O.S.391/20231Date 21-02.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.
Present:- Ms. A.V.S. Srivalli, II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),Adoni.
FAC: Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pattikonda
Friday, this the 21st day of February, 2025.
Original Suit No.391/2023
1. Kukkala Raja Gopal Reddy, S/o K. Venkata Reddy, aged about 61 years, Hindu, Ryot and residing in H.No.2/71, Bajaru Street, Gooty Yerragudi village of Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool Dist.
2. Kukkala Hari Prasad Reddy, S/o K. Raja Gopal Reddy, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Ryot and residing in H.No.2/71, Bajaru Street, Gooty Yerragudi village of Tuggali mandal, Kurnool District.
...... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Kanikireddy Vijay Mohan Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, residing in H.o.48-33, Ramireddy Nagar, near IDPL Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
2. Gowra Sreedhar Reddy, S/o Pedda Venkat Rami Reddy, aged about 48 years.
3. Gowra Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Nadipi Venkat Rami Reddy, aged about 50 years.
4. Gowra Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Gowra Rami Reddy, aged about 30 years.
Defendants No.2 to 4 are Hindus, ryots and residing in Bajaru street, Gooty Erragudi village, Tuggali
Mandal, Kurnool District. .... Defendants
O.S.391/20232Date 21-02.2025
This suit is coming on 14.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Suresh Kumar and of Sri P. Jatangi Raju and of Sri B. Abdul Rajak, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and the defendants no.1 to 4 having remained exparte, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
(a) The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule land. Originally one Kakarla Chennappa had purchased the land in
Sy.No.121 to an extent Ac.2-02 cents, land in Sy.No.638 to an extent of
Ac.1-04 ½ cents and land in Sy.No.629 to an extent of Ac.3-11 cents from its rightful owners i.e. Papanna, Sreeramulu, Venkata Swamy and
Sundaraiah for Rs.8,000/- through registered sale deed No.65/1976 dated 12-02-1976. Originally one Kakarla Naganna had purchased the land in
Sy.No.121 to an extent of Ac.1-82 cents, land In Sy.No.638 to an extent of Ac.1.04 ½ cents and land in Sy.No.629 to an extent of Ac.3-11 cents
O.S.391/20233Date 21-02.2025
from its rightful owners i.e. Papanna, Sreeramulu, Venkata Swamy and
Sundaraiah for Rs.7,000/- through registered sale deed no.66/1976
dated 12-2-1976. In fact the disputed plaint schedule land in Sy.No.629
so Kakarla Chennappa and Kakarla Naganna are having land in Sy.No.629 to an extent of Ac.3-11 cents each.
(b) Kukkala Lakshmi Devamma has purchased land in Sy.No.629 to an extent of Ac.6-22 cents i.e. plaint schedule land and land in
Sy.No.638 to an extent of Ac.2-09 cents from its previous owners Kakarla
Chennappa, Kakarla Naganna Chowdary and their brothers kakarla
Chandra Shekar, Kakarla Pulikonda Ranganayakulu, Kakarla Shankar
Narayana and Kakarla Nanda Gopal who are sons of Subabiah for
Rs.65,000/- through registered sale sale deed No.387/1996 dated 10-05- 1996. The said Kukkala Lakshmi Devamma died on 18-12-2014 intestate leaving behind the Plaintiff no.1 as her only legal heir. The plaintiff no.2 is the son of Plaintiff no.1. the plaintiff no.1 mutated his name to an extent of Ac.4-50 cents in Sy.No.629 and his son’s name i.e. plaintiff no.2 mutated to an extent of Ac.1-72 cents in Sy.no.629 in the revenue records and got pattadar pass books with regard to Sy.No.629 even though they are enjoying jointly. Thus the plaintiffs are enjoying the plaint schedule landed property jointly, peacefully, continuously without any interruption to the knowledge of the defendants.
O.S.391/20234Date 21-02.2025
(c) While things so stood in the fourth week of November, 2023, the defendant no.1 and 2 having no manner of right and title, along with their men have highhandedly tried to occupy and trespass into plaint schedule property, but the same was temporarily prevented with the timely intervention of plaintiffs and elders of the locality. That if the defendants succeeds in their attempts in dispossessing the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs will be put to great loss and hardship. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, the suit.
3. The defendants did not file their written statement and remained exparte.
4. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs themselves examined as PW.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs.
5. Now the point of determination is :
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants for the suit schedule property as prayed for ?
O.S.391/20235Date 21-02.2025
6. POINT :
Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed the above suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing or interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In a suit for permanent injunction, the initial burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove that they are the absolute owners of the land as shown in the plaint. The defendants remained exparte, in-spite of giving them opportunity to put their case
before this court. As per the contention of the plaintiffs, the defendants
tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property in the fourth week of
November, 2023 and the same was thwarted/prevented and if they do so, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and hardship without having any right on the suit schedule property.
7.To discharge the initial burden, the plaintiff no.1 was examined and entered into the witness box as Pw1 and his chief examination affidavit is nothing but a replica of the contents of the plaint, through
PW.1 Exs.A1 to A6 got marked. The plaintiff no.2 was examined and entered into the witness box as PW2 and his chief examination affidavit is nothing but a replica of the contents of the plaint, through PW.2 Exs.A7 and A8 were marked. A perusal of all the documents clearly go to show that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property which they acquired from their ancestors under Exs.A3 to A8 i.e. Registered Sale
O.S.391/20236Date 21-02.2025
Deed dated 10-05-1996; Pattadar Pass Book issued from Tahasildar,
Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool District and ROR obtained from Grama
Sachivalayam dated 25-10-2023 and No.2 Adangal for fasli 1433 were stands in the name of Plaintiff no.1 and 2. Exs.A3 to A5 stands in the name of plaintiff no.1 and Ex.A6 was stands in the name of plaintiff no.1 and 2., and another Pattadar Pass Book and ROR obtained from
Sachivalayam dated 25-10-2023 which stands in the name of Plaintiff no.2. The sole testimony of the plaintiffs/PW1 & PW2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A8 prim-face proves the suit claim and the evidence of P.W.1 and PW2 remained unchallenged. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of permanent injunction against the defendants.
Accordingly, the point is answered.
8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by way of granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.
Typed by Stenographer Grade-III on the dictation on the computer,
O.S.391/20237Date 21-02.2025
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21 st day of February, 2025.
II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division),Adoni
FAC: Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pattikonda.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiffs: For Defendants
PW1:Kukkala Raja Gopal Reddy - None-
PW2:Kukkala Hari Prasad Reddy
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1: Registered sale deed dated 12-2-1976 executed by Pamanna,
Sriramulu, Venkataswamy and Sundaraiah in the name of
K. Chennappa.
Ex.A2: Registered sale deed dated 12-2-1976 executed by Pamanna,
Sriramulu, Venkataswamy and Sundaraiah in the name of
K. Naganna.
Ex.A3: Registered sale deed dated 10-5-1996 executed by K. Chennappa
K. Naganna Chowdary, K. Chandrasekhar, K.Pulikonda
Rangayanakulu, K. Sankara Narayana and K. Nanda Gopal in the name of K.Lakshmidevamma who is mother of Plaintiff no.1
Ex.A4 : Pattadar Pass Book obtained from Grama Sachivalayam issued in favour of plaintiff no.1
Ex.A5 : ROR obtained from Grama Sachivalayam dated 25-10-2023 issued in favour of plaintiff no.1.
O.S.391/20238Date 21-02.2025
Ex.A6 : No.2 Adangal for the fasili year 1433 issued in favour of plaintiff no.1 and 2.
Ex.A7: Pattadar Pas Book stands in the name of plaintiff no.2.
Ex.A8: ROR obtained from Sachivalayam dated 25-10-2023 stands in the name of plaintiff no.2
For Defendants :
- NIL-
II Addl.J.C.J.Adoni,
FAC:J.C.J,Pattikonda
O.S.391 /2023Date 21-2-2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.
Present:- Ms. A.V.S. Srivalli, II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),Adoni.
FAC: Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pattikonda
Friday, this the 21st day of February, 2025.
Original Suit No.391/2023
1. Kukkala Raja Gopal Reddy, S/o K. Venkata Reddy, aged about 61 years, Hindu, Ryot and residing in H.No.2/71, Bajaru Street, Gooty Yerragudi village of Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool Dist.
2. Kukkala Hari Prasad Reddy, S/o K. Raja Gopal Reddy, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Ryot and residing in H.No.2/71, Bajaru Street, Gooty Yerragudi village of Tuggali mandal, Kurnool District.
...... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Kanikireddy Vijay Mohan Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, residing in H.o.48-33, Ramireddy Nagar, near IDPL Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
2. Gowra Sreedhar Reddy, S/o Pedda Venkat Rami Reddy, aged about 48 years.
3. Gowra Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Nadipi Venkat Rami Reddy, aged about 50 years.
4. Gowra Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Gowra Rami Reddy, aged about 30 years.
Defendants No.2 to 4 are Hindus, ryots and residing in Bajaru street, Gooty Erragudi village, Tuggali
Mandal, Kurnool District. .... Defendants
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men
O.S.391 /2023Date 21-2-2025
from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
Plaint presented on 24.11.2023; and numbered on 24.11.2023;
J.V. of Rs.25,000/-and C.F. of Rs.1,586/- is paid U/sec. 26(C) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act
Cause of action for the suit arose on 22.11.2023 when the plaintiffs are in the plaint schedule land, the defendants with the help of rowdy elements tried to trespass into the plaint schedule land and tried to disposses the plaintiff from the plaint schedule land, but the plaintiffs with the help of neighbouring land owners could avert the same successfully. The defendants openly proclaimed that they will come again with more force and occupy the plaint schedule property, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
This suit is coming on 14.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Suresh Kumar and of Sri P. Jatangi Raju and of Sri B. Abdul Rajak, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and the defendants no.1 to 4 having remained exparte; after perusal of the material papers available on record and after hearing both sides, this court doth order and DECREE as follows:
1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by way of granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.
O.S.391 /2023Date 21-2-2025
2. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs. 4188.00 towards costs of the suit.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 21 st day of February, 2025.
II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni
FAC:Junior Civil Judge,Pattikonda .
Memo of costs for : Plaintiffs: Defendants
S.No.ParticularsForFor Defendants Plaintiffs 1Stamp on plaint:1586.00 Costs memo not filed 2Stamp on Vakalath: 2.00 Exparte 3Process paid:300.00 4Typing Charges:200.00 5Writing Charges:100.00 6Advocate fee:2000.00
Total :4188.00 NIL
O.S.391 /2023Date 21-2-2025
SCHEDULE
The land is situated at Gooty Erragudi village fields of Tuggali Mandaland within the Sub-Registration District of Peapully and District Registration of Kurnool within the folowing particulars:
Survey Nos. Extent Hectors 629 Ac.6.22 cents (Full Extent) 2.519 Shankaraiah Chenu
II Addl.JCJ,Adoni FAC:JCJ,PKD