249/1B an extent of Ac.0.06 cents as Poramboke PWD canal, S. No.249/1C an extent of Ac.0.85 cents as poramboke PWD Canal, S.No.249/1D an extent of
Ac.2.15 cents as Yerramsetti Satyanarayana, S.No.249/2 an extent of Ac.9.44 cents as Poramboke tank. Witness voluntarily says that land covered under SNo.249 was sub divided as 249/1A3 Ac.2.08 cents, 249/1A1 Ac.2.09 cents, 249/1D
Ac.2.15 cents and 249/2 Ac.9.44 cents. In that AC.9.44 cents Ac.1.05 cents given to the construction of valasapakala road and Ac.0.20 cents of land was given for digging the gunta to store water an Ac.0.65 cents obtained by the government for the purpose of Pampa Reservoir canal.He has no documentary proof to show that his grand father was donated Ac.1.05 cents of land for the purpose of construction of valasapakala road.
19
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
Copy of Adangals relating to Fasli 1423 and Fasli 1424 confront to the witness and he denied those adangals and stated that they are fabricated documents. He did not verify whether the land of an extent of Acs.9.44 cents in S
No.249/2 was reflected in any online revenue records either in his name or in the name of his father, Since the year 1910 onwards, the land in an extent of Ac.9.44 cents situated in S NO. 249/2 was cultivated by his forefathers and revenue inspector also issued a notice memo stating that to cultivate the above said land and the said notice is already filed into the court.
He denied a suggestion that since the year 1905 the land in an extent of
Ac.9.44 cents in S No.249/2 is belongs to the revenue department and the said land is a pond. Witness voluntarily stated that the document pertains to the year 1910 belongs to his great grand father is also filed in the court and the said document shows that the above said land of Acs.9.44 cents belongs to their family. He denied a suggest that the land in an extent of Acs.9.44 cents in S.No.249/2 was divided into sub division as 249/2 A for an extent of Acs.7.10 cents which was allotted to house sites, like wise 249/2B for an extent of Acs.0.75 cents was allotted for canal and 249/c for an extent of Ac.1.59 cents was allotted for house sites and the above said land belongs to Government and not belongs to them.
15. The following documents are marked on behalf of plaintiff case.
Ex.A.1 is the true copy of sale deed dt.5.07.1910 executed by Jagannadham
Padmaraju and on behalf of his minor Subbarao Jagannadham in favour of 20
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
Yeramilli Venkatachalam for Rs.15,00/-. The total extent covered under this sale deed is Ac. 34.44 cents.
Ex.A.2 is the true copy of release deed executed by Yeramilli Ramachandrarao s/o.
Venkatachalam in favour of Y. Satyanarayana s/o. Venkatachalam.
Ex.A.3 is the legal notice dt. 17.11.2014 issued by plainiff to D5 by demanding to remove bore well which was dug 8 diameter bore or else liability to pay
Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages.
Ex.A.4 is the legal notice issued to D.3 and D.4 by plaintiff dated 17.11.2014 requesting to take appropriate action against D5 for digging bore in Plaint schedule property.
Ex.A.5 is the legal notice dt. 17.12.2014 issued to the D.3 and D.4 by plaintiff in continuation to the notice dated 17.11.2014 (Ex.A.4) to rectify survey Nos as 249/1
A3 in the place of survey No.241/1 A3.
Ex.A.6 is the proceedings dated 29.11.2014 issued to the Tahsildar, Thondangi by the collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada to make enquiry and to take necessary action with regard to dug 8 diameter bore in plaintiffs land without any prior intimation.
Ex.A.7 is the photographs (3 in number) along with C.D.
Ex.A.8 is the attested copy of Fair Adangal relating to Srugavruksham Village,
Thondangi Mandal, as per this exhibit, the total extent covered in survey No.249 is
Ac.9.44, cents (Cheruvu) and owner name shown as Y. Subbarao S/o. Y.
Suryanarayana Murthy.
Under the extent Ac.9.44, it is writtened as Ac.34.44 cents.
Ex.A.9 is the land tax receipt (3 in number ) stands in the name of Yeramilli
Venkata Subbarao S/o. Satyanarayana dated 14.4.2014, dt.14.3.2007 and dated 24.7.2012 related to survey No.249/1 A3 and the extent covered under this is Ac. 2- 08 cents.
21
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
Ex.A.10 is the land tax receipt (3 in number) stands in the name of Yeramilli
Venkayamma, D/o. Satyanarayana issued for land situated in survey No.249/1D for an extent Ac.1.50 cents dated 14.04.2014, 24.07.2012 and 13.3.2007. This exhibit also contains one temporary land tax receipt for fasli year 1401 to 1404 (1992 to 1995).
Ex.A.11 is the field map for survey No.249. Srugavurukhsam village and area is
Ac.34.44 cents.
Ex.A.12 is the Pattadar pass book stands in the name of Yeramilli Venkata
Subbarao s/o. Satyanarayana and it is issued for land situated in Srugavurksham village, Thondangi mandal for an extent Ac 2-08 cents in survey No. 249/1A3 and issued by Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal.
16. On the other hand, the evidence of D.W.1 was eschiewed. Only D.W2 and D.W.3 are examined before the court as witnesses.
17. D.W.2 is V.S.V.V.K.V.R Murarjee and he filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the written statement contents. During cross examination
DW2 deposed that the present suit filed by the 1st Plaintiff. On confrontation of
Ex.A1 witness verified the same and deposed that part of the Plaint Schedule
Property was purchased by grand father of 1st Plaintiff by name Y.Ramachandrudu under Ex.A.1. He admitted that during the life time of Y.Ramachandrudu he had in the possession and enjoyment of part of the Plaint Schedule Properties under
Ex.A1. He is not disputing Ex.A2 (Release deed), He admitted that he has not furnished the documents requested by the Plaintiff by way of Memo
SR.No.3823/24 dated: 20.09.2024 and he also not filed any objections. Due to work 22
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
load and administrative grounds he could not filed documents requested by the
Plaintiff under Memo SR.No. 3823/24. He admitted that in fair adangal relates to 1950's the name of the Y. Subbarao is mentioned for the property situated in
Survey No. 249 at Srungavruksham village to an extent Ac.34.44 cents and the relevant portion of fair adangal which shows the name of Y. Subbarao is marked as
Ex. A8. He admitted that the writing mentioned in fair adangal above and below of the Ex.A8 are in one hand writing and the writing near to Ex.A 8 ie., Cheruvu is defers from other writings of fair adangal. He admitted that in general if any correction made in any document the concerned authority who have power to correct the maid mistake has to put his initial at the place of correction after correction of said mistake. The word "Cheruvu mentioned in Telugu language in two areas on fair adangal on which Ex.A8 is marked. But there is no stamp and initial of the concerned authority on fair adangal on which Ex.A8 is marked to show that who corrected the word "Cheruvu".He denied a suggestion that after receiving notice in Memo SR. No. 3823/24 they corrected the fair adangal by adding word "Cheruvu in Telugu language and produced before the court today. He admitted that there is a strike off below the name of Y.Subbarao i.e., under Ex.A8.
He denied a suggestion that they made the said strike off prior to coming to the court to give evidence in this suit. He admitted that his predecessor received a notice in the suit. He admitted that no reply was given to that notice by his 23
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
predecessor. He admitted that the Plaintiff issued a notice to defendants 3 and 4 and also sent copies to 1" defendant to take action against the 5th defendant and to that effect the District Collector, Kakinada instructed the Tahasildar, Thondangi to enquire the matter and take action and give suitable reply to said notice and intimation to the Collector Office under Ex.A6. On confrontation of land receipts
dated: 14.4.2014, 14.3.2007 and 24.7.2012, on verification of the same, witness
stated that Y.Venkata Subbarao paid land tax above said land tax to the revenue department and the receipts (3) in number) dated: 14.4.2014,14.3.2007 and 24.7.2012 for the property situated in Srungavruksham village in Survey No.
249/1A3 are marked as Ex.A9.
18. On confrontation of land receipt dated: 14.4.2014, 24.7.2012 13.3.2007 and receipt No. 2941638 witness stated that Yerramilli Venkayamma paid land tax to the revence department and the above said land tax receipts (4. in number) for the property situated in Srungavruksham village in Survey No. 249/1D are marked as Ex.A.10. He admitted that the total extent covered in survey no.
249/2 at Srungavruksham village in Ac.9.44 cents. Out of total extent of Ac.9.44 cents, Ac.1.05 cents was left for Valasapakala Road, 20 cents of land left for
Digging Gunta for storage of water and 65 cents left for Pampa Canal purpose and the remained an extent of Ac.7.54 cents and same was in possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff.
24
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
He has not filed RSR (Re settlement Register) before the court as referred in his chief examination affidavit at Para. No.8. He admitted that his chief examination affidavit did not disclose the year of Sub Division of total extent
Ac.34.44 cents in Survey No. 249. on confrontation of certified copy of field map for survey No. 249 situated at Srungavruksham village, witness verified the same and stated that there is no whisper in the said field map about the tank (Cheruvu) and said field map is marked as Ex.A.11.
19. On confrontation of certified copy of pattadar passbook stands in the name of Yarramilli Venkata Subbarao, witness stated that a pattadar passbook was issued to Yarramilli Venkata Subbarao for property situated in Srungavruksham village, in survey no. 249/1A3 to an extent Ac.2.08 cents by the Tahasildar,
Thondangi Mandal and said certified copy of Pattadar pass book stands in the name
Yarramilli Venkata Subbarao is marked as Ex.A.12. He does not know about the relationship existed between Plaintiffs. He denied a suggestion that defendants 1 to 4, 6 & 7 have taken false contentions with a view to protract the litigation and there by to cause loss to the Plaintiffs and to their properties.
20. DW3 is Nemala Venkatesh and he filed his chief examination affidavit and during chief examination he supported the case of D1 to D.4 , D6 and
D.7, During cross examination he deposed that in the present suit Thasildar of
Thondangi Mandal deposed his evidence as DW.2. He admitted that on the date of 25
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
evidence of DW.2. He was also present along with DW.2 in the court hall, while
DW.2 deposing his evidence. He admitted that DW.2 is head of his office. He admitted that DW.2 had more knowledge about this case than him. He has not received any summons from the Hon'ble court to depose his evidence. He obtained permission from Tahsildar to depose his evidence today in this suit, but he have not filed said permission letter before the court. Since 5 months he is working as
VRO in Srungavruksham village. He denied a suggestion that he has no personal knowledge about the present suit. He admitted that the sentence of last two lines of
Para.No.4 of his chief examination affidavit is incomplete. He admitted that the Re settlement Register pertains to the years 1957 and 1969 and the total extent is
Ac.2.15 cents, same is situated in Survey No. 249/1D and which was stands in the, name Yerramilli Satyanarayana. The Yerramilli Satyanarayana sold his property with an extent of Ac.2.15 cents in Survey No. 249/1D in Srungavruksham village to the Gampala Apparao in 1989.
He admitted that the son of Yarramilli Satyanarayana by name Subbarao (late) who is the 1st Plaintiff in the present suit filed the present suit. He has not filed any documentary proof before the court to show that the property with an extent Ac.2.15 cents situated in survey No. 249/1D of Srungavruksham village sold to Gampala Apparao by Yarramilli Satyanarayana. His chief examination affidavit did not disclose that Yarramilli Satyanarayana sold his property to Gampala 26
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
Apparao. The Ex.A8 (Fair Adangal) and Ex.A7 (Field Map) are pertains to the year 1950's. He admitted that in Ex.A7 (photographs) Cheruvu did not appear. He cannot say when the property with an extent Ac.34.44 cents situated in survey
No.249 at Srungavruksham village was sub divided. He denied a suggestion that
Yarramilli Satyanarayana never sold his property situated in Survey No. 249/1D an extent Ac. 2.15 cents situated at Srungavruksham village to the Gampala Apparao.
He denied a suggestion that today he came to the court to depose his evidence to correct the errors occurred in the evidence of DW.2 (Thasildar). He denied a suggestion that the contents of his chief examination affidavit are false. He admitted that an award passed on 27.2.1970 by the government in award
No.3/1970 and some land was acquired by the government from the Yerramilli
Satyanarayana out of Ac.9.44 cents. He denied a suggestion that he is deposing false evidence.
21. Perused the plaint, written statements, evidences of Pw1, D..W2 and
D.W.3, Ex.A.1 to A.12.
During evidence the suit against D.5 was dismissed as not pressed.
The evidence of Pw1 reveals that there is no documentary proof to show that partition was effected in the year 1930 and also there is no documentary proof to show that the partition was taken place in the year 1946 between Y. Satyanarayana and Y. Ramachandrarao, as it is oral partition. As per the evidence of Pw1 Y.
27
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
Satyanarayana is his grand father, it means Y.Satyanarayana is the father of the 1st plaintiff. Further there is no clarity to show that what property were fell to the share of his grand father in the said partition taken place in the year 1946. His evidence further shows that the brothers and sisters of his father are not shown as parties to the present suit. He has not filed any document to show that his great grand father
Y. Venkatachalan in possession and enjoyment of Ac.33.44 cents at
Sruvgavushakam Village. His admission shows that the land with an extent
Ac.34.45 cents covered under survey No.249/2 is boramboke and as per 1423 fasli the land covered under survey No.249- 2 is cheruvu (pond). As per Pw1 the land covered under survey No.249 was sub divided as 249/1 A3 Ac.2.08 cents, 249/1A1 Ac.2.09 cents, 249/1 D Ac.2.15 cents and 249/2 Ac.9.44 cents. In that
Ac.9.44 cents, an extent of Ac.1.05 cents given to the construction of Valasapakala road and an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land was given for digging the Gunta to store water, an extent Ac.0.65 cents obtained by the Government for the purpose of
Pampa Reservoir Canal. His admission shows that he has no documentary proof to show that his grand father was donated Ac.1.05 cents of land for the purpose of construction of Valasapakala road. As per Pw1 an extent of Ac.9.44 cents situated in survey No.249/2 was cultivated by his forefathers.
22. As per the evidence of D.w.2 part of the plaint schedule property was purchased by grand father of 1st plaintiff by name Ramachandrudu under Ex.A.1.
28
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
He admitted the possession and enjoyment of part of plaint schedule property by
Ramachandrudu during his life time.
The evidence of D.w2 further establishes that the name of the Y. Subbarao is mentioned in the fair adangal related to 1950, for the property situated in survey
No. 249 at Srungavruskham village to an extent Ac.34.44 cents. On perusal of the
Ex.A.8 it appears that some writings are differs in said Exhibit. Dw2 also admitted the difference in writing in Ex.A.8. Especially with regard to the word cheruvu which was writtened in Telugu language. It is an admitted fact that there is no initial or stamp to show that who corrected the word cheruvu and same is admitted by the D.W.2. Dw2 also admitted that a strike of occured below the name of Y.
Subbarao, under Ex.A.8.
He admitted that V.Venkatasubbarao paid land tax under Ex.A.9 for property situated in survey No. 249/1A3, and Yeramilli Venkayamma paid land tax under Ex.A.10 for the property situated in survey No. 249/1D and he also admitted
Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12.
23. The evidence of D.W.3 reveals that DW 2 has knowledge about this case.
Since five months he has working as VRO in Srungavruskham village. His admission shows that resettledment register pertains to year 1957 and 1969 for the property situated in survey No. 249/1 D with an extent of Ac.2.15 cents stands in the name of Yeramilli Satyanarayana , but he further stated that he sold his property 29
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
to Gampala Apparao , in 1989. But to prove the same no document is filed and same is admitted by him. His admission shows that Ex.A.7 photographs did not show Cheruvu and Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.11 pertains to the year 1950's.
24. On perusal of the evidences of witnesses and exhibits it is revealed that the part of the plaint schedule property was purchased by the Y.
Ramachandrudu, who is great grand father to the 1st plaintiff and he had seven sons and the above said Y. Ramachandrudu died and his seven sons partitioned his properties orally in 1930. But there is no material on record to show the name of the seven sons of Y. Ramachandrudu and also there is no material on record to prove that what properties were devolved upon the above said seven sons of Y.
Ramachandrudu.
25. As per the case of the 1st plaintiff in the partition took place in the year 1930 an extent of Ac. 34. 44 cents of land in R.S No. 249 in Srungavrusham village , Thondangi mandal was devolved upon Y. Venkatachalam s/o. Y.
Ramachandrudu. The said Y. Venkatachalam had two sons Y.Satyanarayana and
Y. Ramachandrarao. As per the 1st plaintiff the above said Y. Venkatachalam was died in the year 1933 and his two sons Y.Satyanrayana (father of plaintiff ) and Y.
Ramachandrarao were partitioned their properties in the year 1946 and in that partition Y. Ramachandrarao got Ac.34.44 cents situated in Srugavrusham village and other properties. Later Y. Ramachandrarao executed release deed dated 30
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
31.8.1947 vide document No.3838/47 in favour of his brother Y. Satyanayana (ie.,
Ex.A.2), as he cleared loans of Y. Ramachandrarao, on properties covered under schedule III. The plaint schedule property shown in Ex.A.2 in schedule II as item -5
(c). Therefore, the father of 1st plaintiff got right over Ac.34.44 cents situated in
Srungavruskham village , Thondandi mandal, on 31.8.1947.
As per the Ex.A.2 the father of the 1st plaintiff became owner of Ac.34.44 cents situated in Srungavruskham village, but there is no decumentary proof to show the owner ship of Y. Ramachandrarao, to execute release deed in favour of Y.
Satyanarayana.
The Y. Satyanarayana had three sons and one daughter. As per the record 1st plaintiff is the one of the son and Y. Venkayamma is the daughter of Y.
Satyanarayana. But there is no material on record about the details of other two sons of Y. Satyanarayana .
26. As per the plaintiff he and his brothers and sister partitioned properties of his father Y. Satyanarayana in the year 1957 orally. Further his sister got an extent of Ac.2.15 cents of land in survey No. 249/1 D and 1st plaintiff got
Ac.2.08 cents in survey No. 249/1 A 3. But the record did not show that what were the properties obtained by the remaining two sons of Y. Satyanarayana. The above survey Numbers ie, 249/1 D and 249/1A3 both are not related to the present plaint schedule property.
31
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
As per the 1st plaintiff his father in possession and enjoyment of Ac.9.44 cents situated in survey No. 249 in Srungavruksham village, Thondangi Mandal and said land was noted as government land in revenue records. But later Deputy
Tahsildar in reference No. J 2661/59 dated 18.7.1959 requested the father of the plaintiff to take the possession of the land covered as Raju cheruvu in survey No.
249 and his father taken possession of the said land. Hence, the said land also in the possession and enjoyment of his father. But to prove the oral evidence of 1st plaintiff there is no supportive documentary proof is marked by the plaintiffs.
Hence, it is clear that there is no documentary evidence to prove that Y.
Satyanarayana was in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 9.44 cents in survey No.
249 in Srungavruksham village.
27. The further case of the 1st plaintiff is out of Ac. 9.44 cents Ac.1.05 cents was given for laying Valasapakalu road and an extent of Ac.0.20 cents was given to dug a Kunta for storing of surplus rain water and Ac.0.65 cents and
Ac.0.65 cents given for laying Pampa canal and remaining land ie, Ac. 7.54 cents is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff till date. The above oral case of the 1st plaintiff is not supported by the any of documentary evidence.
28. During evidence Pw1 admitted RSR not verified by him and also admitted Ac. 34.44 cents in survey No. 249/2 is cheruvu, as per fasli 1424. Pw1 32
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
orally contended that his fore fathers cultivated Ac. 9.44 cents in survey No. 249/2, but failed to prove the same with revenue records.
Ex. A.9, A.10 and A.12 are not related to the present plaint schedule property, as such they are not considered by this Court.
29.As per Ex.A.8 fair adangal relates to 1950 Y. Subbarao name reflected in survey No. 249 for an extent Ac.34.44 cents. Dw2 in his evidence admitted that in
Ac.9.44 cents the remaining land to an extent of Ac.7.054 cents was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and he also admitted that there is no whisper in field map Ex.A.11 about cheruvu. Dw3 also admitted that Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.11 are relates to 1950. The evidence of D.w3 further shows that an award was passed on 27.2.1970 by the government vide award No. 3/1970 and some land acquired by the government from Yerramilli Satyanarayana out of Ac. 9.44 cents. The above evidence of D.w3 shows that by 27.2.1970 Ac.9.44 cents was in possession and enjoyment of Y. Satyanarayana, therefore, the government obtained land from him under award No. 3/1970.
30. On conjoint reading of evidence of D.w2 and D.W.3 the ownership over the property to an extent Ac.9.44 cents by the Y. Satyanarayana establishes.
But the ownership over the above Ac.9.44 cents by the 1st plaintiff is not established. May be orally DW2 admitted that 1st plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.7.44 cents of land in Srungavruksham village, but there is no 33
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
supportive revenue record is placed before the court to prove the oral depositions of witness .
31. Further, the present suit filed by the 1st plaintiff for declaration of his right over the plaint schedule property. But 1st plaintiff himself admitted in his plaint that Ac.9.44 cents was in possession and enjoyment of his father. In such situation apart from 1st plaintiff, his two brothers and his sister also entitled for share in the plaint schedule property. But the 1st plaintiff alone filed suit and sought relief of declaration and other reliefs over the plaint schedule property. As per the record 1st plaintiff was died on 28.8.2016. Therefore, plaintiffs 2 to 8 who are the wife , sons and daughters of 1st plaintiff filed IA 388 of 2017 and same was allowed on 25.7.2017 and plaintiffs 2 to 8 were impleaded as parties in the suit.
Further, the brothers and sister of 1st plaintiff were not shown as parties in the suit. The defendants also raised defence that suit is bad due to non joinder of necessary parties. When the property belongs to father of 1st plaintiff, then along with 1st plaintif the remaining sons and daughter of Y. Satyanarayana are also necessary parties to the present suit, as they are also entitled for declaration of their right over the plaint schedule property. But by leaving them , the 1st plaintiff alone filed the present suit, which is not proper in the eye of law. If the case of the plaintiffs is accepted, then it amounts to injustice on the part of remaining two sons and daughter of Y. Satyanarayana.
34
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
32. `Intially the suit was dismissed for default on 11.4.2018 and later vide orders in IA 642/2018 dated 27.11.2018 the default order was set aside and on 3.12.2018 the suit was restored to the file .
In view of the above reasons, it is clear that there is no documentary proof to show that the partition occured in 1930 , 1946 and 1957. The oral evidence of Pw1 was not supported by the documentary proofs to show the ownership of 1st plaintiff Y. Venkata Subbarao, over the plaint schedule property, which is situated in survey No.249 /2, to an extent of Ac.7.54 cents in
Srungavruksham village, Thondangi mandal. In this case Ex.A.3 to A.6 are legal notices and they did not establish the right of the 1st plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Only Ex.A.1, A.2 , A.8 and A.11 supports the plaintiffs case and
Ex.A.7 shows some huts and borewell. As per Ex.A.8 Y. Subbarao s/o Yeramilli
Surya Narayana Murthy name was noted. But as per the plaint the 1st plaintiff name shown as Yeramilli Venkata subbarao s/o. late Satyanarayana. So, the name of the 1st plaintiff and his father name are exactly not matching with the names shown in Ex.A.8.
33. As per the case of the defendants in the R. S.R the total extent is S
No.249 is Ac.34.44 cents and later it was sub divided and in survey No. 249/2
Ac.9.44 cents shown as Poramboke tank and the said entry made in 1957 and 1969.
Basing on the above entries defendants denied the ownership of 1st plaintiff over 35
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
the plaint schedule property and stated that the plaint scheudle property is
Poramboke tank.
34. It is well sellted priciple that the plaintiffs has to establish their own case with reliable and cogent oral and documentary evidence . In this case Ex.A.1 and A.2 only supported documentary evidence to the case of plaintiff to some extent and no other documentary proof placed by the plaintiff to prove the cultivation of the plaint schedule property by fore fathers of plaintiffs 3 to 8.
In view of the above reasons, it is clear that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the 1st plaintiff is absolute owner of plaint schedule property. Hence, issue Nos.1,6 and 7 answered against plaintiffs.
35.ISSUE NOs. 5 and 8:
The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of
Ac.7.54 cents in survey no. 249/2 and an extent of Ac.2.15 cents in survey
No.249/1D, Ac.2.09 cents in survey No. 249/1A 1 and Ac.2.08 cents in Survey No.
249/1 A3. Defendants 8 to 13 taking advantage of the plaintiff's old age and helplessness demanded the plaintiff to sell away to them for the price offered by them. But he refused the same and they bore grudge against him and with local politician assistance trespassed into the Ac.2.15 cents in Survey No. 249/1 D and
Ac.2.08 cents in R.S No.249/1A3 illegally and highhandedly without any manner of right. Hence, the plaitniff filed a suit for declration of his right and for recovery 36
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
of possession of the schedule property and for consequential injunction in OS 134/2014 on the file of VI Addl. District Judge, Kakinada against D.8 to D.13 and said suit was tranferred to XII Addl District judge, Pithapuram and same is pending for adjudication. An order of injunction was granted in that suit against the defendants.
During pendency of the said suit 5 th defendant herein dug 8 inches diameter bore in the suit land highandedly in collusion with the trespassers ie D.8 to D.24 and he issued notice dt. 17.11.2014 to the 5th defendant. Further the plainitiff also issued another notice to District collector, East Godavari, on 17.12.2014 reporting about the 5th defendant acts in dugging bore in the suit land. But they did not gave any reply and kept quite.
Recently he came to know that defendants 14 to 24 trespassed and raised thatched houses in a portion of the suit land of Ac.7.54 cents on sourthern side and trying to infleunce the revenue authorities to get pattas and in that process D6 and
D.7 came to the land on 22.9.2015 and got it measured and proclaimed that they would construct permanent share and allot them to eligible persons, as if it is a government land. If they are allowed to do so irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff.
36. On the other hand D1 to D.4, D6 and D7 contended that Ac.7.54 cents is a boramboke tank as per the records and the property belongs to the 37
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
Government and they completely denied the case of the plaintiff. They further submitted to grab the property of the government, the plaintiff filed a false suit by concocted the material allegations.
37. The 5th defendant filed written statement and denied the case of the plaintiff and submitted that M/S Nasa Association is established for social aware for the purpose mainly for Sc and ST community with intention to promote and uplift weaker section and their lives for providing emenities. The Sarpanch and
Panchayat Secretary Srungavruksham made an application to the D.5 requesting to provide hand pump bore in panchayat Poramboke vacant site in which ST religion people are living by the side of R & B road. D14, D.17, D.18 , D.20, D.23 and other voluntarily made an application to D5, requesting to provide facility for drinking water to them and government not providing any facility. Inspite of their demands due to lack of funds. After considering their request D5 dug bore well in panchayat Poramboke , Srungavruksham village by beating tom tom in
Srungasvruksham village and also surrounding villages by intimating about hand bore pump would be dug in the poramboke, Srungavruksham panchayat in ST (Pamula religion) people huts side by the side of R & B road in Poramboke and also intimated some facility could be utilized by the villagers neaded and said hand bore well pump was installed without any charge by the D.5 under charity.
38
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
38. During the evidence of DW2, he admitted that when 5th defendant tried to Digging the bore well in the Plaint Schedule Property Plaintiff filed present suit against 5 defendant and later 5th defendant compromised with Plaintiff and removed the bore well from the Plaint Schedule Property and the suit also dismissed against 5th defendant as not pressed.
Further, on confrontation of Ex.A7, D.W.2 stated that the bore shown in
Ex.A7 photograph was removed by the 5th defendant.
Ex.A.7 proves that a borewell situated in the said area covered under Ex.A.7 and the plaque appears in Ex.A.7 shows it was inaugurated on 14.11.2014 by Nasa ie., 5th defendant.
39. As per the record. During pendency of the suit 5th defendant compromised the matter with plaintiff and to that effect plaintiffs and D5 filed a joint memo at the time of cross examination of P.W.1 and said memo was recorded and suit dismissed against 5th defendant as not pressed on 22.2.2023. Therefore, issue No. 5 and 8 are answered against plaintiff and in favour of 5th defendant.
40.ISSUE Nos.2,3 and 4:
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of plaint schedule property by evict the defendants 5,8 to 24?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled consequential permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?
39
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 5,8 to 24 to remove the structures illegally put up by them in the suit schedule property ?
In view of the discussion in issue No. 1 ,6 and 7 it is clear that the plaintiffs failed to establish the owner ship of the 1st plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. In such situation the plaintiff is not entitled for reliefs covered under the suit. Hence, issue No.2 to 4 are answered against plaintiffs.
41.ISSUE No.9.
To what relief ?
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer Grade-1 corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of April, 2025.
Sd/A.Vasanthi,
XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
PITHAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For plaintiff:
Pw1 :Yeramilli Sri Rama Chandra Murthy.
For defendant:
D.W.1: Eschiewed
D.W.2: V.S.V.V.K.V.R Murarjee.
D.W.3: Nemala Venkatesh.
40
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
DOCUMENTS MARKED.
For plaintiff:
Ex.A.1 is the registration extract of registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff great grandfather Y. Ramachandrudu executed by D.Padmaraju and others dt. 5.7.1910.
Ex.A.2 is the registration extract of registered release deed executed by Y. Ramachandra rao in favour of Y. Satyanrayana who is the paternal grand father of plaintiffs dt.31.08.1947.
Ex.A.3 is the office copy of the notice issued by the plaintiff to 5th defendant, making a copy to District collector, E.G District, Kakinada and postal acknowledgements from them dt.17.11.2014.
Ex.A.4 is the office copy of the notice issued by the plaintiff to 3 and 4 defendant marking a copy to District collector, E.G. District, Kakinada and postal acknowledgements from them dt.17.11.2014.
Ex.A.5 is the office copy of the notice issued by the plaintiff 3 and 4 defendants marking a copy to District collector, EG. District Kakinada and postal acknowledgments from D.1 and D.3 and returned cover from D.4, dt.17.12.2014 .
Ex. A.6 is notice from District collector, E.G District , Kakinada to plaintiff counsel, dt.29.11.2014.
Ex.A.7is the three photographs with CD.,
Marked through D.W.2
Ex.A.8 is the relevant portion of attested fair Adangal which shows the name of Y.Subbarao,
Ex.A.9 copies of the land tax receipts (3 in nos) dt.14.4.2014,14.3.2007 and 24.7.2012 for the property situated in Srungavruksham village in Survey No.249/1A3 .
Ex.A10 copies of the land tax receipts (4 in Nos) for the property situated in Srungavruksham village in Survey no.249/1D.
Ex.A11 is the copy of filed map of Survey No.249,Srungavruksham village, 41
Fair judgment Dated 15.04.2025
Ex.A.12 is copy of Pattadar pass book stands in the name of Yerramalli Venkata subbarao pertains to property situated in Survey No.249/1A3.
For defendants: Nil
Sd/A.Vasanthi,
XII A.D.J.