Smt. Arpitha Maram Reddy

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20151 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KARIMNAGAR.

Present:­ Smt. Arpitha Maram Reddy I­Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022.

O.S.NO. 441 of 2015

Between:

Adavelli Thara @ Tharamma, W/o.Rajaram, Age:40 Years, Occ:Household R/o. Revalli Village of Choppadandi Mandal of Karimnagar District …Plaintiff.

And

1.Vangapelli Yellaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age:64 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2­14, Revelli Village of Choppadandi Mandal of Karimnagar District.

2.Sammeta Srilatha, W/o. Santhosh, D/o.Vangapelli Yellaiah, Age: 31 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.9­6­69/A, Ramnagar, Karimnagar …Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Venugopal, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri R. Suresh Babu, Advocate for the Defendants and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The present suit is filed by plaintiff with a prayer to pass a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and 2, their family members, their men, assignees, such other persons claiming through them from interfering in any manner with the suit schedule property i.e., land in Sy.No.262/C to an extent of 373.1 Sq.yards,

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20152 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

situated at Choppadandi village and mandal of Karimnagar district.

And also prayed to grant decree by declaring that the registered gift settlement deed vide document No.7071/2015, dated 12.08.2015 executed by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

2.The facts as mentioned in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property, the same was gifted by her husband namely

Adavelli Rajaram through registered gift settlement deed vide document

No.11437, dated 23.11.2015, her husband purchased the same from defendant No.1 through registered sale deed vide document

No.9973/2005, dated 17.02.2005, the defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from one Srigada Kuntaiah through registered sale deed vide document No.4628/1996, dated 10.07.1996. The plaintiff has got flow of title over the suit schedule property, as such she became absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, the defendant No.1 and 2 have no right or title over the suit schedule property, but with a malafide intention they created a fake and fabricated registered gift settlement deed vide document No.7971/2015,

dated 12.08.2015 in respect of the suit land. The husband of plaintiff

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20153 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

paid entire sale consideration to the defendant No.1 for getting executed the registered sale deed in his favour, but the defendant NO.1 intentionally executed the registered gift settlement deed in favour of defendant NO.2 to claim the suit land. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as per the registered gift settlement deed, but the defendants trying to occupy the suit land. On 30.11.2015 the defendants approached the plaintiff and shown the fake document and also threatened her with dire consequences that they will occupy the suit land at any cost. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants filed written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint. They further submitted that the defendant

No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and he gifted the same to defendant No.2 with love and affection, the defendant No.1 purchased the suit land from Srigada Kuntaiah through registered sale deed vide document No.4268/1996, dated 10.07.1996, out of love and affection the defendant No.1 executed a agreement dated 25.03.2000 at the time of her marriage to gift the suit land to defendant No.2, then the defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoying the suit land.

The defendant No.1 executed registered gift settlement deed vide document No.7971/2015, dated 12.08.2015 in respect of suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2.

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20154 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

4.The husband of the plaintiff along with some other developed ill intention to grab the suit land as the same is primary land in the village, and they tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant No.2 over the suit land, on 24.11.2015 they tried to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant

No.2 over the suit land, for which she requested them to not to interfere the same, but they refused to do so. The defendant No.2 filed a suit vide

OS.No.434 of 2015 and the Hon’ble Court granted the injunction

against the husband of plaintiff and others, the same is pending before

Hon’ble Prl. Junior Civil Court, Karimnagar.

5.The husband of the plaintiff gifted the suit land to the plaintiff though he has not having any right over the suit land, the defendant

No.1 never executed any sale deed in favour of husband of plaintiff, that in the witness column of the document vide No.9973/2005 one

V.Venkatesh is shown as witnessed the document and the son of

Vengapally Yellaiah is Vengapelli Venkataiah, but not V. Venkatesh and he was residing at Maharashtra at the time of alleged execution of sale deed. The plaintiff or her husband no way concerned with the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20155 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

7.The following issues are framed for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of registered gift settlement deed vide document No.7971/2015, dated 12.08.2015 executed by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff ?

3. To what relief ?

Issues No.1 and 2 : ­

8.In order to avoid repetition and evidence it is pertinent and convenient to discuss issues No.1 and 2 together.

9.In order to substantiate her claim the plaintiff examined herself as

PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A4. Even though the plaintiff has examined one independent witness i.e., as PW2, despite of giving ample time to defendant failed to cross examine him as such cross examination on behalf of defendants was treated nil.

10.The contention of the plaintiff is, she is absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property and the same was acquired by her, basing on Ex.A3 i.e., certified copy of registered settlement deed, which shows that in the year of 2015, the plaintiff husband has gifted the suit schedule property in the name of plaintiff. She further contended that

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20156 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

initially her husband has purchased suit schedule property through

Ex.A2 i.e., certified copy of registered sale deed under vide document

No.9973/2005, dated 07.08.2005 which shows that basing on the said deed, the plaintiff husband acquired suit schedule property. Whereas

Ex.A1 shows that the plaintiff’s husband vendor has purchased suit schedule property from one Kuntaiah through Registered sale deed vide document No.4268/1996, dated 10.07.1996.

11.Thus, Ex.A1, A2, A4 whispers the flow of title of plaintiff since 1996 i.e., execution of Ex.A1. The plaintiff contends that despite of executing Ex.A2 in the year of 2005 by defendant No.1, basing on Ex.A3 i.e., certified copy of registered gift settlement deed, intentionally defendant No.1 has executed the same in favour of his daughter and said fact was came to know on 30.11.2015 when defendants approached the plaintiff with created Ex.A3 and threatened them with dire consequences to occupy suit schedule property at any cost.

12.Coming to PW1 chief examination she reiterated the contents of the pleadings and whereas in her cross examination it is elicited that defendant No.1 son by name Venkatesh/Venkaiah @ Venkanna was one of the attester in Ex.A2 and he was present at that time. The learned

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20157 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

defendants counsel has successfully elicited the admissions that prior to

Ex.A4 i.e., certified copy of gift settlement deed vide document

No.114/2015, Ex.A3 was executed, but PW1 further stated that she came to know about Ex.A3, subsequent to Ex.A4. PW1 pleaded ignorance pertaining to suit for perpetual injunction filed by defendants vide OS.No.434/2015 and injunction was granted in their favour and said copy was received by plaintiff husband and the present case is counter case to it. PW1 further ignorance pertaining to application by defendant No.2 before GP authorities Choppadandi and admitted that she applied for construction permission from GP, Choppadandi. Basing on both applications GP seeked legal opinion AGP.

13.The learned defendants counsel has posed suggestions that defendant No.1 son, borrowed amount from plaintiff and at the time of execution of Ex.A2, he was at Maharashtra State and his signature was forged as D.Venkatesh and the same was denied by plaintiff. In as much the plaintiff also denied the suggestion that is the defendant No.1 son failed to repay the amount under coercion, signature of defendant

No.1 was obtained on white papers without disclosing any facts. The plaintiff also denied the suggestion that at the time of defendant No.2 marriage, he promised to gift suit schedule property in her favour

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20158 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

towards sthree dhana and the same was reduced in writing in the year of 2000.

14.Prior to appreciation of evidence it is pertinent to look into the provision of Sec.38 of Specific Relief Act :

1. Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this

Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of any obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.

2. When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.

3. When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s rights to, or, enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely :­

a) Where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff.

b) Where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;

c) Where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief:

d) Where the injunctions is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

O.S.NO. 441 OF 20159 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

15.It is settled proposition of law that the granting of perpetual injunction is discretionary equitable relief and more over the equity should done to both parties and the same has to be seen. In the case in hand in order to grant perpetual injunction initially it is burden on the plaintiff to show that only to prevent breach of obligation existing in her favour whether it is expressly or implicably injunction can be granted.

IN the the case in hand admittedly the suit schedule property is open land as such it is need less to say that tile fallows possession. The plaintiff on the strength of Ex.A4 and the flow of title i.e., Ex.A1 and A2 seeking lawful possession over suit schedule property. Undoubtedly,

Ex.A1, A2 and A4 are registered documents, unless and until the contrary is proved the same which deemed to be genuine, the object of registration to give notice to the public at large. Thus, basing on Ex.A1,

A2, A4 the plaintiff has established her lawful possession over the suit schedule property.

16. It is not the case of defendants No.1 i.e., Ex.A3 was not executed and it is his case that under the coercion plaintiff obtained defendant

No.1 signature and even though defendant No.1’s son was not present, his signature is forged in Ex.A3 as one of the attester of Ex.A3. Basing on Ex.A1, A2, A4 coupled with PW1 admission in cross examination and

O.S.NO. 441 OF 201510 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

more over as defendant No.1 did not denied that Ex.A3 was not executed by him, the plaintiff has prima facie established that implied obligation existing in his favour. Thus, the onus of proof shifts upon the defendants in order to show that under coercion Ex.A3 was executed by him and also his son’s signature was forged. Neither any evidence was let in order to prove alibi on the date of execution of Ex.A3, that defendant No.1’s son was residing at Maharastra State nor any oral evidence to disprove the claim of plaintiff.

17.Thus, the contention of defendants possess strong suspicion on him and this court draws presumption under Sec.114 Illustration (g) “ that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it:” Apart from it, as it is the contention of the defendant No.1 that Ex.A2 was executed under coercion itself shows that in the year of 2005 the factum of coercion is within the knowledge of defendant No.1. Then in such a case non initiation of any proceedings either civil or criminal since 2005 also inspires this court to established bonafides on the part of defendants.

18.If for spur of the moment this court believes defendants from

Ex.A2 was existed under coercion the defendant would have been sent

Ex.A2 for FSL in order to prove that his son/attester signature was

O.S.NO. 441 OF 201511 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

forged. But defendants without adducing any oral or documentary evidence vaguely posing suggestions to the plaintiff denying attestor signature and execution on the basis of coercion itself is not safe and suffice and his pleadings are baseless. Unerringly, Ex.A3 was executed prior to Ex.A4 itself does not discard the entire ocular and documentary evidence of plaintiff, who seeking her lawful possession basing on Ex.A2 which was executed in the year of 2005. As in the year of 2005 having acquiescence of Ex.A2 non initiation of steps by defendant No.1 it is clinchingly infers that Ex.A3 is sham and bogus document and in order to deprive the right of plaintiff, the same was executed.

19.In as much the defendants contends that at the time of defendant

No.2 marriage he reduced in writing in the year of 2000 that suit schedule property will be gifted to defendant No.2. If such a case non production of the said document which does not seen light of the day is baseless. Basing on Ex.A1, A2, A4 coupled with PW1 ocular evidence it is positive and cogent that the plaintiff has established her lawful possession over the suit schedule property being exclusive owner and on the strength of Ex.A4 and execution of Ex.A3. After lapse of 10 years of

Ex.A2, denying the signature of one of the attester of Ex.A2 and taking plea that under coercion defendant No.1 executed Ex.A2 whisper that

O.S.NO. 441 OF 201512 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

the defendant are invading and threatening the plaintiff’s lawful right and enjoyment over suit schedule property. In such a case such invasion that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief.

In view of above fore going discussions the issues No.1 and 2 are in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.

ISSUE No.3 :­

20.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff granting perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants

No.1 and 2, their family members, men, assignees, such other persons claiming through them from interfering in any manner with the suit schedule property. Further it is declared that the registered gift settlement deed document No.7971/2015, dated 12.08.2015 executed by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of August, 2022.

I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

KARIMNAGAR.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: Adavelli Thara @ Tharamma ­ Nil­ PW.2: Kothakonda Komuraiah

O.S.NO. 441 OF 201513 to 13Date: 10.08.2022 ( Fair )

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Is Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed vide document No.4268/1996 Ex.A2Is Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed No.9973/2005. Ex.A3Is Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed No.7971/2015 Ex.A4Is Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Mp/11437/2015

FOR DEFENDANTS: ­­­NIL­­­­

 I­Addl.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

1 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KARIMNAGAR.

Present:­ Smt. Arpitha Maram Reddy I­Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

Wednesday this the 17 th day of August, 2022.

O.S.NO. 452 of 2015

Between: Muche Komuraiah S/o Achaiah, age: 45 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Velichala village of Ramadugu mandal of Karimnagar district. …Plaintiff.

And

1. Muche Komuraiah S/o Mallaiah, age: 60 years,

2. Muche Bakkaiah S/o Mallaiah, age : 50 years, 

3. Muche Nayakaiah S/o Mallaiah, age: 45 years,

4. Muche Srinivas S/o Komuraiah, age: 35 years,

5. Muche Anil S/o Bakkaiah, age: 24 years,

6. Muche Prashanth S/o Bakkaiah, age: 23 years, All are agricultures and R/o.Velichala village of Ramadugu mandal of Karimnagar district. …Defendants No.1 to 6

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. B. Shankaraiah, Advocate for the defendants, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants restraining the defendants, their yes­men, family members, workmen not to interfere over the land in Sy.No.172/B to an extent of Ac.0­03 guntas out of Ac.0­13 guntas, situated at Velichala village of Ramadugu mandal of Karimnagar district, (herein after called as suit schedule property).

IAJCJ., KNR.

2 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

2.The facts as mentioned in the plaint are as follows:

(i)That the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.172/B measuring Ac.0­13 guntas, in which father of plaintiff constructed a house bearing No.4­30 and left the open place in front of their house to an extent of

Ac.0­03 guntas, the plaintiff same was acquired from his father which is ancestral property, the revenue authorities also issued pattedar pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff’s father and his name also entered in pahani patrikas as owner and possessor. After the demise of his father the plaintiff along with his family members have been in continuous possession over the suit schedule property, more than 50 years and also enjoying the same. On 25.06.2014 the plaintiff also obtained house permission from the

GP over the suit schedule property along with compound wall.

The plaintiff further submits that the defendants are adjacent owners of suit schedule property and they are trying occupy the suit schedule property.

On 02.12.2015 the defendants tried to interfere into the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by disturbing the boundaries of the suit land, for which he successfully foiled the illegal interference of the defendant and set them away.

But the defendants are threatening the plaintiff to vacate the suit land with the help of local police, if the defendants are not restrained they will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

IAJCJ., KNR.

3 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

3.Per contra, the defendants filed counter by denying the averments of the plaint and also submitted that the suit land is not located in

Sy.No.172/B, as such he has no locus standee to file the suit on the basis of different survey number and the plaintiff has not filed the permission which is obtained from GP. The plaintiff falsely file the suit with false allegations and irrelevant documents obtained exparte injunction order, and trying to construction of compound wall in the suit land, due to which the lands of defendant No.1 and 2 is effecting.

4.The defendants further submitted that the suit survey number 172/B is not located within the suit schedule boundaries and it is the illegal act of the plaintiff that he has introduced his survey number which located far away at a distant of 2 kilo meters and unnecessarily litigating with the defendants.

The actual Sy.No.381/H to 387 is located within the boundaries of the suit land and disputes are pending in between plaintiff and defendants, therefore to occupy the same this false suit is filed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the defendants interfered with the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for grant of perpetual injunction ?

4. To what relief?

IAJCJ., KNR.

4 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

6.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit Survey number is ancestral property and the same is succeeded from his father by name Achaiah and Patta passbook and title deed issued by Revenue authorities in his favour. Further more the plaintiff name is also entered in Pahani Patrika as Owner and possessor. After demise of Plaintiff father, his name is entered, since more than 50 Years he and his family members are in possession and enjoyment over SSP. In as much GP permission is also obtained to raise construction over SSP Dated:25.06.2014, by paying requisite fee. But the defendant under the influence of unsocial elements

dated:02.05.2015 trying to interfere by disturbing boundaries of the SSP. Hence

the Suit.

7.In order to substantiate the claim of the Plaintiff, he himself examined as

PW.1 and Exhibits A1 to A12 marked.

Ex.A1 Is Original house tax receipt date:25-06-2014 (G.P. Velichala) shows the receipt in the name of Plaintiff.

Ex.A2 to A7 for Is Meeseva copy of pahani for fasli year 1420 to 1425 continuously show that the Plaintiff over suit schedule property.

Ex.A8 Is Meeseva copy of 1-B ROR dated:07-12-2015 shows Plaiontiff including suit schedule property is pattedar and possessor in Sy.No.387/A (Ac.1.07 guntas) Sy.No.381/H (Ac.0.1700 \), Sy.No372/A (Ac.0.1100

Guntas), & Sy.No.167/G (Ac.0.1000 Guntas) apart from other

Ex.A9 & 10 Is original house tax & water tax receipt date 02-09-2014 (G.P. Velichala) in the name of Plaintiff for H.No.4-30.

Ex.A11 is certified copy of FIR No.19/2016 of P.S.Ramadugu shows on 22.05.2015, plaintiff lodged criminal case against Defendants and five

IAJCJ., KNR.

5 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

others pertaining to trespass in Sy.No.172/B(Ac.0.13 Guntas) for demolition of compound wall of H.No.4-30.

Ex.A12 is certified copy of unnumbered private complaint on the file of I-

Addl Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar basing on Ex.A11 private complaint was filed by the Plaintiff.

8.As seen from Ex.A2 to A8 continuously shows that the Plaintiff Pattedar and possessor over suit schedule property from 2010 to 2015, and admittedly the cause of action arose on 06.12.2015. Thus it is pertinent to look into the oral evidence of PW.1 who reiterated pleading in his chief examination, whereas the defendant disputing suit survey number and physical boundaries of plaintiff since filing of written statement. In the cross examination of PW.1 the learned defence counsel has elicited the following admission :

a) PW.1 know the contents o f his chief affidavit.

b) The suit Survey number is 381 and he stated in the plaint as 172/B. and he mentioned incorrect survey number and extent in the plaint.

c) The boundaries of suit schedule property are towards East: Agricultural Land,

West : Dambar Road towards Gattubhutkur, North : House of Muche Rajaiah &

South : Rodda Kistaiah Land.

d) PW.1 despite of filing application for demarcation of boundaries in Sy.No.381 & 387 before District surveyor, the same was not filed before the court.

IAJCJ., KNR.

6 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

9.As seen from oral evidence of PW.1, admissions in cross examination couple Ex.A2 to A12 it clearly shows that apart from suit schedule property, the

Plaintiff own land in other agricultural fields. Basing on PW.1 admissions, the said factum of incorrect survey number, boundaries and extent, such facts need not to be proved as the same are admitted facts U/sec.58 of Indian Evidence act.

As such it is proved that as on the date of cause of action, the plaintiff is not in physical possession over the suit schedule property. Thus the evidence let in by plaintiff is not positive and cogent in order to conclude the case in his favour.

10.Admittedly prior to cross examination of PW.1 the learned defense counsel has brought incorrect boundary number and survey number at the time of filing

W.S. dated:14.03.2016. Admittedly the suit is filed on 11.12.2015 and in the year of 2021 the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.355 of 2021 to amend the pleading that instead of Sy.No.381 incorrectly shown as 172/B. On hearing the both sides 04.02.2022 I.A.No.355 of 2021 was dismissed. Subsequently after closure of evidence, the matter was posted for arguments, Dt:04-07-2022. Either subsequent to dismissal of I.A.355 of 2021 or after closure of arguments the Plaintiff didn’t prefer any appeal against aggrieved by the orders of the said I.A., for the best reasons known to them. But such act of the plaintiff clearly shows that he doesn’t have any personal interest in the matter. In the view above submissions the Plaintiff failed to prove his physical possession over suit schedule property

IAJCJ., KNR.

7 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

and moreover admitted that on incorrect boundaries the suit was filed. In the view of above submissions the Point No.1 is answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant.

Issue No.2 & 3 :-

2. Whether the defendants interfered with the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for grant of perpetual injunction ?

11.For convience sake and to avoid repetition of evidence issue No.2 & 3 discussed together.

Despite of Ex.A2 to A8 shows the plaintiff possession over suit schedule property, basing PW.1 admission the same is proved against him. In such a case when the suit survey number is incorrect and the same is admitted by PW.1 then interference of Defendant on the said survey number doesn’t arise. Apart from

PW.1 no other ocular evidence was let in to support his version. As such this court draws presumption U/s 114(g) “ that evidence which could be and is not produced, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it.”

12.As per Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, Perpetual injuntion may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favbour whether expressly or by implication. In the case in hand, the pleadings and oral evidence doesn’t fall under any of the sub clauses (i) to (iv). Hence in

IAJCJ., KNR.

8 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

view of the above submission the issue No.2 & 3 are answered against Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant.

13.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, directly on computer screen and

typed by her corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of August, 2022.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW.1: Muche Komuraiah

FOR DEFENDANTS:

­­­Nil­­­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 Is Original house tax receipt date:25-06-2014 (G.P. Velichala)

Ex.A2 Is Meeseva copy of pahani for fasli year 1420

Ex.A3 Is Meeseva copy of pahani for fasli year 1421

Ex.A4 Is Meeseva copy of pahani for fasli year 1422

Ex.A5 Is Meeseva copy of pahani for fasli year 1423

Ex.A6 Is Meeseva copy of pahani for fasli year 1424

Ex.A7 Is Meeseva copy of pahani for fasli year 1425

Ex.A8 Is Meeseva copy of 1-B ROR dated:07-12-2015

IAJCJ., KNR.

9 of 9

O.S.NO. 452 OF 2015 Date: 17-08-2022

Ex.A9 Is original house tax receipt date 02-09-2014 (G.P. Velichala)

Ex.A10 Is original water tax receipt dated:02-09-2014 (G.P. Velichala)

Ex.A11 is certified copy of FIR No.19/2016 of P.S.Ramadugu

Ex.A12 is cerified copy of unnumbered private complaint on the file of I-

Addl Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

­NIL­

I­ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

IAJCJ., KNR.

O.S.No.356 of 2018 1 to 8 Date:01-08-2022

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:­ Smt Arpitha Maram Reddy,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

KARIMNAGAR

Monday, this the 01st day of August, 2022

O.S.NO.356 OF 2018

Between:

Gunti Yellaiah S/o Rajaiah, age: 48 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Khajipur village of Karimnagar mandal and district.

...Plaintiff

AND

Nakka Mallaiah S/o Muthaiah, age: 70 years, occ: Regulapally Patha village h/o Mallapoor village Boinipalli mandal of Rajanna Sircilla district.

...Defendant.

***

This suit is coming before me on 15­07­2022 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri D. Mallaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and

defendant was set exparte having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:­

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The present suit is filed under Section Order VII Rule 1 and 2

R/sec.26 of C.P.C with a prayer to pass a decree for recovery of possession of land in Sy.No.272/F to an extent of Ac.0­06 guntas, situated at Khajipur village of Karimnagar mandal and district (herein after called as suit schedule property) and the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and also the defendant is directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

O.S.No.356 of 2018 2 to 9 Date:01-08-2022

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that :­

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of of suit schedule property, he purchased the same from Mohammed Ibrahim and Gunti

Gnagamma through a registered sale deed bearing document No.886 of 1995, dated 03.04.1995, since then the plaintiff has been continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption. The vendor of the plaintiff namely

Mohammed Ibrahim purchased the suit land from Duddala Mallaiah through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2044 of 1984,

dated 08.10.1984. The total extent in Sy.No.272/F is Ac.1­20 guntas,

after selling the suit land to the vendor of the plaintiff, the said

Duddala Mallaiah 1988 sold away the land in Sy.No.272/F to an extent of Ac.1­20 guntas to the defendant vide registered sale deed bearing document No.1505/1988, dated 27.07.1988, and the same is unlawful and illegal, but he did not deliver the possession of same to the defendant.

3.By virtue of the registered sale deed the defendant mutated his name in respect of land in Sy.No.272/F to an extent of Ac.1­20 guntas in all revenue records. Taking advantage of the same the defendant came to said land, occupied the suit land and erected boundary covering the suit land, on knowing the same the plaintiff rushed to the suit land and asked the defendant as to why he occupied the same,

O.S.No.356 of 2018 3 to 9 Date:01-08-2022

then he showed the registered sale deed bearing No.1505/1988 and the mutation of his name in pahani patrikas to an extent of Ac.1­20 guntas in Sy.No.272/F.

4.The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant is stranger to the suit land, he with an intention to grab the suit land colluded with land brokers and fraudulently occupied the suit land. Since purchase of suit land by plaintiff i.e., 1984, till illegal occupation of the defendant the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit land by cultivating the same. On 30.09.2018 the defendant came to suit land and dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and illegally occupied the same, for which the plaintiff convened a panchayath in the presence of village elders and called the defendant and also directed to hand over sale deed and the vacant possession of the suit land to plaintiff and get cancel the mutation in respect of the suit land. Hence, the suit.

5.The defendant was set exparte on 05.08.2019 as they failed to file the Written Statement.

6.During the course of exparte evidence, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A28.

7.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record. 

O.S.No.356 of 2018 4 to 9 Date:01-08-2022

8.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule property as prayed for” ?

Point:­

9.Plaintiff in order to prove his claim, has examined himself as

PW1 and reiterated the pleadings and more over PW2 supported his claim. Ex.A1 is original registered of sale deed vide document

No.866/1995, dated 03.04.1995 shows that through the said deed plaintiff purchased SSP from his vendor.

Ex.A2 is original registered sale deed bearing document No.2044, shows plaintiff vendor has purchased SSP from his vendor in the year of 1984.

Ex.A3 is Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.1505/1988, dated 27.07.1988 shows the plaintiff vendor vendor/ defendant vendor has alienate AC.1.20 guntas in suit survey numbers in favour of defendant.

Ex.A4 to A7 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1980­81, 1985­86, 1986­87, 1987­88, shows one Maddala Narsaiah is pattedar and possessor to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in suit survey number for the respective years

Ex.A8 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1988­89, 1989­ 90, 1990­91, 1991­92, 1992­93, 1993­94, 1994­95, 1995­96, 1996­ 97, 1997­98, 1999­2000, 2001­02, 2002­03, 2004­05, 2005­06, 2006­ 07, 2007­08, 2008­09, 2009­10, 2011­12, 2014­15, continuously shows that the defendant pattadar and possessor to the extent of

Ac.1.20 guntas in suit survey number.

O.S.No.356 of 2018 5 to 9 Date:01-08-2022

10.The plaintiff seeking recovery of possession of SSP basing on title i.e., Ex.A1 as such the limitation to file the present suit is delt under Article 65 of the said act which empowers that “ For possession of immovable property or any interest based on title the limitation period is 12 years from the date of possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff”.

11.As per Ex.A1 it goes to show that in the year of 1995 plaintiff has purchased SSP from plaintiff vendor who intern purchase the same through Ex.A2 in the year of 1984. the plaintiff pleaded that he came to know about Ex.A3 in the year of 2018 i.e., when cause of action is arose dated:30.09.2018. But as per the record filed by the plaintiff himself shows that Ex.A8 to Ex.A28 i.e., pahanies for the respective years i.e., from 1988­2014, whispers that as on the date of execution of A1 in favour of plaintiff i.e., 1995, the defendant was in continuous possession as pattadar and possessor to the total extent of

Ac.1.20 guntas in suit survey number. But not his vendor itself is evince that either prior to Ex.A1 or at the time of execution of A1, only defendant was in possession including SSP to the total extent of

Ac.1.20 guntas.

O.S.No.356 of 2018 6 to 9 Date:01-08-2022

12.The present suit is filed basing on cause of action i.e., dated;30.09.2018, whereas it is the pleading of plaintiff that since execution of A1 ie., in the year of 1995 till his dispossession. Apart from article 65 of Indian Limitation act the plaintiff is seeking recovery of possession, initially it is the burden to establish prior to his dispossession, he was in possession over SSP. Admittedly despite of

Ex.A1 to A28 such record doesn’t show that since execution of date of

Ex.A1 or prior to cause of action either he or his vendor were in possession over the SSP.

13.Undoubtedly PW.2 is an independent witness/villager was examine. In the absence of any record pertaining to possession of plaintiff over SSP and if he was in possession over the same since the date of execution of A1. He would have been examined any of his boundary holders in order to establish his claim. But non examining any boundary holder of SSP and examining a villager inspire this court to draw presumption U/Sec.114 illustration (g) : of Indian Evidence

Act, that evidence which could be and is not produce, would, he

produce, be un­favourable to the person who with holds it”.

14.In as much perusing Ex.A8 to A28 coupled with Ex.A3 the entries in Revenue records are relevant U/Sec.35 of Indian Evidence

Act, as such entries is made by public servant in discharge of his

O.S.No.356 of 2018 7 to 9 Date:01-08-2022

official duty. Hence the entry in pahanies i.e., Ex.A8 to A28 are in fact in issue & in the absence of defence the said records tilt on defendant side. In as much when the plaintiff is claiming possession through

Ex.A1, and Ex.A8 to Ex.A28 which clearly shows that on the date of the said deed he was not in possession for more than 23 years itself extinquish U/sec.27 of Indian Limitation Act, the rights and title of the plaintiff pertaining to suit schedule property.

15.Having knowledge that barred by law by saying illusionary cause of action which is a smart pleading cannot bring any cause of action, the suit has to be dismissed. Despite of examining PW.1 and PW.2 and exhibiting Ex.A1 to A28 their evidence is not positive and convincing in order to show that on the date of cause of action plaintiff was a possession over SSP and he was dispossessed by plaintiff.

16.As it clearly shows that as on the date of execution of A1 the defendant is in possession to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in SSP. It appears that despite of reflecting the name of defendant as pattadar and possessor at the time of execution of A1 and also subsequently there on the plea raised by the plaintiff that he had knowledge in the year of 2018 appears to be illusory cause of action by making a smart pleading under the guise of non acquiescence. But Article 65 does not come to rescue of plaintiff as the present suit is filed after laps of 23

O.S.No.356 of 2018 8 to 9 Date:01-08-2022

years which is a inordinate delay. It is settled proposition of Law that law help those who are vigilant but not those persons who sleep over their rights and knock the door of the Court as per the convenience. In the view of above submission the point is answer against plaintiff in favour of defendant. Hence, the suit is dismissed with costs.

17.IN THE RESULT : the Suit is dismissed with costs. 

Typed to dictated to stenographer, on direct computer screen,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1 st day of

August, 2022. 

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW1­Gunti Yellaiah SET EXPARTE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is original registered of sale deed vide document No.866/1995,

dated 03.04.1995.

Ex.A2 is original registered sale deed bearing document No.2044. Ex.A3 is Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.1505/1988, dated 27.07.1988. Ex.A4 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1980­81. Ex.A5 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1985­86. Ex.A6 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1986­87. Ex.A7 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1987­88. Ex.A8 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1988­89. Ex.A9 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1989­90. Ex.A10 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1990­91. Ex.A11 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1991­92.

O.S.No.356 of 2018 9 to 9 Date:01-08-2022

Ex.A12 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1992­93. Ex.A13 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1993­94. Ex.A14 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1994­95. Ex.A15 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1995­96. Ex.A16 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1996­97. Ex.A17 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1997­98. Ex.A18 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1999­2000. Ex.A19 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2001­02. Ex.A20 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2002­03. Ex.A21 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2004­05. Ex.A22 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2005­06. Ex.A23 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2006­07. Ex.A24 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2007­08. Ex.A25 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2008­09. Ex.A26 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2009­10. Ex.A27 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2011­12. Ex.A28 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2014­15.

FOR DEFENDANT:

SET EXPARTE. 

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

Date: 05.08.20221 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT :: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:­ Smt. Arpitha Maram Reddy I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Karimnagar.

Friday, the 5th day of August 2022.

Calender Case No. 470 of 2016

Between:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Kothapalli, (Cr.No.626 of 2014) … Complainant.

And

Vootla Devaiah, S/o. Abraham, Age: 40 years, R/o.H.No. 8­ 70/2, TRK Nagar, Chinthakunta V/o. Karimnagar Mandal and District.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 03.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sr.A.P.P. for the State and of Sri Gujja Sasthish, counsel for accused, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police P.S., Kothapalli has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 353 of Indian Penal Code.

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.20222 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are:

That on 18.11.2014 at 1230 hours, the complainant came to P.S and lodged complaint that on the same at 20 hours, accused assaulted the complainant/Mohammad Maqbool VRO, Rekurthy while he was discharging his duty pertaining to erection of boundaries in

Sy.No.125 as per the Directions of Tahasildar. Hence the complaint.

3.Basing on that LW.7/L.Srinu S.I registered Crime.No. 626/2014

U/Sec.353 of IPC. During the course of investigation he examined the complainant, visited scene of offence, in the presence of LW.4/M.Raju,

LW.5/G.Raju conducted scene of offence panchanama and also examined Lws.2 to 4 ( B.Sevia, D.Pochaiah, M.Raju). Thereafter I.O served 41­A cr.P.C notices to accused and he was directed to appear

before the Court on receipt of summons. After completion investigation

he laid charge sheet U/Sec.353 of IPC.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section.

353 of IPC against the accused.

5.After securing the presence of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.20223 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

6.The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation leveled against accused for the offence U/Sec. 353 of IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.3.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.The case of prosecution is:

That on the date of offence accused assaulted the complainant in discharging his duties while he demarcation of boundaries in

Sy.No.126. Hence the complaint.

11.The point that arises for consideration is “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section.353 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.20224 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

12.Pw.1/Complainant testified that he know PW.2,3 being surveyor and he know PW.2,3 LW.4/M.Raju being surveyor and labours. On 18­11­2014 at the oral instructions of Tahasildar Karimnagar he along with PW.2, 3 and LW.4/Raju went to Sy.No.126 which is the

Government land.

13.PW.1 further stated that while he was fixing boundaries in

Sy.No.126 with the assistance of PW.2, 3 and LW.4/M.Raju, accused came there, abused him in filthy language by stating the said land belongs to him. He informed accused if there is any query the same may be placed before MRO, but he did not hear his words, by caught holding his shirt pushed him on the ground due to which he fell down. Due to obstruction of accused without fixing boundaries in

Sy.No.,126 he left. The same was informed to MRO. Witness identified the accused in the open Court.

14.The learned defence counsel has elicited admissions in his favour:

(a) PW.1 failed to disclosed his identity particulars at the time of examination, to police

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.20225 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

(b) no record is placed in order to show that Sy.No.126 is government land.

(c) no record is placed to show that on the date of incident at the oral instructions of MRO, he visited Sy.No.126.

15.PW.2/Deputy Inspector testified that he know PW.1 being VRO,

Rekurthy in the year of 2011 and pleaded ignorance pertaining to

LW.4/M.Raju. In the month of 2014 on written instructions of

Tahasildar he, PW.1 went to Sy.No.126 in order to prevent encroachment by offenders. He and PW.1 both together went to survey the land in Sy.No.126 in order to demarcate and fixed boundaries being Government land. He further deposed that accused made objection pertaining to demarcation of boundaries.

16.In his cross examination the learned defence counsel has elicited that no record is placed to show that land in Sy.No.126 is belongs to

Government land and he did not brought any memo to show that basing on such document he and PW.1 inspected Sy.No.126.

17.PW.3/independent witness deposed in the month of November 2014 & on one day at the request of PW.1, he went to Sy.No.126 with tractor in order to clean the said land. At 12 to 1.00 P.M accused

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.20226 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

came to Sy.No.126 and informed him that the said land belongs to him as such the work shall be stalled. As such he left the land and he did not remember the names of the people who were in scene of offence.

18.In his cross examination the learned defence counsel has elicited that:

(a) he did not file any record to show that he is the owner of the

Tractor in the year of 2014.

(b) he did not brought any record to show the said Tractor stands in his name.

(c) he did not received any payment receipts from PW.1.

19.PW.4/Scene panch admitted the proceedings of Scene of offence panchanama.

20.PW5/Investigating Officer deposed lines of investigation since inception of FIR till filing of the charge sheet.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

21.As seen from PW.1/complainant testimony whispers that accused caught hold PW.1 shirt, pushed him on the ground due to

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.20227 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

which he fell down. In as much the accused also abused PW.1. But

PW.2 and 3 whose presence is testified by PW.1 is in­consistent & uncorroborated. Whereas neither PW.2 nor PW.1 uttered such abusement, criminal force against PW.1. Further more PW.3 did not stated either presence of PW.1,2 and LW.4/M.Raju. If PW.1 to PW.3 and LW.4 presence is believable for a spur of the movement. None of the witnesses evidence is consistence with another to that extent.

Perhaps PW.3 states that while he was cleaning Sy.No.126 accused came there and claimed his ownership and asked him to leave the place. Except such statement no other evidence was testified by PW.3.

22.It is not the case of prosecution that while cleaning Sy.No.126 with tractor accused claimed his ownership and directed to PW.3 to station the work. PW.1 while discharging his duties. But it is the case of prosecution that while demarcating the boundaries in Sy.No.126 accused committed assault thus it lead to preventing PW.1 from discharging his duties. Admittedly PW.1 to PW.3 being eye witness to the incident testimony is not reliable which leads major discrepancy and inconsistencies which inspire this court to pose less credence and reliance upon PW.1 to 3 evidence.

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.20228 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

23.As seen from oral and documentary evidence of prosecution this

Court find major lacuna's and discrepancy which amounts to major fatal to prosecution and discredit prosecution testimonials.

(a) PW.1 testified that on oral instructions of MRO he visited

Sy.No.126.

(b) PW.2 testified that on written instruction of Tahasildar Karimnagar he went to Sy.No.126. Thus there is inconsistency between PW.1 and

PW.2 ocular evidence.

(c) non disclosure of any incriminating circumstance either by PW.2 or 3 to the extent that accused caught hold shirt of PW.1 and pushed him on the ground.

(d) PW.3 ocular evidence no where disclosed either presence of

PW.1,2 or PW.3.

(e) if Sy.No.126 is government land & non production of the said record amounts to major fatal to the prosecution and more over inspire this court to draw the presumption U/Sec.114, illustration (g):

“ that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.20229 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

(f)in the case in hand being Government employee there is every access to produce Sy.No.126 record not only to show that the said land belongs to 126, but also they were any legal complication as on the date of offence.

24.In as much no written instructions as stated by PW.2 has produced by PW.1. In the view of above submissions the presence of

PW.2,3 along with PW.1 is suspectable. Apart from it as there is inconsistency between PW.1 to 3 ocular evidence and more over their testimony creates a reasonable doubts in the mind of this Court. Thus this court opens that it is a fit case to extent benefit of doubt to accused as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

25.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty and acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under

Section. 353 of IPC. The bail bonds if any shall stand canceled, after expiry of appeal time or six months. 

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer directly on computer screen, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 5 th day of August, 2022.

I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

I.AJMFC KNR

Date: 05.08.202210 of 10C.C.No.470/2016 ( Fair )

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

­­­­­­None­­­­ Pw.1: Mohd Magbul Pw.2: B.Seviya Pw.3: D.Pochaiah Pw4: P.Srinivas Pw5: L.Srinu ( I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2:Crime Detail Form Ex.P3:First Information Report.

For Defence:­ ­Nil­

 I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar. 

I.AJMFC KNR

1 of 7

O.S.NO. 853 OF 2021 Date: 17.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KARIMNAGAR.

Present:- Smt. Arpitha Maram Reddy I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Wednesday the 17th day of August, 2022

O.S.NO. 853 of 2021

Between:

Vaida Mallakka, W/o. Palle Vankaiah, Aged: 70 Years, Occ:Nil, R/o.H.No.10-37/4/4A, Manakondur Village Mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiff.

And

Vaida Hymavathi, W/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged: 49 years, Occ: Employee in TSNPDCL, R/o.H.No.10-3-378/2, Hindupuri colony, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar town …Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 08.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Damera Nagaraju, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set exaparte for not filing of written statement, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession for ½ share out of property in Sy.No.1531(90.33 sq.yards) situated at

Manakondur village of Karimnagar ( herein after called as Suit Schedule Property in shot SSP) 2 of 7

O.S.NO. 853 OF 2021 Date: 17.08.2022

2.The facts as mentioned in the plaint are as follows:

That the plaintiff is mother-in-law of defendant i.e., w/o deceased son of plaintiff, and all are Hindus consisting Hindu Joint Family governed by

Mithakshra School of Law. Their family owned and possess open plot no.29 ( part) in Sy.No.1531 (90.33 ) Sq.yards or 75.85 sq meteres, situated at

Manakondur village and mandal of Karimnagar District. Originally the husband of plaintiff by name Vaida Venkataiah was employee in Electricity Department and demise during service. As such husband of defendant being elder in the family got plaintiff husband employment under compensative grounds and she was also granted pension.

3.That the plaintiff use to stay along with his deceased son and defendant, and contributed her pension amount. Out of the said earnings the defendant husband has purchased SSP through registered sale deed under vide doc.No.4470/2004 dated: 06-05-2004 from his brother Vaida Srinivas by paying valuable sale consideration. Since the date of sale the SSP is in joint possession and enjoyment. The defendant and plaintiff deceased son did not blessed with children. The deceased son of plaintiff died on 22.08.2008 due to ill-health leaving behind plaintiff and defendant as his legal heirs and successors.

3 of 7

O.S.NO. 853 OF 2021 Date: 17.08.2022

4.Thus the plaintiff and defendant equally inherited SSP and defendant also got job on compensative ground in addition to withdraw the entire death benefits of her deceased husband. The defendant developed illmotive and necked out the plaintiff from the home, and she shifted to her own house at Manakondur. The defendant sold the land in Sy.No.406 (219 sq.yards) situated Karimnagar to one

Kamareddy Chandrashekhar Reddy, which was purchased by her deceased son nominally in her name. In that regard dated:02-10-2021, one panchayath was held for partition, but the defendant kept quite and postpone the matter on one or other pretext in order to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff in SSP.

5.That the defendant is trying to alienate SSP to third party with intent to deprive the rights of the plaintiff who is entitled for ½ share. As there is no alternate, except to file the present suit, the plaintiff to substantiate their case, the documents i.e., certified copy of Register sale Deed, Copy of family member certificate and encumbrance certificate filed herewith. Hence the suit.

6.The defendant after receiving summons appear before the court and despite of giving ample time failed to file W.S and remained set-exparte dated:04-05- 2020.

7.In order to substantial his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 got marked Exhibits A1 and A2.

4 of 7

O.S.NO. 853 OF 2021 Date: 17.08.2022

8.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

9.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession ½ share over the suit schedule property by metes and bounds” ?

10.It is the case of the plaintiff that SSP is purchased by her deceased son out of her pension amount and his earnings, whereas defendant intending to alienate the same to third parties in order to deprive her ½ share. PW.1 reiterated the pleadings of the plaint. Prior to ocular evidence it is eminent to look in to Ex.A1 and A2.

Ex.A1 is certified copy of Registered Sale Deed under vide doc.No.4470/2004, dated: 06.05.2004. Ex.A2 is Meeseva encumbrance certificate

dated:08.10.2021. Ex.A1 i.e., Registered Sale Deed shows that defendant

husband has purchased SSP in the year of 2004 and Ex.A2 supports the same.

11.On perusal of entire pleadings the plaintiff no where disclosed that his deceased son died intestate. Apart from it as plaintiff claims that she also contributed for the purchase of SSP, out of her pension. Perhaps neither any documentary evidence nor any ocular evidence was let in. Further more the pleadings reflects that plaintiff deceased son has also purchased land in

Sy.No.406 (219 sq.yards), nominally in the name of defendant. But no record is 5 of 7

O.S.NO. 853 OF 2021 Date: 17.08.2022

placed in order to show that out of the earnings of her deceased son he purchased the same. On one part the plaintiff is seeking her half share in SSP and on another hand disclosing that apart from SSP there are other lands which were alienated by defendants. Then in a such a case non production of any record either to show that the plaintiff has relinquished her right in Sy.No.406 or examined any of the independent witnesses of their family inspire this Court to pose strong suspicion on behalf of plaintiff.

12.As seen from the averments of the plaint in the absence of any record of contribution pertaining to sale consideration of Ex.A1, being mother of deceased son she is entitled for half share being class-I heir as per Sec.8 of Hindu

Succession Act. But non joinder of property i.e., Sy.No.406 (219 sq.yards) for partition and separate possession is a fatal to the case as being class-I heir the plaintiff is a co-sharer over SSP including the land in Sy.No.406. In as much it is settled proportion of Law that piecemeal partition cannot be considered unless the party seeking partition and separate possession categorically disclose, for non inclusion of such property or whether there is any exclusive agreement entered by either coparcerner or co-sharer of such propertyin that regard.

6 of 7

O.S.NO. 853 OF 2021 Date: 17.08.2022

13.In the case in hand, the plaintiff pleads that his deceased son has purchased

SSP and including the land in Sy.No.406. But the plaintiff exclusively seeking partition over SSP without relinquishment her share over the said land, itself inspire this Court to suspect the bonafidies of the plaintiff. In the absence of either any record or specific pleading, excluding the land in Sy.No.406, being class-I heir partition cannot be effected solely in SSP by segregating the land in

Sy.No.406. In the view of above submissions, evidence and documents let in plaintiff are not positive and cogent in order to conclude that plaintiff is entitle for ½ share over the suit schedule property the point is answered against the plaintiff.

14.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with cost, the sequel I.As if any infructous.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade – III, directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of August, 2022.

I-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: Vaida Mallakka-nil- 7 of 7

O.S.NO. 853 OF 2021 Date: 17.08.2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Certified copy of registered sale deed No.4470/04, dated 06.05.2004 executed by Vaida Srinivas in favour of Vaida Ramaiah. Ex.A2Certified copy of Encumbrances issued by Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar rural, dated 08.10.2021.

FOR DEFENDANT:

--NIL--

I-Addl.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.