1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISON)-CUM-
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: TIRUVURU
PRESENT: SMT A.SINDHURA,
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: TIRUVURU
Thursday this the 9th day of April, 2026
O.S.No.216/2012
Between:
1. Shaik Mohiddin S/o late Ahmed Hussain,(DIED) Muslim, Age 64 years, R/o D.No.16B-4-400, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District.
2. Shaik Ahmed S/o late Ahmed Hussain, Muslim, Age 57 years, R/o D.No.14-7-63, Mandi Bazar, Nizampura, Warangal District. (Died by his L.Rs. Plaintiffs No.10 to 16)
3. Shaik Ahmed Hussain S/o late Mohiddin, Muslim, Age 50 years, Business R/o D.No.16A-12-17, Yadav Nagar 40th Division, Behind Surya School, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District.
4. Shaik Khaza Hussain S/o late Mohiddin, Muslim, Age 46 years, Business R/o D.No.16B-40-80/1, Near Old Mosque, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District.
5. Shaik Jakeer Hussain S/o late Mohiddin, Muslim, Age 40 years, Business R/o D.No.16A-12-17, Yadav Nagar 40th Division, Behind Surya School, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District.
6. Shaik Maleen Bebum W/o Shabeer, Muslim, Age 38 years, R/o D.no.11-1-78, Market Road, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.
7. Shaik Shakeer Hussain S/o late Mohiddin, Muslim, Age 36 years, Business R/o D.No.16A-12-17, Yadav Nagar 40th Division, Behind Surya School, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District.
8. Shaik Rahamat Hussain S/o late Mohiddin, Muslim, Age 34 years, Business R/o D.No.16A-12-17, Yadav Nagar 40th Division, Behind Surya School, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District.
2
9. Shaik Saheen D/o late Mohiddin, Muslim, Age 30 years, Business R/o D.No.16A-12-17, Yadav Nagar 40th Division, Behind Surya School, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District.
10. Shaik Shamshad Begum W/o late Ahmed, Muslim, Age 61 years, Housewife, D.No.14-7-63, Mandi Bazar, Nizampura, Warangal District.
11. Shaik Mohammad Hussain S/o late Ahmed, Muslim, Age 42 years, Business, D.No.14-7-63, Mandi Bazar, Nizampura, Warangal District.
12. Shaik Mohammad Ismail S/o late Ahmed, Muslim, Age 39 years, Business, D.No.14-7-63, Mandi Bazar, Nizampura, Warangal District.
13. Shaik Mohammed Yousuf S/o late Ahmed, Muslim, Age 35 years, Business, D.No.14-7-63, Mandi Bazar, Nizampura, Warangal District.
14. Syed Farzana Begum W/o Muzahid Pasha, Muslim, Housewife, Age 47 years, D.No.17-1-206/1, Bollorigudem, Palvancha, Bhadradri Koithagudem District.
15. Shaik Haleema Begum W/o Gous Pasha, Muslim, Age 33 years, Housewife, D.No.14-7-63, Mandi Bazar, Nizampura, Warangal District.
16. Shaik Mastani Begum W/o Mohammed Azeemuddin, Muslim, Housewife, Age 32 years, Business, D.No.14-7-63, Mandi Bazar, Nizampura, Warangal District. (Plaintiffs No.10 to 16 are added as per orders
in I.A.No.32/2022, dated 21.03.2022). … Plaintiffs
And
1. Md. Yousuf S/o Azeez, Muslim, Age 68 years, R/o Cheemalapadu, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Md. Usman S/o Azeez, Muslim, Age 64 years, R/o Maseedu Center, Pan Shop, Cheemalapadu Village, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.
3
3. Md. Mastan S/o Azeez, Muslim, Age 62 years, Postal Employee, Nears Kaleswara Rao Market, Post Office, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
4. Md. Abdul Khadar @ Khadar Babu S/o Azeez, Muslim, Age 58 years, R/o Cheemalapadu Village, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.
5. Md. Vahed S/o Azeez, Muslim, Age 56 years, r/o Thermal Power Station, Kondapalli, Krishna District.
6. Md. Asudullah S/o Azeez, Muslim, Age 54 years, R/o Cheemalapadu, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.
7. Md. Ameena D/o Azeez, Muslim, Age 51 years, R/o Near Petrol Bunk, Eluru Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District. (DIED)
8. Md. Sufia Begum W/o Abdul Khader, Muslim, Age 53 years, R/o Cheemalapadu Village, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.
9. Md. Haseema D/o Gani, Muslim, Age 35 years, R/o Opp.Girls High School, Hanuman Junction Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District.
10. Md. Sakeena D/o Gani, Muslim, Age 30 years, R/o Opp.Girls High School, Hanuman Junction Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District.
11. Md. Raheema D/o Gani, Muslim, Age 25 years, Opp.Girls High School, Hanuman Junction Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District. … Defendants
The suit is coming before me on 30.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Nagendra Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri
R.Mohana Reddy, Advocate for the defendants and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff Under section 26 and Order VII rules 1 to 6 of CPC against the Defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers, henchmen representatives and agents from ever interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment in the plaint schedule property.
4 2.The case of the plaintiffs in brief, is that, the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the deceased Plaintiffs No.1 and 2’s grandfather by name
Abdul Hussain, who acquired an extent of Ac.11.55 cents in R.S. No.472 of
Cheemalapadu Village and the same was mutated in revenue records and after his death, the property devolved upon his sons, including the father of the deceased plaintiffs, who succeeded to the property and subsequently upon the death of their father in the year 1969, the deceased plaintiffs inherited and continued in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and their names were mutated in revenue records and they obtained pattadar passbooks and the deceased plaintiffs partitioned the joint family properties under a registered partition deed dated 30.07.2012, wherein the schedule property was divided into two equal shares and each of them has been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. While so, the defendants, having no manner of right over the schedule property and they attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with an intention to grab the property. Hence, the suit 3.After receipt of summons, the defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed his written statement and denied all the main and material averments of the plaint and submitted that since 06.06.1976 Plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as they sold the same to my father by name Abdul Azeez @ Shaik Abdul Azeez by executing a
Possessory Agreement of Sale and also there is no mention in respect of Fair
Adangal and Adangals copies they were issued for which Faslies in the list of documents. It is further submitted Plaintiffs did not chose to file any earlier document to substantiate their contention of possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule property and having the evil idea of grabbing the property already sold by them in favour of Defendants father Plaintiffs made efforts in creating documents since 2012 and obtained Pattadar Passbook in the month of June, 2012 and later entered into partition deed on 30.07.2012 and got their names mutated in Adangals/Pahany for the Fasali 1422 by influencing revenue authorities. Plaint is silent about the agricultural operations the Plaintiffs were conducting on 01.12.2012. Defendants father by name Azeez purchased plaint 5 schedule property from Plaintiffs under Possessory Agreement of Sale, dated 06.06.1976 for consideration of Rs.4,000/-. Plaintiffs made Azeez believed that they alone are the absolute owners of AC.3-85 cents and they received sale consideration and delivered possession and since the date of purchase
Defendants father continued in possession and enjoyment of said property till his death. Defendants father died in 1966 and he had six sons who partitioned the said AC3-85 cents after his death. The eldest son Akbar was given AC.0-65 cents and other five brothers got AC.0-64 cents each. Partition was reduced into writing on 10.09.1966. Basing on the said partition list Defendants obtained
Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deed Passbooks. Shaik Akbar S/o Yusuf sold his
Ac.0-65 cents to Shaik Begum W/o Masthan and he gifted his share of Ac.0-64 cents to Sayyad Khadar S/o Khasim and he conveyed his share AC.0-64 cents to his wife by executing a gift deed and she gifted her AC.0-64 cents to 6th
Defendant. Plaintiffs started behaving adverse to Defendants after obtaining
Pattadar Passbooks and Adangals and got their names mutated in revenue records by influencing revenue authorities. Defendants including the tenant
Mareedu Srinivasa Rao who raised cotton crop in schedule property got filed
Caveat petition against the Plaintiffs on the file of this Hon’ble Court. Under any circumstances it cannot be said that Plaintiffs are possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property after 06.06.1976 and on any other subsequent date including 01.12.2012. Defendants filed a criminal complaint against deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and the Tahsildar, A.Konduru and the same was registered as FIR in Cr.No.139/2014 for offences punishable U/sec.420, 182, 192 and 197 of IPC and therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing on the rival contentions of both parties, this court framed the following issues for trial.
(i)Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on date of filing of the suit ?
(ii)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to get permanent injunction against Defendants as prayed for ?
(iii)To what relief ?
6
5.During course of trial, the 2nd Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and he also got examined one Shaik Jakeer Hussaain as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A24 to Ex.A26 and he also got examined one
Uggam Gopa Raju as P.W.3 and also one Shaik Ismayel as P.W.4 and got marked Ex.A9 to Ex.A13 and also got examined one Riyaz Hussain as P.W.5 and got marked Ex.A16 to Ex.A23. Ex.A1 is the Registered Partition Deed,
dated 30.07.2012. Ex.A2 is the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed Book
Passbook, dated 12.06.2012. Ex.A3 is the Latest Adangal Pahani dated 19.11.2012. Ex.A4 is the Form 1-B obtained through Me-seva dated 14.12.2016. Ex.A5 is the Pattadar Adangal copy obtained through Me-seva
dated 14.12.2016. Ex.A6 is the Possession Certificate dated 28.05.2012 issued
by Tahsildar, A.Konduru. Ex.A7 is the True copy of Fair Adangal issued by
Tahsildar, A.Konduru of Cheemalapadu Village. Ex.A8 is the True Copy of
Adangal issued by Tahsildar, A.Konduru of Cheemalapadu Village. Ex.A9 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No.336 obtained from Me-seva. Ex.A10 is the 1-B
Namuna for Khata No.576 obtained from Me-seva. Ex.A11 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No. 578 obtained from Me-seva. Ex.A12 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata
No.580 obtained from Me-seva. Ex.A13 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No.1347 obtained from Me-seva.Ex.A14 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No.576 obtained from Me-seva. Ex.A15 is the ROR for Khata No.1347 obtained from Grama
Ward Sachivalayam. Ex.A16 is the 1-B Namuna (ROR) dated 30.11.2023.
Ex.A17 is the Copy of Adangal for Fasli 1423. Ex.A18 is the Copy of Adangal for Fasli 1424. Ex.A19 is the Copy of Adangal for Fasli 1427. Ex.A20 is the
Copy of Adangal for the year 2020. Ex.A21 is the Copy of Adangal for the year 2021. Ex.A22 is the Copy of Adangal for the year 2022. Ex.A23 is the Copy of Adangal for the year 2023. Ex.A24 is the Copy of the Application for
Information under RTI Act issued to the RDO, Nuzvid. Ex.A25 is the Copy of
Notice dated 12.01.2015 issued by RDO Nuzvid. Ex.A26 is the Copy of Final
Report, dated 23.01.2017 in Cr.No.139/2014 of A.Konduru P.S. (Ex.A6 to
Ex.A8, Ex.A24 to Ex.A26 are marked subject to objection). On the other hand, the 6th defendant is examined as D.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.B1 to
Ex.B28, Ex.B32 to Ex.B35 and he also examined one Usman as D.W.2 and got 7 marked Ex.B29 and he also examined one Khaja Mohiddin as D.W.3 and got marked Ex.B30 Ex.B31 and he aslo examined one Shaik Kani as D.W.4 and also examined one Mareedu Srinivasa Rao as D.W.5 and also examined one
Shaik Chan Basha as D.W.6. Ex.B1 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Abdul Azeez. Ex.B2 is the Title Deed Book issued in the name of
Abdul Azeez. Ex.B3 is the Title Deed Passbook issued in the name of Md.
Usman of Cheemalapadu. Ex.B4 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Md. Usman of Cheemalapadu. Ex.B5 is the Gift Deed of Md. Asadullah
dated 02.08.2012. Ex.B6 is the Gift Deed executed by D5 in favour of D6
dated 30.10.2001. Ex.B7 is the Certificate issued by Manager, Saptagiri
Grameena Bank, dated 07.06.2013 Ex.B8 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Mahammad Asadullah. Ex.B9 is the Gift Deed of Mahammed
Sufiya Begum, dated 02.08.2012. Ex.B10 is the Land Cist Receipt issued in the name Shaik Begum, dated 15.05.2005. Ex.B11 is the Land Receipt issued in the name of Shaik Masthan, dated 25.06.2007. Ex.B12 is the Title Deed
Passbok issued in the name of Shaik Begum. Ex.B13 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Shaik begum. Ex.B14 is the Land Receipt issued in the name of Shaik Masthan dated 31.01.2001. Ex.B15 is the Land Receipt issued in the name of Shaik Masthan, dated 15.05.2005. Ex.B16 is the Land Receipt issued in the name Shaik Masthan, dated 25.06.2007. Ex.B17 is the Title Deed issued in the name of Shaik Masthan. Ex.B18 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Shaik Mastha. Ex.B19 is the Certificate issued by Saptagiri
Grameena Bank, Cheemalapadu, dated 11.06.2013. Ex.B20 is the Pattadar
Passbook issued in the name of M.A Khadar. Ex.B21 is the gift deed of Sayyed
Khadar Babu (D4) dated 30.07.2012 executed by Shaik Masthan. Ex.B22 is the
Office copy of Caveat petition No.25/2012 on the file of this Hon’ble Court,
dated 03.12.2012. Ex.B23 is the True Copy of FIR in Cr.No.139/2014 of
A.Konduru P.S. Ex.B24 is the True Copy of NO.3 Adangal for Fasali 1411 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, A.Konduru. Ex.B25 is the True Copy of No.3
Adangal for Fasli 1416 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, A.Konduru. Ex.B26 is the
True Copy of No.3 Adangal for Fasli 1420 issued b Deputy Tahsildar,
A.Konduru. Ex.B27 is the True Copy of No.3 Adangal for Fasli 1421 issued by 8
Deputy Tahsildar, A.Konduru. Ex.B28 is the Agreement of Sale , dated 06.06.1976. Ex.B29 is the Small Farmers debt relief scheme of 2008, certificate issued by Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Cheemalapadu branch in the name of Md.
Usman. Ex.B30 is the Pattadar Adangal/Pahani obtained from Mee-seva dated 14.09.2023. Ex.B31 is the Notarized copy of Title Deed. Ex.B32 is the Office
Copy of Application submitted to SHO, A.Konduru P.S under RTI Act. Ex.B33 is the Copy of Information given under RTI Act by SHO, A.Konduru P.S. Ex.B34 is the Certificate issued by Tahsildar, A.Konduru. Ex.B35 is the Registration extract of Mortgage Doc No.558/1992 of SRO, Mylavaram dated 27.03.1992.
6. Brief submissions of counsel for Plaintiff •It is submitted that in written statement Defendants stated that there is no ambiguity regarding title and ownership.
•Possessory Agreement of Sale cannot confer right title interest over plaint schedule property and it cannot convey better title.
•No steps were taken from 1996 to 2012 to get regular Sale Deed and no explanation as to why they kept silent.
Revenue documents cannot be issued based on Possessory Agreement • of Sale.
Failed to prove Ex.B28 as there is no signature of all the parties to the • agreement and there is no signature of first Plaintiff on the 2nd page.
•Ambiguity regarding Khata number as the Khata number of Shaik Begum and Devabattina Divakar is one and the same.
Khata No.580 stands in the name of Asmadullah and also in the name of • Surareddy.
•Ex.A25 reflects that the police report filed by them is referred as civil dispute.
•Incidentally title has to looked into and Plaintiff has produced unchallenged, undisputed documents.
7. Brief submissions of counsel for Defendant :- •Burden is on the Plaintiffs to prove they are in possession and enjoyment on the date of filing of suit as this is a suit for injunction simplicitor. PW1 9 admitted in his cross-examination about the crop of Defendants in the suit schedule property on 01.12.2012 that is the date of alleged interference.
Party approaching the court must come with clean hands without • suppression of facts and Plaintiffs conveniently suppressed Ex.B28 and are playing fraud.
•Plaintiffs must prove dejure possession that they should prove possession and enjoyment and how the enjoyed all these years meaning the consistency possession and enjoyment of all these years.
8. Relied on the judgment of Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
13. In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as for example an agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally. • •Over tacts of the possession and enjoyment must be proved by the
Plaintiffs and they have measurably failed to do so.
•Plaintiffs have not produced any record regarding 2010, 2009 and the
Adangals shows the names of the Defendants till 2010, 2011.
•Plaintiffs are not entitled for equitable relief as they did not approach this court with clean hands and suppressed that Ex.B28/Agreement of sale
dated 06.06.1976.
10 9.Relied on the Judgment of Meghamala and Others Vs G.Narasimha
Reddy and other Civil Appeal No.6656-6657 of 2010 dated 16.08.2020
wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall his own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est.
10. Also Relied on the judgment of Basa Jagadeeswara Rao Vs Basa
Rajeswara Rao 2021 (2) ALT 532 wherein it was held by Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in para 35 that -
The appellant was guilty of suppression of fact which would disentitle him to the equitable relief of temporary injunction pending suit.
11.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
12. ISSUE Nos.1 and 2 :
Before moving ahead with the judgment it is appropriate to decide the
objections raised regarding marking of Documents. First, Ex.A6 to Ex.A8 are marked subject to objection that they are not in prescribed form. Upon perusal
Ex.A6 is the Possession Certificate dated 28.05.2012 issued by Tahsildar,
A.Konduru, it is an original containing the signature of Tahsildar, A.Konduru and
Ex.A8 is the True Copy of Adangal issued by Tahsildar, A.Konduru of
Cheemalapadu Village and it also contains the signature of Tahsildar,
A.Konduru endorsed as True Copy, Ex.A6 is the certificate issued by Tahsildar,
A.Konduru stating that deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs are in plaint schedule property and there is no prescribed form for the same and it contains the signature of Tahsildar, A.Konduru. Whereas Ex.A8 is concerned it is the True
Copy of Adangal/Pahani issued by Tahsildar, A.Konduru and it is in prescribed form for a Adangal/Pahani. hence both the documents are in prescribed form objections over ruled and Ex.A6 and Ex.A8 are admitted in evidence.Ex.A24 to
Ex.A26 are marked subject to objection with regard to proof of same by way of filing original and its consequences. Upon perusal it is clear that the originals of 11
Ex.A24 to Ex.A26 are retained with the respective authorities and hence
Ex.A24 to Ex.A26 are admitted as secondary evidence as per Sec.65 (a) of
Indian Evidence Act.
13.There is no dispute regarding the boundaries and survey number of suit schedule property and the dispute is regarding the possession of suit schedule property. In a suit for permanent injunction the burden is on the Plaintiffs to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is the contention of Plaintiffs that the deceased 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Plaintiff have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property after the death of their father who died intestate on 02.09.1969 and consequently plaint schedule property devolved upon the deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and also both of them have obtained Pattadar
Passbooks and their names have been mutated in the revenue records. It is also their contention that the deceased 1st and 2nd plaintiffs partitioned the joint family properties under a registered partition deed dated 30.07.2012/Ex.A1, wherein the schedule property was divided into two equal shares and each of them has been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. In support of their contention plaintiffs submitted Ex.A1 to Ex.A26.
14.Upon careful scrutiny except Ex.A2 which is the Pattadar Passbook and
Title Deed Book dated 12.06.2012, Ex.A3 which is the latest Adangal Pahani
dated 19.12.2012, Ex.A6 possession certificate dated 28.05.2012 issued by
Tahsildar, A.Konduru all other documents submitted by the Plaintiffs especially the adangals pahanies which are Ex.A3 to Ex.A5, Ex.A7, Ex.A8, Ex.A16 to
Ex.23 show the possession of Plaintiffs over the schedule property after the date of filing of the suit. However, it is important point out that since the date of filing of the suit is 04.12.2012 Plaintiffs have to establish their possession over plaint schedule property specifically on 04.12.2012. Therefore Ex.A3 to Ex.A5,
Ex.A7, Ex.A8, Ex.A16 to Ex.23 only corroborate the possession of plaintiffs if they are able to establish that they are in possession of plaint schedule property on the date of filing of suit. Since except Ex.A2, Ex.A3 and Ex.A6 the many
Adangals and Pahanies produced by the Plaintiffs only reflects the possession after filing of the suit this court now carefully scritinizes the three documents.
12
Coming to Ex.A2 it shows that deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs holds the Pattadar
Passbook of plaint schedule property on date 30.07.2012. and Ex.A3 shows that the Adangals and Pahanies are in the name of deceased 1st and 2nd
Plaintiffs on dt. 19.12.2012 and Ex.A6 shows the possession certificate issued by Tahsildar A.Konduru regarding the possession of deceased 1st and 2nd
Plaintiffs on dt. 28.05.2012.
15.Coming to the evidence of PW1, he deposed that since the schedule property is belonging to him he filed this suit and when himself and Plaintiff
No.1 went for ploughing the land with tractor Defendants interfered with their possession and he cannot say the name of owner cum driver of said tractor and previously the schedule land was not cultivated by them. PW1 admitted that since he is doing his job at Warangal and Plaintiff No.1 was doing job at
Hyderabad they did not do the cultivation in the schedule property and he came to Cheemalapdu on the date of interference on 01.12.2012. PW1 further admitted that by the date of 01.12.2012 there was cotton crop in the schedule property raised by the Defendants and they came to know the same and on 01.12.2012 Srinivasa Rao was present at the schedule property and said
Srinivasa Rao cultivated the cotton crop in the schedule property. PW1 further deposed that he got the suit schedule property as it was partitioned by his father and his brothers of their ancestral property. PW1 admitted that he do not know whether Defendants or their ancestors are cultivating the schedule property since last 40 years prior to the alleged date of interference. PW1 admitted that he cannot give the boundaries of schedule property correctly and again voluntarily deposed that he do not remember the same. PW1 also deposed that he did not file any petition before the concerned appellant authority for cancellation of Pattadar Passbooks issued in favour of Defendants over schedule property and he do not know whether the passbooks of
Defendants or their ancestors are prior to his passbooks or not and he further deposed that the neighboring farmers were not present at the time of alleged interference.
16.Therefore the clear admissions by PW1 shows that himself and Plaintiffs
No1 are not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property on the date 13 of alleged interference. The clear admission regarding cotton crop in the schedule land raised by Defendants on the date of alleged interference clearly shows that deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs or not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property on the date of alleged interference. PW1 himself admits that Srinivasa Rao cultivated crop on 01.12.2012 and no where has given any explanation as to who the said Srinivasa Rao is, on the other hand DW1 deposed that Mareedu Srinivasa Rao who raised cotton crop in the schedule property is tenant and he filed caveat petition along with DW1, his brothers
Usman, Khadar and also his brother’s wife Begum and the said Srinivasa Rao was examined on behalf of defendants as DW5 who is the Lease Holder of plaint schedule property from the year 2009 to 2016 and he deposed evidence regarding the same . Therefore these admission by PW1 himself show that
PW1 and his brother/plaintiff No.1 are not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property on the date of alleged interference i.e., on 01.12.2012 and his admission regarding the cultivation of cotton crop by Srinivasa Rao shows that the version of DW1 that Srinivasa Rao is a tenant is true. Even though
PW1 deposed that himself and Plaintiff no.1 went for ploughing the land with tractor and the Defendants interfered with their possession his inability to name the owner cum driver of the said tractor clearly shows that his version is not true. Not able to give the boundaries of the suit schedule property also shows that PW1 was never in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, if at all the version of PW1 is true and himself and Plaintiff No.1 were in possession of suit schedule property from the date of his father’s death then he would have definitely known the boundaries of the property that he alleges to be cultivating from many years. His evidence regarding knowing of increasing of lands at Krishna District adds strength to the contention of Defendants that this suit might have been filed with ill-intention to grab the schedule property after knowing that the value of lands have raise in Krishna District.
17.Coming to the evidence of PW2 who is the son of deceased 1st Plaintiff he also deposed that himself and his father and 2nd Plaintiff were present in plait schedule property supervising agricultural operation in the plaint schedule property on 01.12.2012 at about 11-00 AM and Defendants trespassed into the 14 schedule property. However no where in the plaint or in the evidence of PW1 it was mentioned that PW2 is in the suit schedule property on 01.12.2012.
However in his cross-examination he deposed that he is doing hotel business at
Eluru. PW2 himself admitted that the land was cultivated by his father as he is doing hotel business.
18. Since PW2 himself admitted that the land was cultivated by his father he is doing hotel business at Eluru his evidence regarding the possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property cannot be considered since it is clear that he is not related to the cultivation of schedule land. PW1 and PW2 contradicted regarding the person who raised the cotton crop in schedule land.
PW2 deposed that cotton crop was raised by his father and his brother. But
PW1 deposed that Srinivasa Rao cultivated cotton crop in the schedule property. The clear contradictions regarding the cultivation of cotton in the schedule land shows that PW1 and 2 are not reliable witnesses and they are untrustworthy.
19.Coming to the evidence of PW3 he deposed that he is having agricultural lands towards southern boundary of suit schedule property and further deposed that the said schedule property was divided into two shares of deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiff and he know for the last twenty years deceased Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and his father is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.
PW3 also deposed that on 01.12.2012 at about 11-00 AM Defendants trespassed into plaint schedule property causing obstructions when deceased
Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were present in the plaint schedule property. However in his cross-examination PW3 admitted that he have no documents to show that the land of Plaintiffs is one of the boundaries of his land. He further admitted that on 01.12.2012 he was at center of the village and when there was galata at the land of Plaintiffs after coming to know it he went to the place and he cannot the say the names of the person who came to the place along with him.
20.Therefore not able to name the persons who came to the place along with him and deposing that there was no crop in the schedule property at the time when he went to the place when PW1 and 2 deposed that there was cotton crop in the schedule property shows that PW3 is not a trustworthy 15 witness. His further admission that he came to court for giving evidence on asking by Khaja and he knows the said Khaja since last ten years appears that he came to depose evidence in favour of Plaintiffs due to his acquaintance with
Plaintiff No.4 for several years. Moreover, the admission of PW1 that neighboring farmers not present at the time of alleged interference completely waters down the evidence of PW3.
21.Coming to the evidence of PW4 who is the son of PW1 he himself deposed that he is doing as Gas welder at Warangal and it was vacant land at the time of filing of the suit and he do not know about cultivation of schedule property from the time of death of his grandfather till the date of filing of the suit.
Therefore his clear admissions about not knowing cultivation of schedule property and also working at Warangal and deposing that it was vacant land at the time of filing of suit when PW1 to 3 deposed that there was cotton crop in the schedule land at the time of filing of suit shows that PW4 do not have any knowledge about the cultivation of suit schedule property much less on the date of alleged interference and hence his evidence cannot be relied on.
22.Coming to the evidence of PW5 who is Tahsildar in A.Konduru he himself deposed that he assumed charge on 05.02.2024 and he himself deposed that he cannot say about the physical possession of parties over the suit schedule property as he did not visit the suit schedule property. He deposed that he cannot say when the entries in Ex.A14 are made unless he verified some records and also he cannot say when the entries Ex.A15 to Ex.A21 are made.
He deposed that as per Ex.A15 to Ex.A21 Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are having possession and enjoyment over property in RS No.472 and he also admitted that previously old Pattadar Passbook is issued under Ex.B1 in favour of Abdul
Azeez by Tahsildar, A.Konduru. He admitted that Ex.B13 was issued by MRO
A.Konduru in favour of D8 and she is having AC.0-65 cents in RS No.472. Upon careful perusal PW5 deposed that he assumed charge of 05.02.2024 and he have got the available records pertaining to the plaint schedule property. Hence his evidence is not of much use as he only deposed regarding the documents as per their respective entries and nothing material was elicited in his evidence regarding the entries made in the revenue records of Plaintiffs and Defendants 16 related to plaint schedule property during same time. Since he himself deposed that he did not visit the suit schedule property and he cannot say the physical possession of the parties his evidence is of not much use except for the production and marking of adangals Ex A16 to Ex.A23.
23.On the other hand defendants also submitted pattadar passbooks and adangals that too from the year 1995 to 2012. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 establishes that Title Deed Book and Pattadar Passbook was issued in the name of Shaik
Abdul Azeez for plaint schedule property in the years 1996. Ex.B4 shows that
Mohammad Usman was given Title Deed Book for AC.0-64 cents of RS No.472 meaning the plaint schedule property. Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 establishes that AC.0- 64 cents out of plaint schedule property was gifted and Ex.B8 shows Pattadar
Passbook in the name of DW1 for AC.0-64 cents of plaint schedule property.
Ex.B3, Ex.B4, Ex.B8, Ex.B10 to Ex.B18, Ex.B20, Ex.B24 to Ex.B27 also establish that the revenue records are mutated in the names of Defendants as per their respective shares.Ex.B5, Ex.B6, Ex.B21 establish the transfer of title from the sharers to others. Ex.B7, Ex.B19 establish that crop loans were granted to Defendants basing on the Title Deeds of them over plaint schedule properties. Therefore by producing Ex.B1 to Ex.B27 Defendants were able to prima facie establish that they were in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property from the years 1995 to 2012 and even the plaint schedule property was partitioned and they were given Adangals and Pattadar Passbook for their respective shares and some of them also gifted their respective shares in the plaint schedule property. Therefore the continuous possession of defendants over plaint schedule property from the years 1995 to 2012 is reflected from Ex.B1 to Ex.B27. Ex.B29 reflects that a certificate is issued by
Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Cheemalapadu Branch in the name of Mahammed
Usman along with Title Deed Book of Mahammad Usman/DW2 containing the details of plaint schedule property with his respective share. Ex.B30 and
Ex.B31 shows the Pattadar Adangal and also Title Deed in the name of DW3 along with the details of plaint schedule property with the respective share of
DW3. Ex.B32 and Ex.B33 reflect the steps taken by DW1 under RTI Act regarding Cr.No. 139/2014. Ex.B35 reflects father of Defendants as boundary 17 owners of land in RS No.472. Therefore by producing Ex.B29 to Ex.B35
Defendants were able to establish that they obtained Title Deeds for the respective shares in the plaint schedule property and also taken steps regarding the criminal report filed by the against Plaintiffs regarding the entry in revenue records for the plaint schedule property.
24.Coming to Ex.B28 since defendants are claiming their possession through Ex.B28 the burden is on them to prove the execution of Ex.B28.
Regarding Ex.B28 DW1 admitted that it does not contain all the signatures of parties and also there is no signature of scribe of Ex.B28 and further admitted that in the 1st page there are two signatures but whereas in the second page there is only one signature. DW1 also admitted there is no difference in between the signatures on the 1st page and signatures on the back of 1st page and further admitted even in the endorsement there is only one signature.
Coming to the evidence of DW4 who is one of the attesting witness of Ex.B28 he deposed in his chief examination that Ex.B28 was executed in his presence, whereas coming to his cross-examination he admitted that as per agreement there are six persons as if executed the said agreement but whereas both
Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have only signed. DW4 also admitted that there is no practice in mentioning of “Vralu” after the signature by our community people.
On seeing the agreement DW4 stated that 1st Plaintiff signed in Telugu as
Mohiddin Vralu, the 2nd Plaintiff signed in Urdu. DW4 also deposed that at present he cannot say the said signature in Urdu in that of 2nd Plaintiff or not as he do not know Urdu. Dw4 also admitted that there is difference between signature of 1st Plaintiff in between the agreement and Vakalath. Therefore from the evidence of DW1 and DW4 and also perusal of Ex.B28 it is clear that all the co-sharers did not sign the document and the same has been admitted by the Defendants. Even Ex.B28 shows that the serial No.1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 are written on it but only there are signatures beside the serial No.3 and 4 and no signatures beside other serial numbers and as admitted by DW1 there is only one signature on the 2nd page of Ex.B28 beside serial No.4. Therefore it clearly shows that all the co-shares who are also the vendors have not signed on
Ex.B28. Coming to the evidence of DW4 he himself says that there is no 18 practice of mentioning of ‘Vralu’ after the signature by their community people and also admitted that at present he cannot say the signature in Urdu is that of 2nd Plaintiff or not and further admitted the difference between signature of 1st
Plaintiff in between the agreement and Vakalath. Therefore when the attesting witness himself says that he cannot identify the signature of one of the party to the document and further admits there is difference of signature of another party, it creates a strong suspicion regarding the execution of the document.
Hence from the above discussion it is clear that Defendants failed to prove the execution of Ex.B28.
25. However as discussed above Defendants are able to produce adangals, pahanies , title deeds that establish continuous possession from the year 1995 to 2012 by producing relevant revenue records of the particular periods along with their mutations in the revenue records as per their partition. Defendants produced Ex.B1 to B27 which shows that mutation of revenue records and also
Title Deeds and Pattadar Passbooks and Gift Deeds pertaining to plaint schedule property as per their respective shares. It is also clear from the evidence that Plaintiffs have not taken any steps regarding the passbooks and
Adangals that were given in the name of Defendants however Defendants have taken steps by challenging the revenue documents issued in favour of the
Plaintiffs Ex.B23 reflects that even a caveat petition, dated 03.12.2012 was filed by the Defendants on the file of this court and Ex.B24 reflects that
Cr.No.139/2014 was registered in A.Konduru P.S against deceased 1st and 2nd
Plaintiffs and also against MRO, Nuzvid and it is reported by DW1 on the allegations of cheating, giving false information to public servant, fabrication of false evidence, issuing or signing false certificate U/sec.420, 182, 192 and 197 of IPC. Therefore the conduct of Defendants clearly reflect that they have taken active steps for the cancellation of revenue documents and also filed a criminal complaint against the deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs. Therefore the cumulative evidence of Defendants in addition with them taking steps for cancellation of revenue document shows the bonafide nature of Defendants whereas on the other hand Plaintiffs have not taken any steps either for cancellation of revenue records and only produced revenue documents with the signatures of RDO, 19
Nuzvid who is A3 in Cr.No.139/2014 which creates a strong suspicion as to the authenticity of the said revenue records. Upon perusal of Ex.A2 it contains two
Pattadar Passbooks and Adangals in the name of deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs which only reflects plaint schedule property and one of the Pattadar Passbook contains the only signature of MRO and his seal and another book contain the signature of MRO and RDO and also contains the signature of Sub-Registrar,
Mylavaram and his staff. It is important to note that Ex.A6 is also given by the same MRO who issued Ex.A2. Hence issuance of Pattadar Passbooks by only two officers among which one of them is added as A3 in Cr.No.139/2014 with the allegations of issuing false certificates creates a strong suspicion as to
Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. Of course, this court is well aware that mere filing of report does not mean they have committed the crime but in view of entire evidence on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants where one party has submitted the documents from the year 1995 and also the consequential years and another party have only submitted documents pertaining to only one year, then it casts a huge doubt not only as to the authenticity but also regarding the legality and validity of the documents submitted. Even Ex.A24 to Ex.A26 are concerned they are only application for information and also notice issued by RDO, Nuzvid and as DW1 himself admitted they do not contain any result portion, hence they are of not much use to the Plaintiffs whereas Ex.A26 is concern even though it shows that the final report in Cr.No.139/2014 is referred as civil nature by the police, as discussed above this court is only discussing about creating a suspicion regarding the revenue documents in the context of challenge of the same before revenue court and also filing of criminal complaint.
26. Since Defendants were able to produce documents establishing their possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule property continuously from the years 1995 to 2012 and Plaintiffs were only able to produce Pattadar
Passbooks to the year 2012 it also raises a serious question as to why Plaintiffs are not able to produce any documents before the year of 2012 when their contention is that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property after the death of their father from 02.09.1969. No single document was produced by the Plaintiffs prior to the year 2012 whereas 20 on the other hand Defendants were able to produce even the land cist receipts of the years 2005 and 2007 and Pattadar Passbooks and Adangals of the years prior to 2012. It is also the contention of Defendants that Plaintiffs were not able to produce any document prior to 2012 and it can be seen that the same is true. Therefore probability is leaning towards defendants from the documents submitted by them.
27. Coming to the evidence of DW1 he admitted that there is no dispute that
Plaintiffs are original owners of suit schedule property prior to alleged purchase of the same by his father and also admitted that as per Ex.A3 Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment and also he did not issue any legal notice and he filed a suit against Plaintiff for agreement of sale under agreement of sale for the relief of specific performance of contract and admitted he did not file copy of plaint and its OS number before this court. He also admitted that Ex.B1 the extent and RS number are mentioned below the signature of MRO. The evidence of DW1 reflects he admitted regarding the ownership of the Plaintiff
before the agreement of sale and also he challenged the revenue records given
to the Plaintiffs before RDO and admitted that Ex.B28 does not contain all signatures of parties as per its recitals and admitted that he filed a suit for specific performance of contract against Plaintiffs. The entire cross-examination revolved around the Khata Number of PW1 for which he submitted Ex.B34 which is the Certificate issued by Tahsildar, A.Konduru and it reflects that the
Adangal issued to DW1 was given in Khata number 576 even though manual
Pattadar Passbook was issued with Khata number 580 and even at present
DW1’s Khata number was showing as 576. Therefore nothing material is elicited in the evidence of DW1.
28. Regarding the possession Defendants also examined M.Srinivasa Rao as DW5 who is the Lease Holder of plaint schedule property from the year 2009 to 2016. He deposed in his chief examination that he leased the lands of
Mohammad Usman, Shaik Masthan, Shaik Begum, Mahammad Abdul Khadar,
Mahammad Abudl Asudullah to a total extent of Ac.3-85 cents in RS No.472 of
Cheemalapdu Village and cultivated the land from 2009 to 2016 for eight years by raising cotton crops and further deposed that Plaintiffs have never been in 21 possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from the date of purchase of the said land by Shaik Abdul Azeez. Whereas coming to his cross- examination DW5 correctly deposed the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and again deposed that he has been cultivating the land from the year 2009 and also deposed he paid lease amount of Rs.1000/- each share holder and paid the same continuously for a period of four years. As already discussed
PW1 himself admitted that on 01.12.2012 Srinivasa Rao was present at the schedule property and the said Srinivasa Rao cultivated the cotton crop in the schedule property. Therefore the corelation between evidence of PW1 and
DW5 shows that the evidence of DW5 is true and he has been cultivating the plaint schedule property from the year 2009 and even on the date of interference he has been cultivating plaint schedule property by raising cotton crop. Therefore from the very admission of PW1 and the evidence of DW5 it is clear that deceased 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property on the date of interference. So far as the argument regarding suppression of Ex.B28 is concerned as discussed above Ex.B28 is not proved and hence Plaintiffs need not bring the said fact before this court.
29.Therefore from the above discussion Plaintiffs are not able to establish their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of suit and on the contrary their evidence reflects that Defendants were in possession of plaint schedule property on the date of filing of suit.
30.At this juncture this court is inclined to rely on the decision of ANATHULA
SUDHAKAR V. P. BUCHI REDDY, (2008) 4 SCC 594 AT PAGE 2033 “In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’ possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Whether the property is a building or building with appurtenant property, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a property without structures, as for example an agricultural property, possession may be established with 22 reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.”
Relying on the above authority and also as rightly pointed out by counsel for defendant, plaintiffs have not shown any over tacts of possession and further admitted not being in possession on the date of alleged interference.
Therefore in view of the above discussion Plaintiffs were not able to establish their possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Therefore Issues
No.1 and 2 are decided against Plaintiffs.
31. Issue No.3
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, on this the 9 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-A.Sindhura
Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Tiruvuru.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF :
P.W.1 : Sk. Ahmed
P.W.2: Shaik Jakeer Hussain
P.W.3: Uggam Gopa Raju
P.W.4: Shaik Ismayel
P.W.5: Riyaz Hussain
FOR DEFENDANT :
D.W.1: Md. Asudullah
D.W.2: Md. Usman
D.W.3: Md. Khaja Mohiddin
D.W.4: Shaik Jani
D.W.5: Mareedu Srinivasa Rao
D.W.6: Shaik Chan Basha 23
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 is the Registered Partition Deed, dated 30.07.2012.
Ex.A2 is the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed Book Passbook, dated 12.06.2012.
Ex.A3 is the Latest Adangal Pahani dated 19.11.2012.
Ex.A4 is the Form 1-B obtained through Me-seva dated 14.12.2016.
Ex.A5 is the Pattadar Adangal copy obtained through Me-seva dated 14.12.2016.
Ex.A6 is the Possession Certificate dated 28.05.2012 issued by Tahsildar,
A.Konduru.
Ex.A7 is the True copy of Fair Adangal issued by Tahsildar, A.Konduru of
Cheemalapadu Village.
Ex.A8 is the True Copy of Adangal issued by Tahsildar, A.Konduru of
Cheemalapadu Village.
Ex.A9 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No.336 obtained from Me-seva.
Ex.A10 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No.576 obtained from Me-seva.
Ex.A11 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No. 578 obtained from Me-seva.
Ex.A12 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No.580 obtained from Me-seva.
Ex.A13 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No.1347 obtained from Me-seva.
Ex.A14 is the 1-B Namuna for Khata No.576 obtained from Me-seva.
Ex.A15 is the ROR for Khata No.1347 obtained from Grama Ward
Sachivalayam.
Ex.A16 is the 1-B Namuna (ROR) dated 30.11.2023.
Ex.A17 is the Copy of Adangal for Fasli 1423.
Ex.A18 is the Copy of Adangal for Fasli 1424.
Ex.A19 is the Copy of Adangal for Fasli 1427.
Ex.A20 is the Copy of Adangal for the year 2020.
Ex.A21 is the Copy of Adangal for the year 2021.
24
Ex.A22 is the Copy of Adangal for the year 2022.
Ex.A23 is the Copy of Adangal for the year 2023.
Ex.A24 is the Copy of the Application for Information under RTI Act issued to the RDO, Nuzvid.
Ex.A25 is the Copy of Notice dated 12.01.2015 issued by RDO Nuzvid.
Ex.A26 is the Copy of Final Report, dated 23.01.2017 in Cr.No.139/2014 of
A.Konduru P.S.
(Ex.A6 to Ex.A8, Ex.A24 to Ex.A26 are marked subject to objection).
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B1 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Abdul Azeez.
Ex.B2 is the Title Deed Book issued in the name of Abdul Azeez.
Ex.B3 is the Title Deed Passbook issued in the name of Md. Usman of
Cheemalapadu.
Ex.B4 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Md. Usman of
Cheemalapadu.
Ex.B5 is the Gift Deed of Md. Asadullah dated 02.08.2012.
Ex.B6 is the Gift Deed executed by D5 in favour of D6 dated 30.10.2001.
Ex.B7 is the Certificate issued by the Manager, Saptagiri Grameena Bank,
Cheemalapadu, dated 07.06.2013.
Ex.B8 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Mahammad Asadullah.
Ex.B9 is the Gift Deed of Mahammed Sufiya Begum, dated 02.08.2012.
Ex.B10 is the Land Cist Receipt issued in the name Shaik Begum, dated 15.05.2005.
Ex.B11 is the Land Receipt issued in the name of Shaik Masthan, dated 25.06.2007.
Ex.B12 is the Title Deed Passbok issued in the name of Shaik Begum.
Ex.B13 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Shaik begum.
Ex.B14 is the Land Receipt issued in the name of Shaik Masthan dated 31.01.2001.
25
Ex.B15 is the Land Receipt issued in the name of Shaik Masthan, dated 15.05.2005.
Ex.B16 is the Land Receipt issued in the name Shaik Masthan, dated 25.06.2007.
Ex.B17 is the Title Deed issued in the name of Shaik Masthan.
Ex.B18 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Shaik Mastha.
Ex.B19 is the Certificate issued by Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Cheemalapadu,
dated 11.06.2013.
Ex.B20 is the Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of M.A Khadar.
Ex.B21 is the gift deed of Sayyed Khadar Babu (D4) dated 30.07.2012 executed by Shaik Masthan.
Ex.B22 is the Office copy of Caveat petition No.25/2012 on the file of this
Hon’ble Court, dated 03.12.2012.
Ex.B23 is the True Copy of FIR in Cr.No.139/2014 of A.Konduru P.S.
Ex.B24 is the True Copy of NO.3 Adangal for Fasali 1411 issued by Deputy
Tahsildar, A.Konduru.
Ex.B25 is the True Copy of No.3 Adangal for Fasli 1416 issued by Deputy
Tahsildar, A.Konduru.
Ex.B26 is the True Copy of No.3 Adangal for Fasli 1420 issued b Deputy
Tahsildar, A.Konduru.
Ex.B27 is the True Copy of No.3 Adangal for Fasli 1421 issued by Deputy
Tahsildar, A.Konduru.
Ex.B28 is the Agreement of Sale , dated 06.06.1976.
Ex.B29 is the Small Farmers debt relief scheme of 2008, certificate issued by
Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Cheemalapadu branch in the name of Md. Usman.
Ex.B30 is the Pattadar Adangal/Pahani obtained from Mee-seva dated 14.09.2023.
Ex.B31 is the Notarized copy of Title Deed.
Ex.B32 is the Office Copy of Application submitted to SHO, A.Konduru P.S under RTI Act.
26
Ex.B33 is the Copy of Information given under RTI Act by SHO, A.Konduru P.S.
Ex.B34 is the Certificate issued by Tahsildar, A.Konduru.
Ex.B35 is the Registration extract of Mortgage Doc No.558/1992 of SRO,
Mylavaram dated 27.03.1992.
Sd/-A.Sindhura
Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Tiruvuru.