Sri B. Appala Swamy

1 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Junior Civil Judge,Gajuwaka.

Friday, the 03 rd day of August, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 18 / 2014.

Between:

1.Munasa Lakshmamma, w/o. Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 50 years, residing at Door No.18-34-22/2, chinakorada, Pedagantyada RH colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2.Munasa Appala Raju (Died) … Plaintif A n d

Perla Danayya, S/o.chinasattayya, Hindu, aged 45 years, residing at

Door No.15-3-41/1, Gangavaram RH colony, Pedagantyada,

Visakhapatnam.

(The name of the defendant is amended as 'Danayya' in the place of Dhanaraju' as per the Orders dt.19.12.2014 in I.A.No.580/2014) … Defendant

This suit has come up on 08.06.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt.T.Prasanna, Advocate for the plaintifs and Sri B.Sudhakara advocate for defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintifs for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from ever interfering with the plaintifs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments in the plaint, in brief, are that : (a) the property of the plaintifs was acquired by the Steel Plant Land Acquisition authorities for the purpose of its establishment and to compensate the same R-Card No.267 was issued in the name of 1st plaintif and also allotted a house site of an extent of 107 sq.yards to her. After thorough 2 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

verification the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada recognized the physical possession of the 1st plaintif over the suit schedule property and issued a patta in her favour on 10.01.2003. The 1st plaintif constructed two portions thatched house and she has been residing along with the 2nd plaintif in one portion and let-out the other portion to third party on monthly rent and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption from anyone at any point of time. As the 2nd plaintif is an orthopaedically handicapped person and unmarried and living with his mother, with a view to safeguard his life after her life, the 1st plaintif got assessed the property tax, secured electricity and water connections to suit schedule property in his name and respective taxes have been paid regularly.

(b) It is further averred that on 20.01.2014 the defendant who is no way concerned or connected to the suit schedule property, came along with his henchmen and deliberately threatened the plaintifs to dispossess from the suit schedule property and tried to throw the household articles. On the intervention of the neighbouring people, the defendant left the premises openly proclaiming that he would not allow them to reside in the suit schedule property. Though the plaintifs approached the police, they were advised to approach the civil court.

Hence, the plaintifs sought for permanent injunction.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint inter alia contending that the name of the defendant is Perla Danayya but not Perla Dhanaraju and the plaintifs filed a false suit against the brother of the defendant by suppressing all the material facts. The property is very adjacent to the main road of Pedagantyada and the plaintifs with an evil intention to 3 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

grab the same. The steel plant Land acquisition authorities allotted Plot

No.1971 by way of patta dt.25.05.2003 granted by MRO, Pedagantyada at the recommendation of SDT, Steel Plant Rehabilitation department pertaining to R-Card No.1476 of Gangavaram village and delivered vacant possession to Perla Masenu Rao @ Masenu and since then the brother of the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

The plaintifs are never in a legal possession of suit schedule property and they approached the Court with unclean hands to grab the valuable property and the suit is not maintainable as non-joinder of necessary parties. The brother of the defendant is a true owner of the schedule property and thus, he sought to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my predecessor-in-office for trial:

1.Whether the plaintifs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2.Whether the plaintifs are entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.Subsequent to filing of the suit, the learned counsel for the plaintifs filed a memo stating that the 2nd plaintif died on 04.08.2014 and except the 1st plaintif there are no other legal representatives for the deceased 2nd plaintif and the memo is recorded.

6.During the course of trial, PWs-1 to 3 were the witnesses examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were the documents marked on behalf of the plaintif. On the other hand, DWs-1 and 2 were the witnesses examined and Exs.B1 to B3 and Exs.X1 to X5 were the documents marked.

4 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

7.Heard both the counsel and perused the material on record and the decisions submitted by both the counsel.

8.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2: Since the issues 1 and 2 are interrelated, in order to avoid repetition, both issues are answered together.

The 1st plaintif examined herself as PW-1 and reiterated the contents in the plaint in her evidence in chief-examination. She testified in her evidence that the Steel Plant authorities acquired her property and in order to compensate Ex.A1 R-Card No.267 was issued in the name of 1st plaintif by the Special Grade Deputy Collector, O/o.Special

Officer Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A1 also reveals that PW-1 was allotted house site of an extent of 107 sq.yards vide Plot

No.1971 at Chinakorada village, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. She further testified that after verification of records, the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Pedagantyada recognized her possession over the said property and issued Ex.A2 proceedings to her vide patta dt.10.01.2003 and she constructed a two portion house therein and the Gajuwaka Municipality was also assigned door No.18-34-22/2 and assessed to property tax and Water tax vide Ex.A4 Tax pass book and she has been paying the taxes under Exs.A5 and A6 for the year 2012. She further testified that she obtained electricity connection and she has been paying the taxes under Ex.A7 and she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption and to prove the same she filed Ex.A9 positive photographs. She testified in her evidence that she got right, title and possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the defendant has nothing to do with her property by way of any interference.

9.PW-1 further testified in her evidence that the 2nd plaintif is physically handicapped person and with a view to safeguard his life 5 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

after her life, she got assessed the house property tax, electricity connection and water connection in his name for the suit schedule property. To prove the same, she got filed Exs.A4, A5 and A7 Tax pass book, tax receipts and Water tax receipts, Ex.A6 is the electricity bills standing in the name of 2nd plaintif. To substantiate her evidence that the 2nd plaintif as handicapped person, she got filed Ex.A3 the medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board for Handicapped, K.G.H.,

Visakhapanam, Ex.A8 concession certificate issued to 2nd plaintif by the K.G.Hospital Visakhapatnam. As can be seen from Ex.P9 photographs would reveal that two portion thatched house is existing in the suit schedule property and the 1st plaintif along with 2nd plaintif are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

A perusal of Ex.P10 certified copy of the relevant pages in plot allotment register and R-Card register maintained in the office of

Special Grade Deputy Collector (L.A.) Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam would clearly show that Plot No.1879 was issued in respect of R-Card No.1476 to one Perla Masenu Rao ie., brother of the defendant herein, but not the suit schedule property which is bearing plot No.1971. She further testified in her evidence that her house met with fire accident and a partial damage was caused to her house. To prove the same, she got filed Ex.A11 the fire attendance certificate issued by the District Fire officer, Visakhapatnam.

10.When coming to the cross-examination of PW-1, though the learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited to discard trustworthiness of evidence of PW-1 with regard to her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without any interruption.

6 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

11.To substantiate her evidence, PW-1 also examined one

Badidaboina Kanaka Raju as PW-2. PW-2 reiterated the version of PW-1 in his evidence with regard to possession and enjoyment of plaintifs in the suit schedule property and threatening of defendant and his henchmen for dispossessing the plaintifs and his intervention along with neighbours. When coming to the cross-examination, he stated that he has been residing in the house site allotted to his father by the government under the rehabilitation scheme and issuance of patta by

MRO to PW-1. He denied the suggestion regarding allotment of Plot

No.1971 in the name of Masenu Rao by the steel plant land acquisition authorities. Nothing could be elicited to discredit the trustworthiness of

PW-2.

12.PW-3 is the third party to whom the plaintifs let-out the second portion of their house, testified in his evidence that he is residing along with his family by paying monthly rent of Rs.800/- to PW-1. He further deposed that the house in which he is residing, met with a fire accident occurred on 05.10.2016 and Ex.A11 is the fire attendance certificate. In the cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the door number of the house is 18-34-22. Though the learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited to discard his testimony.

13.Per contra, the defendant denied the version of plaintifs contending that the suit schedule property was allotted to his brother

Perla Masenu rao @ Masenu, by virtue of issuance of R-Card No.1476 by the Steel Plant Authorities for the land acquired by them and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintifs are no way concerned to the same.

7 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

14.The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and reiterated the defence set up in his written statement in his evidence in chief- examination. He deposed that the plot No.1971 was allotted to his cousin i.e., Perla Masenu Rao @ Masenu by the SDT, Steel Plant

Rehabilitation Department and a patta dt.25.05.2003 was also granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada. He further deposed that

Plot No.1971 was pertaining to R-Card No.1476 of Gangavaram village, situated at Chinnakorada, Pedagantyada RH Colony under Ex.B1 and obtained endorsement from Tahsildar, Pedagantyada and Special

Deputy Collector, LA Steel Plant under Exs.B2 and B3. In the cross- examination, DW-1 admitted that the door number for the suit schedule property was 18.34.22/2 and the boundaries are one and the same consisting two portions. He further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the suit schedule property belongs to Masenu

Rao or he reside in the suit schedule property. It is further elicited that while father of Masenu Rao was living in Gangavaram, his land and house in Gangavaram were acquired by steel plant authorities.

15.The defendant also examined one Ganti Siva Satyanarayana,

Special Deputy Tahsildar, office of the Special Deputy Collector (Land

Acquisition) Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam as DW-2 and through him

Exs.X1 authorization letter, Ex.X2 first page of plot allotment register,

Ex.X3 page No.38 in plot allotment register pertaining to Plot No.1971 at Serial number 802, Dibbapalem, RH Colony, Ex.X4 is front page of R-

Card register and Ex.X5 is R-card No.1476 pertaining to Gangavaram village in the name of Perla Masenu Rao. DW-2 testified in his evidence that the plot No.1971 is situated in Dibbalapalem village was allotted to Perla Masenu who was allotted R-Card No.1476. The R-Card 8 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

1476 was with regard to Gangavaram village hamlet to Nellimukku. In the cross-examination, DW-2 pleaded ignorance whether there are diferent villages in Dibbapalem RH colony and Pedagantyada RH colony and whether Chinnakorada village comes under the limits of

Pedagantyada RH Colony. He affirmed that the land loosers of

Gangavaram village in land acquisition made by Steel plant authorities, were allotted in Dibbapalem RH Colony and there were firve RH

Colonies and generally plot numbers in lay out started from Plot No.1 and if there are more than 1971 plots, there will be plot number 1971 in layout. He deposed that he has not seen the Plot No.1971.

16.The learned counsel for the plaintifs argued that the 1st plaintif was allotted Plot No.1971 on R.Card No.267 by the Steel plant authorities under Ex.A1 and A2 and she has been paying the house taxes, water tax and electricity charges for the schedule property to the concerned authorities which proves her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. He further argued that the plaintif is in settled possession of the suit schedule property since January, 2003 without any interruption, she is entitled to relief of injunction irrespective of proving her title or not. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintif placed reliance on the following decisions:

1.Mohd. Khasim & Others Vs. Selection Grade city Municipal

Corporation, Warangal reported in 2012 (2) ALT 665, wherein the

Hon'ble High Court observed at para-20 that :

“Para-20.:.............the well recognized legal proposition that a person, who is in settled possession of the property is entitled for the relief of injunction irrespective of the fact whether he succeeded in proving his title to the property or not”.

2.Sadasivuni Manmadeswara Rao Vs. Patnana Lakshmana Rao &

Others reported in 2012 (2) ALT 54 wherein His Lordship of Hon'ble

High Court observed at Para-7 that:

9 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

“Para-7: In a suit for injunction, it is essential for a plaintif to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The scrutiny of the plea about the title would be only to satisfy the court that the possession, even if established, by the plaintif, is not that of an outright stranger or trespasser and that he holds a semblance of right vis-a-vis the property. This is obviously to overcome the prohibition ordained by law that relief of injunction cannot be granted against a true owner. However, the plaintif cannot be required to prove title as in the case of suit for declaration of title. The examination of title or its source in a suit for injunction is always relative, in its purpose. Much would depend upon the nature of resistance ofered by the defendant. In case the defendant in a suit of this nature claims a right or title, the court would be forced to examine whether it is relatively superior than the one pleaded by the plaintif. Barring this, the Court cannot pronounce upon the legality or otherwise of the title pleaded either by the plaintif or the defendant”.

17.In the present case on hand, admittedly the plaintif established her possession over the suit schedule property and the concerned authorities of government also recognized her possession and issued

Patta and assessed the property to tax granting water and electricity connections. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintif squarely applicable to the case on hand.

18.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the suit schedule property bearing Plot No.1971 was not allotted to the plaintif and it was allotted to the cousin of the defendant i.e. Perla

Masenu Rao under R-Card No.1476 and the defendant adducing his evidence as DW-1 and corroborated by DW-2 by exhibiting documentary evidence. Thus, the plaintif has not proved her possession and title over the property and she is not entitled for 10 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

equitable relief of injunction. In this scenario, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. Emam Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Keesari Padma reported in 2014(3) ALT 217 wherein his Lordship of Hon'ble High Court at para-18 that : 'Since the suit is one for perpetual injunction, prima-facie title and possession of the plaintif is to be looked into. Also since the subject matter is a vacant site/house plot, possession follows title”.

2.Andalu & Others Vs. K.Satyavathi (Died) per L.Rs. And others reported in 2012(2) ALT 209 wherein His Lordship of Hon'ble High

Court observed at Para-9 that :

“...Though in a suit for injunction, it is not necessary for a plaintif to prove the title, the respondents have not only pleaded the manner in which they have acquired title, but also placed all original records pertaining thereto before the Court”.

A perusal of the above decisions would reveal that the facts as narrated in those cases are on diferent footing and not relating to the defence set up by the defendant in the present case on hand. For the reason that in the first decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that prima-facie title and possession of the plaintif is to be looked into and possession follows title. In the later decision, it was observed that it is not necessary for the plaintif to prove his title in a suit for injunction.

19.As can be seen from the evidence on record, Ex.A1, A2 and A9 clearly establishes that the plaintif is in possession of the suit schedule property. Further Ex.A2 was issued to PW-1 on 10.01.2003 in respect of the suit schedule property and the electricity connection and assessment of tax by the municipal corporation and relevant tax payment receipts under Exs.A4 to A7, A9 would clearly establish her possession over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, there 11 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

is no plea of possession of the property by the defendant either in the pleadings or in the evidence. Further Ex.B1 basing on which, DW-1 claims right and title of Plot No.1971 was alleged to have been issued on 25.05.2003, i.e., subsequent to the issuance of Ex.A2. Therefore, viewed from any angle the possession was proved by the plaintif in all aspects and the plaintif established the prerequisites for entitling the equitable relief of injunction.

20.It is well established principle of law that granting relief of injunction is discretionary and equitable. The Court has to necessarily deal with these three prerequisites i.e., firstly prima facia case, secondly balance of convenience and thirdly loss that is likely to be caused to the parties. Apart from that the most important aspect is the question of possession of the plaintif as on the date of filing of the suit will be taken as the prime factor for consideration. Admittedly, the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Further this Court observed even at the interlocutory stage, that the plaintif have established her prima-facie case title and possession over the suit schedule property by adducing legally acceptable evidence and exhibiting Exs.A1,A2 and Exs.A4 to A9.

The plaintif also disproved the case of the defendant by producing

Ex.A10. Though the defendant seriously contended that the suit schedule property was allotted to his cousin i.e., Perla Masenu Rao, he failed to examine him to buttress his case. Even a perusal of evidence of DW-2 would also reveal that the Plot bearing No.1971 was situated at Dibbalapalem RH colony allotted to Perla Masenu Rao and the R-Card

No.1476 is with regard to Gangavaram village Hamlet to Nellimukku.

12 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

21.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of PW-1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9 and A11 clearly proved the case of plaintif and her possession over the suit schedule property and thus, this Court feels that the plaintif proved her prima-facie case and balance of convenience are in her favour. Admittedly, the possession of the plaintif was proved as on the date of filing of the suit. If injunction is not granted, the defendant may cause interference with the plaintif's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and thereby the plaintif will sufer irreparable loss and on the other hand the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintif and as such the plaintif is entitled for injunction as prayed for. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

21.Issue No.3:

From the foregoing discussion and findings on Issues No.1 and 2, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintif established her possession over the suit schedule property and she is entitled for the relief of injunction against the defendant.

22.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintif restraining the defendant, his men and agents including persons acting on his behalf from ever interfering with the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 03rd day of August, 2018.

Sd/- B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge/AKP,

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.

13 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1 : Munasa Lakshmamma,DW-1: Perla Dhanayya, PW-2 : Badidaboina Kanka Raju, DW-2: Ganti Siva Satyanarayana PW-3 : Gandiboyina Koteswara Rao, Spl. Dy.Tahsildar, LA,VSP.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : is the R-Card No.267 of the 1st plaintif issued by Steel Plant LA authorities; Ex.A2: is the Patta/Plot allotment proceedings issued by MRO, Pedagantyada dt.10.01.2003, for the suit schedule plot No.1971;

Ex.A3: is the Medical certificate issued for the 2nd plaintif;

Ex.A4: is the Tax Pass Book issued by GVMC in the name of 2nd plaintif for the suit schedule house property;

Ex.A5: is the three house tax receipts issued in the name of 2nd plaintif for the suit schedule property;

Ex.A6: is the electricity bills and receipts issued in the name of 2nd plaintif;

Ex.A7: is the water tax receipts two in number issued in the name of 2nd plaintif;

Ex.A8: is the concession certificate for the physically challenged persons issued in favour of 2nd plaintif by the Asst. Civil Surgeon KGH, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A9: is the 6 positive photographs with CD;

Ex.A10: is the certified copies of relevant pages in plot allotment registered and R-Card register of the office of Spl.Grade Dy.Collector (LA) Steel Plant.

Ex.A11: is the relevant Fire attendance certificate dt.19.11.2016 issued by the Asst. District fire Officer, Visakhapatnam.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1: is the patta issued by MRO, Pedagantyada dt. 25.05.2003;

Ex.B2: is the Endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Pedagantyada dt.26.09.2016;

Ex,.B3: is the Endorsement issued by Spl.Dy.Collector, LA Steel plant, Vsp.dt.14.11.2016; 14 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

Documents marked through witness:

Ex.X1: is the authorization letter of DW-2;

Ex.X2: is the first page of plot allotment register;

Ex.X3: is the page No.38 in plot allotment register pertaining to Plot No.1971 at serial number 802, Dibbapalem RH Colony;

Ex.X4: is front page of R-Card register;

Ex.X5: is the R-card No.1476 pertaining to Gangavaram village in the name of Perla Masenu Rao;

Sd/- B. Appala Swamy

PJCJ/AKP FAC JCJ/GWK 15 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Junior Civil Judge,Gajuwaka.

Friday, the 03 rd day of August, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 18 / 2014.

Between:

1.Munasa Lakshmamma, w/o. Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 50 years, residing at Door No.18-34-22/2, chinakorada, Pedagantyada RH colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2.Munasa Appala Raju (Died) … Plaintif A n d

Perla Danayya, S/o.chinasattayya, Hindu, aged 45 years, residing at Door No.15-3-41/1, Gangavaram RH colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. (The name of the defendant is amended as 'Danayya' in the place of Dhanaraju' as per the Orders dt.19.12.2014 in I.A.No.580/2014) … Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintif for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from ever interfering with the plaintifs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction is notionally valued for Rs.10,000/- and court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under

Section 26(c) of AP Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956.

This suit has come up on 08.06.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt.T.Prasanna, Advocate for the plaintifs and

Sri B.Sudhakara advocate for defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth ordered; that

DECREE

1. that the suit be and hereby decreed 16 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

2. that a permanent injunction be and is hereby granted in favour of the plaintif restraining the defendant, his men and agents including persons acting on his behalf from ever interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; and

3. that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs. towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 03rd day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge/AKP,

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.

Memorandum of costs

For plaintif:For Defendants: Exparte

1. Stamp on Vakalat - Rs. 2-00

2. Stamp on Plaint - Rs. 3,726-00

3. Process Fees - Rs. 38-00 -------------------

Institutional Costs - Rs.

PJCJ/AKP FAC JCJ/GWK

1 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Junior Civil Judge,Gajuwaka.

Friday, the 03 rd day of August, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 18 / 2014.

Between:

1.Munasa Lakshmamma, w/o. Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 50 years, residing at Door No.18-34-22/2, chinakorada, Pedagantyada RH colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2.Munasa Appala Raju (Died) … Plaintif A n d

Perla Danayya, S/o.chinasattayya, Hindu, aged 45 years, residing at

Door No.15-3-41/1, Gangavaram RH colony, Pedagantyada,

Visakhapatnam.

(The name of the defendant is amended as 'Danayya' in the place of Dhanaraju' as per the Orders dt.19.12.2014 in I.A.No.580/2014) … Defendant

This suit has come up on 08.06.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt.T.Prasanna, Advocate for the plaintifs and Sri B.Sudhakara advocate for defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintifs for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from ever interfering with the plaintifs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments in the plaint, in brief, are that : (a) the property of the plaintifs was acquired by the Steel Plant Land Acquisition authorities for the purpose of its establishment and to compensate the same R-Card No.267 was issued in the name of 1st plaintif and also allotted a house site of an extent of 107 sq.yards to her. After thorough 2 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

verification the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada recognized the physical possession of the 1st plaintif over the suit schedule property and issued a patta in her favour on 10.01.2003. The 1st plaintif constructed two portions thatched house and she has been residing along with the 2nd plaintif in one portion and let-out the other portion to third party on monthly rent and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption from anyone at any point of time. As the 2nd plaintif is an orthopaedically handicapped person and unmarried and living with his mother, with a view to safeguard his life after her life, the 1st plaintif got assessed the property tax, secured electricity and water connections to suit schedule property in his name and respective taxes have been paid regularly.

(b) It is further averred that on 20.01.2014 the defendant who is no way concerned or connected to the suit schedule property, came along with his henchmen and deliberately threatened the plaintifs to dispossess from the suit schedule property and tried to throw the household articles. On the intervention of the neighbouring people, the defendant left the premises openly proclaiming that he would not allow them to reside in the suit schedule property. Though the plaintifs approached the police, they were advised to approach the civil court.

Hence, the plaintifs sought for permanent injunction.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint inter alia contending that the name of the defendant is Perla Danayya but not Perla Dhanaraju and the plaintifs filed a false suit against the brother of the defendant by suppressing all the material facts. The property is very adjacent to the main road of Pedagantyada and the plaintifs with an evil intention to 3 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

grab the same. The steel plant Land acquisition authorities allotted Plot

No.1971 by way of patta dt.25.05.2003 granted by MRO, Pedagantyada at the recommendation of SDT, Steel Plant Rehabilitation department pertaining to R-Card No.1476 of Gangavaram village and delivered vacant possession to Perla Masenu Rao @ Masenu and since then the brother of the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

The plaintifs are never in a legal possession of suit schedule property and they approached the Court with unclean hands to grab the valuable property and the suit is not maintainable as non-joinder of necessary parties. The brother of the defendant is a true owner of the schedule property and thus, he sought to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my predecessor-in-office for trial:

1.Whether the plaintifs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2.Whether the plaintifs are entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.Subsequent to filing of the suit, the learned counsel for the plaintifs filed a memo stating that the 2nd plaintif died on 04.08.2014 and except the 1st plaintif there are no other legal representatives for the deceased 2nd plaintif and the memo is recorded.

6.During the course of trial, PWs-1 to 3 were the witnesses examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were the documents marked on behalf of the plaintif. On the other hand, DWs-1 and 2 were the witnesses examined and Exs.B1 to B3 and Exs.X1 to X5 were the documents marked.

4 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

7.Heard both the counsel and perused the material on record and the decisions submitted by both the counsel.

8.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2: Since the issues 1 and 2 are interrelated, in order to avoid repetition, both issues are answered together.

The 1st plaintif examined herself as PW-1 and reiterated the contents in the plaint in her evidence in chief-examination. She testified in her evidence that the Steel Plant authorities acquired her property and in order to compensate Ex.A1 R-Card No.267 was issued in the name of 1st plaintif by the Special Grade Deputy Collector, O/o.Special

Officer Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A1 also reveals that PW-1 was allotted house site of an extent of 107 sq.yards vide Plot

No.1971 at Chinakorada village, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. She further testified that after verification of records, the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Pedagantyada recognized her possession over the said property and issued Ex.A2 proceedings to her vide patta dt.10.01.2003 and she constructed a two portion house therein and the Gajuwaka Municipality was also assigned door No.18-34-22/2 and assessed to property tax and Water tax vide Ex.A4 Tax pass book and she has been paying the taxes under Exs.A5 and A6 for the year 2012. She further testified that she obtained electricity connection and she has been paying the taxes under Ex.A7 and she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption and to prove the same she filed Ex.A9 positive photographs. She testified in her evidence that she got right, title and possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the defendant has nothing to do with her property by way of any interference.

9.PW-1 further testified in her evidence that the 2nd plaintif is physically handicapped person and with a view to safeguard his life 5 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

after her life, she got assessed the house property tax, electricity connection and water connection in his name for the suit schedule property. To prove the same, she got filed Exs.A4, A5 and A7 Tax pass book, tax receipts and Water tax receipts, Ex.A6 is the electricity bills standing in the name of 2nd plaintif. To substantiate her evidence that the 2nd plaintif as handicapped person, she got filed Ex.A3 the medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board for Handicapped, K.G.H.,

Visakhapanam, Ex.A8 concession certificate issued to 2nd plaintif by the K.G.Hospital Visakhapatnam. As can be seen from Ex.P9 photographs would reveal that two portion thatched house is existing in the suit schedule property and the 1st plaintif along with 2nd plaintif are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

A perusal of Ex.P10 certified copy of the relevant pages in plot allotment register and R-Card register maintained in the office of

Special Grade Deputy Collector (L.A.) Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam would clearly show that Plot No.1879 was issued in respect of R-Card No.1476 to one Perla Masenu Rao ie., brother of the defendant herein, but not the suit schedule property which is bearing plot No.1971. She further testified in her evidence that her house met with fire accident and a partial damage was caused to her house. To prove the same, she got filed Ex.A11 the fire attendance certificate issued by the District Fire officer, Visakhapatnam.

10.When coming to the cross-examination of PW-1, though the learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited to discard trustworthiness of evidence of PW-1 with regard to her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without any interruption.

6 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

11.To substantiate her evidence, PW-1 also examined one

Badidaboina Kanaka Raju as PW-2. PW-2 reiterated the version of PW-1 in his evidence with regard to possession and enjoyment of plaintifs in the suit schedule property and threatening of defendant and his henchmen for dispossessing the plaintifs and his intervention along with neighbours. When coming to the cross-examination, he stated that he has been residing in the house site allotted to his father by the government under the rehabilitation scheme and issuance of patta by

MRO to PW-1. He denied the suggestion regarding allotment of Plot

No.1971 in the name of Masenu Rao by the steel plant land acquisition authorities. Nothing could be elicited to discredit the trustworthiness of

PW-2.

12.PW-3 is the third party to whom the plaintifs let-out the second portion of their house, testified in his evidence that he is residing along with his family by paying monthly rent of Rs.800/- to PW-1. He further deposed that the house in which he is residing, met with a fire accident occurred on 05.10.2016 and Ex.A11 is the fire attendance certificate. In the cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the door number of the house is 18-34-22. Though the learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited to discard his testimony.

13.Per contra, the defendant denied the version of plaintifs contending that the suit schedule property was allotted to his brother

Perla Masenu rao @ Masenu, by virtue of issuance of R-Card No.1476 by the Steel Plant Authorities for the land acquired by them and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintifs are no way concerned to the same.

7 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

14.The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and reiterated the defence set up in his written statement in his evidence in chief- examination. He deposed that the plot No.1971 was allotted to his cousin i.e., Perla Masenu Rao @ Masenu by the SDT, Steel Plant

Rehabilitation Department and a patta dt.25.05.2003 was also granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada. He further deposed that

Plot No.1971 was pertaining to R-Card No.1476 of Gangavaram village, situated at Chinnakorada, Pedagantyada RH Colony under Ex.B1 and obtained endorsement from Tahsildar, Pedagantyada and Special

Deputy Collector, LA Steel Plant under Exs.B2 and B3. In the cross- examination, DW-1 admitted that the door number for the suit schedule property was 18.34.22/2 and the boundaries are one and the same consisting two portions. He further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the suit schedule property belongs to Masenu

Rao or he reside in the suit schedule property. It is further elicited that while father of Masenu Rao was living in Gangavaram, his land and house in Gangavaram were acquired by steel plant authorities.

15.The defendant also examined one Ganti Siva Satyanarayana,

Special Deputy Tahsildar, office of the Special Deputy Collector (Land

Acquisition) Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam as DW-2 and through him

Exs.X1 authorization letter, Ex.X2 first page of plot allotment register,

Ex.X3 page No.38 in plot allotment register pertaining to Plot No.1971 at Serial number 802, Dibbapalem, RH Colony, Ex.X4 is front page of R-

Card register and Ex.X5 is R-card No.1476 pertaining to Gangavaram village in the name of Perla Masenu Rao. DW-2 testified in his evidence that the plot No.1971 is situated in Dibbalapalem village was allotted to Perla Masenu who was allotted R-Card No.1476. The R-Card 8 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

1476 was with regard to Gangavaram village hamlet to Nellimukku. In the cross-examination, DW-2 pleaded ignorance whether there are diferent villages in Dibbapalem RH colony and Pedagantyada RH colony and whether Chinnakorada village comes under the limits of

Pedagantyada RH Colony. He affirmed that the land loosers of

Gangavaram village in land acquisition made by Steel plant authorities, were allotted in Dibbapalem RH Colony and there were firve RH

Colonies and generally plot numbers in lay out started from Plot No.1 and if there are more than 1971 plots, there will be plot number 1971 in layout. He deposed that he has not seen the Plot No.1971.

16.The learned counsel for the plaintifs argued that the 1st plaintif was allotted Plot No.1971 on R.Card No.267 by the Steel plant authorities under Ex.A1 and A2 and she has been paying the house taxes, water tax and electricity charges for the schedule property to the concerned authorities which proves her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. He further argued that the plaintif is in settled possession of the suit schedule property since January, 2003 without any interruption, she is entitled to relief of injunction irrespective of proving her title or not. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintif placed reliance on the following decisions:

1.Mohd. Khasim & Others Vs. Selection Grade city Municipal

Corporation, Warangal reported in 2012 (2) ALT 665, wherein the

Hon'ble High Court observed at para-20 that :

“Para-20.:.............the well recognized legal proposition that a person, who is in settled possession of the property is entitled for the relief of injunction irrespective of the fact whether he succeeded in proving his title to the property or not”.

2.Sadasivuni Manmadeswara Rao Vs. Patnana Lakshmana Rao &

Others reported in 2012 (2) ALT 54 wherein His Lordship of Hon'ble

High Court observed at Para-7 that:

9 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

“Para-7: In a suit for injunction, it is essential for a plaintif to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The scrutiny of the plea about the title would be only to satisfy the court that the possession, even if established, by the plaintif, is not that of an outright stranger or trespasser and that he holds a semblance of right vis-a-vis the property. This is obviously to overcome the prohibition ordained by law that relief of injunction cannot be granted against a true owner. However, the plaintif cannot be required to prove title as in the case of suit for declaration of title. The examination of title or its source in a suit for injunction is always relative, in its purpose. Much would depend upon the nature of resistance ofered by the defendant. In case the defendant in a suit of this nature claims a right or title, the court would be forced to examine whether it is relatively superior than the one pleaded by the plaintif. Barring this, the Court cannot pronounce upon the legality or otherwise of the title pleaded either by the plaintif or the defendant”.

17.In the present case on hand, admittedly the plaintif established her possession over the suit schedule property and the concerned authorities of government also recognized her possession and issued

Patta and assessed the property to tax granting water and electricity connections. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintif squarely applicable to the case on hand.

18.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the suit schedule property bearing Plot No.1971 was not allotted to the plaintif and it was allotted to the cousin of the defendant i.e. Perla

Masenu Rao under R-Card No.1476 and the defendant adducing his evidence as DW-1 and corroborated by DW-2 by exhibiting documentary evidence. Thus, the plaintif has not proved her possession and title over the property and she is not entitled for 10 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

equitable relief of injunction. In this scenario, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. Emam Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Keesari Padma reported in 2014(3) ALT 217 wherein his Lordship of Hon'ble High Court at para-18 that : 'Since the suit is one for perpetual injunction, prima-facie title and possession of the plaintif is to be looked into. Also since the subject matter is a vacant site/house plot, possession follows title”.

2.Andalu & Others Vs. K.Satyavathi (Died) per L.Rs. And others reported in 2012(2) ALT 209 wherein His Lordship of Hon'ble High

Court observed at Para-9 that :

“...Though in a suit for injunction, it is not necessary for a plaintif to prove the title, the respondents have not only pleaded the manner in which they have acquired title, but also placed all original records pertaining thereto before the Court”.

A perusal of the above decisions would reveal that the facts as narrated in those cases are on diferent footing and not relating to the defence set up by the defendant in the present case on hand. For the reason that in the first decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that prima-facie title and possession of the plaintif is to be looked into and possession follows title. In the later decision, it was observed that it is not necessary for the plaintif to prove his title in a suit for injunction.

19.As can be seen from the evidence on record, Ex.A1, A2 and A9 clearly establishes that the plaintif is in possession of the suit schedule property. Further Ex.A2 was issued to PW-1 on 10.01.2003 in respect of the suit schedule property and the electricity connection and assessment of tax by the municipal corporation and relevant tax payment receipts under Exs.A4 to A7, A9 would clearly establish her possession over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, there 11 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

is no plea of possession of the property by the defendant either in the pleadings or in the evidence. Further Ex.B1 basing on which, DW-1 claims right and title of Plot No.1971 was alleged to have been issued on 25.05.2003, i.e., subsequent to the issuance of Ex.A2. Therefore, viewed from any angle the possession was proved by the plaintif in all aspects and the plaintif established the prerequisites for entitling the equitable relief of injunction.

20.It is well established principle of law that granting relief of injunction is discretionary and equitable. The Court has to necessarily deal with these three prerequisites i.e., firstly prima facia case, secondly balance of convenience and thirdly loss that is likely to be caused to the parties. Apart from that the most important aspect is the question of possession of the plaintif as on the date of filing of the suit will be taken as the prime factor for consideration. Admittedly, the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Further this Court observed even at the interlocutory stage, that the plaintif have established her prima-facie case title and possession over the suit schedule property by adducing legally acceptable evidence and exhibiting Exs.A1,A2 and Exs.A4 to A9.

The plaintif also disproved the case of the defendant by producing

Ex.A10. Though the defendant seriously contended that the suit schedule property was allotted to his cousin i.e., Perla Masenu Rao, he failed to examine him to buttress his case. Even a perusal of evidence of DW-2 would also reveal that the Plot bearing No.1971 was situated at Dibbalapalem RH colony allotted to Perla Masenu Rao and the R-Card

No.1476 is with regard to Gangavaram village Hamlet to Nellimukku.

12 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

21.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of PW-1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9 and A11 clearly proved the case of plaintif and her possession over the suit schedule property and thus, this Court feels that the plaintif proved her prima-facie case and balance of convenience are in her favour. Admittedly, the possession of the plaintif was proved as on the date of filing of the suit. If injunction is not granted, the defendant may cause interference with the plaintif's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and thereby the plaintif will sufer irreparable loss and on the other hand the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintif and as such the plaintif is entitled for injunction as prayed for. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

21.Issue No.3:

From the foregoing discussion and findings on Issues No.1 and 2, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintif established her possession over the suit schedule property and she is entitled for the relief of injunction against the defendant.

22.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintif restraining the defendant, his men and agents including persons acting on his behalf from ever interfering with the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 03rd day of August, 2018.

Sd/- B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge/AKP,

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.

13 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1 : Munasa Lakshmamma,DW-1: Perla Dhanayya, PW-2 : Badidaboina Kanka Raju, DW-2: Ganti Siva Satyanarayana PW-3 : Gandiboyina Koteswara Rao, Spl. Dy.Tahsildar, LA,VSP.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : is the R-Card No.267 of the 1st plaintif issued by Steel Plant LA authorities; Ex.A2: is the Patta/Plot allotment proceedings issued by MRO, Pedagantyada dt.10.01.2003, for the suit schedule plot No.1971;

Ex.A3: is the Medical certificate issued for the 2nd plaintif;

Ex.A4: is the Tax Pass Book issued by GVMC in the name of 2nd plaintif for the suit schedule house property;

Ex.A5: is the three house tax receipts issued in the name of 2nd plaintif for the suit schedule property;

Ex.A6: is the electricity bills and receipts issued in the name of 2nd plaintif;

Ex.A7: is the water tax receipts two in number issued in the name of 2nd plaintif;

Ex.A8: is the concession certificate for the physically challenged persons issued in favour of 2nd plaintif by the Asst. Civil Surgeon KGH, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A9: is the 6 positive photographs with CD;

Ex.A10: is the certified copies of relevant pages in plot allotment registered and R-Card register of the office of Spl.Grade Dy.Collector (LA) Steel Plant.

Ex.A11: is the relevant Fire attendance certificate dt.19.11.2016 issued by the Asst. District fire Officer, Visakhapatnam.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1: is the patta issued by MRO, Pedagantyada dt. 25.05.2003;

Ex.B2: is the Endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Pedagantyada dt.26.09.2016;

Ex,.B3: is the Endorsement issued by Spl.Dy.Collector, LA Steel plant, Vsp.dt.14.11.2016; 14 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

Documents marked through witness:

Ex.X1: is the authorization letter of DW-2;

Ex.X2: is the first page of plot allotment register;

Ex.X3: is the page No.38 in plot allotment register pertaining to Plot No.1971 at serial number 802, Dibbapalem RH Colony;

Ex.X4: is front page of R-Card register;

Ex.X5: is the R-card No.1476 pertaining to Gangavaram village in the name of Perla Masenu Rao;

Sd/- B. Appala Swamy

PJCJ/AKP FAC JCJ/GWK 15 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Junior Civil Judge,Gajuwaka.

Friday, the 03 rd day of August, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 18 / 2014.

Between:

1.Munasa Lakshmamma, w/o. Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 50 years, residing at Door No.18-34-22/2, chinakorada, Pedagantyada RH colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2.Munasa Appala Raju (Died) … Plaintif A n d

Perla Danayya, S/o.chinasattayya, Hindu, aged 45 years, residing at Door No.15-3-41/1, Gangavaram RH colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. (The name of the defendant is amended as 'Danayya' in the place of Dhanaraju' as per the Orders dt.19.12.2014 in I.A.No.580/2014) … Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintif for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from ever interfering with the plaintifs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction is notionally valued for Rs.10,000/- and court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under

Section 26(c) of AP Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956.

This suit has come up on 08.06.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt.T.Prasanna, Advocate for the plaintifs and

Sri B.Sudhakara advocate for defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth ordered; that

DECREE

1. that the suit be and hereby decreed 16 JCJ COURT, GAJUWAKA

O.S.No.18/2014.

2. that a permanent injunction be and is hereby granted in favour of the plaintif restraining the defendant, his men and agents including persons acting on his behalf from ever interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; and

3. that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs. towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 03rd day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge/AKP,

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.

Memorandum of costs

For plaintif:For Defendants: Exparte

1. Stamp on Vakalat - Rs. 2-00

2. Stamp on Plaint - Rs. 3,726-00

3. Process Fees - Rs. 38-00 -------------------

Institutional Costs - Rs.

PJCJ/AKP FAC JCJ/GWK

1 JCJ Court, Gajuwaka

OS.No.39/2015

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Junior Civil Judge Gajuwaka. Friday, the 17th day of August, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 39 / 2015.

Between: Chemudipati Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Narasimha Murthy, aged 62 years, Hindu, resident of Door no.45-46-29, Srinivasa Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-16. … Plaintif And:

1.Vakada Appalaraju Reddy, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Hindu, aged about 55 years, resident of Near Ramalayam, Tungalam Village, Peda Gantyada, BHPV, Visakhapatnam District.

2.Vakada Hari Krishna Reddy, S/o. Appalaraju Reddy, Hindu, aged about 34 years, resident of – rest ditto -. … Defendants

This suit has come up on 10.08.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri VV Jogayya, M.Srinivasa Rao, B.Yasodara Vedamani, Advocates for plaintif and N.Nageswara Rao Advocate for the defendants and the defendants called absent and set exparte and matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintif and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments in the plaint, in brief, are that : (a) the plaintif, her husband Narasimha Murthy and son Raghavendra Kumar are the members of Hindu Joint family. They acquired item No.1 of plaint schedule property in the name of plaintif from Chemudipati Sivaramaraju under a registered Gift Settlement dt. 29.10.2004. The Donor of the plaintif 2 JCJ Court, Gajuwaka

OS.No.39/2015

acquired the said property under a registered Sale deed dt. 21.12.1981 and since then, the property is in their absolute possession and enjoyment. The property under Item No.2 of plaint schedule was purchased by the son of plaintif from Kolluru Kameswara Rao vide Sale deed dt.20.09.2001. Both the Items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule are adjacent and contiguous plot bearing Nos. 50 and 49 respectively. The plaintif being the member of the joint family is lookafter the afairs of the plaint schedule property since her son is in abroad by virtue of employment. Since the plaintif and their respective vendors used to enujoy the property with absolute right, title and possession continuously for over 35 years, they also perfected by adverse possession.

(b) It is further averred in the plaint that when the plaintif constructed compound wall upto the height of 3 ft., to protect the property, on 27.04.2015 the defendants and their henchmen attempted to remove the compound wall and damaged the same. On the intervention of neighbours, they left the premises and the husband of plaintif lodged a complaint with Duvvada Police in that regard. The acts of the defendants is illegal and nothing but an attempt to trespass into the property. Thus, she sought for permanent injunction against the defendants.

3.The defendants filed a common written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint inter alia contending that the 2nd defendant purchased vacant site of an extent of 161 sq.yards out of total extent of Ac.0.46 cents covered by S.No.31/7 at Duvvada Village from

Chilla Saraswathi and four others under a regd. Sale deed dt. 10.12.2014 and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same except for the intervention of plaintif when the defendants tried to 3 JCJ Court, Gajuwaka

OS.No.39/2015

construct a compound wall. The survey number of plaintif's site is

No.31/6, whereas the Survey number of defendants is 31/7. Since the plaintif and her men are occupying the property of 2nd defendant, he filed a suit OS.No.36/2015 against the husband of plaintif for permanent injunction. The plaintif filed the present case as a counter-case to support her false allegations and to grab their property illegally. The dispute with regard to the survey numbers which can be resolved with the help of a government surveyor and thus, they sought to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my predecessor-in-office for trial:

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, PW-1 was the witnesses examined and

Exs.A1 to A9 were the documents marked on behalf of the plaintif. On the other hand, the defendants did not choose to let-in either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintif and perused the material on record.

7.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:Since the Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated to each other, in order to avoid repetition, both issues are answered together.

It is the main contention of the plaintif that the properties covered under plaint schedule are Hindu joint family properties, out of which, she acquired the property described under Item No.1 and her son 4 JCJ Court, Gajuwaka

OS.No.39/2015

Chemudupaty Raghavendra Kumar, acquired Item No.2 of the suit schedule property by virtue of respective registered sale deeds and when a compound wall is constructing around the property, the defendants without any manner of right, caused interference and damaged the compound wall, as such, she sought injunction against the defendants.

8.To substantiate her case, she examined her husband Chemudipati

Narasimha Murthy as PW-1. He testified in his evidence that he is looking after the afairs of his wife, the plaintif and as his son was in abroad, he appointed him as his Attorney to lookafter his property. PW-1 reiterated the averments in the plaint in his evidence in-chief-examination. He testified that himself, his wife-plaintif and his son were the members of

Hindu Joint Family and they acquired Item No.1 of schedule property from chemudipati Sivaramaraju under a registered Gift Settlement Deed dt.29.10.2004 and since then, the plaintif has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. He further testified that his son purchased the property covered under item No.2 of the plaint schedule by virtue of a sale deed dt. 20.09.2001 and he has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. In support of his version, he exhibited Exs.A1 to A4. A perusal of Ex.A1 original Gift

Settlement Deed dt. 29.10.2004 would go to show that it was standing in favour of plaintif in respect of Item No.1 of schedule property and Ex.A2 is the link document of Ex.A1. Whereas Ex.A3 would reveal that it is standing in the name of son of plaintif and Ex.A4 is its link document in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property. A perusal of these documents would go to show that there is no doubt about the properties in dispute are covered under S.No.31/4-6 and 31/6 bearing Plot Nos.50 5 JCJ Court, Gajuwaka

OS.No.39/2015

and 49 respectively. Ex.A5 is the Encumbrance Certificate which reflects the transactions covered under Ex.A1 and A3. Therefore, the possession of plaintif over the suit schedule property was confirmed. PW-1 testified that when they constructed compound wall upto three feet height on 02.05.2015, the defendants obstructed the workers and pulled down the bricks of the compound wall on its southern side and caused damage and they also lodged a complaint with Duvvada police under Ex.A6 and receipt of complaint is filed as Ex.A7. The acts of the defendants would clearly appear in Ex.A8 photographs.

9.On the other hand, though the defendants came up with a defence contending that the 2nd defendant purchased site of an extent of 161 sq.yards vide registered sale deed dt.10.12.2014, they did not let-in any either oral or documentary evidence to buttress their contention.

Admittedly, the defendants are claiming that their property was covered under S.No.31/7, whereas the property as claimed by the plaintif covered by S.No.31/6. Since no rebuttal evidence is adduced by the defendants, the plaintif proved her case by adducing oral and documentary evidence.

10.It is well established principle of law that granting relief of injunction is discretionary and equitable. The Court has to necessarily deal with these three prerequisites i.e., firstly prima facia case, secondly balance of convenience and thirdly loss that is likely to be caused to the parties.

Apart from that the most important aspect is the question of possession of the plaintif as on the date of filing of the suit will be taken as the prime factor for consideration. Admittedly, the plaint schedule properties were in possession and enjoyment of the plaintif and her son as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintif has established her prima-facie case title 6 JCJ Court, Gajuwaka

OS.No.39/2015

and possession over the suit schedule property by adducing legally acceptable evidence and exhibiting Exs.A1 to A9.

11.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the unchallenged evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9 clearly proved the case of plaintif and her possession over the suit schedule property and thus, this

Court feels that the plaintif proved her prima-facie case and balance of convenience in her favour. The defendant did not choose to contest the suit and remained set exparte. If injunction is not granted, the defendant may cause interference with the plaintif's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and thereby the plaintif will sufer irreparable loss and on the other hand the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintif and as such the plaintif is entitled for injunction as prayed for.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

12.POINT NO.3:In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintif restraining the defendants, their men and servants from ever interfering with the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17 th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- B.Appalaswamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge/AKP,

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: Chemudipati Narasimha Murthy, - NONE- 7 JCJ Court, Gajuwaka

OS.No.39/2015

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original registered Gift Settlement Deed dt.29.10.2004 executed in favour of plaintif in respect of Item No.1 of the schedule property;

Ex.A2: Original Registered sale deed dt. 21.12.1981 in favour of Donee of plaintif in respect of Item No.1 of schedule property;

Ex.A3: Original Registered sale deed dt. 20.09.2001 in favour of the son of plaintif Raghavendra Kumar in respect of Item No.2of schedule property.

Ex.A4: Original Sale deed dt.21.12.1981 standing in the name of vendor of son of plaintif;

Ex.A5: EC dt. 27.04.2015 issued sued by SRO, Sabbavaram in respect of plaint schedule property.

Ex.A6: Report dt. 02.05.2015 given by PW-1 to Duvvada Police station;

Ex.A7: Receipt issued by the police dt.02.05.2015;

Ex.A8: four positive photographs;

Ex.A9: Notarized General Power of Attorney executed by Ch.Raghavendra Kumar in favour of PW-1 dt.12.08.2015.

FOR DEFENDANTS: -NIL-

Sd/-B.Appalaswamy,

PJCJ/AKP FAC JCJ/GWK

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Junior Civil Judge

Gajuwaka.

Monday, the 13 th day of August, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 169 / 2016

Between: Pogiri Appa Rao, late Gangulu, Hindu, aged 59 years, residing at D.No.1-5-78, Ramalayam street, Akkirieddypalem, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam District. … Plaintif

And:

Ravada Laxman Murthy, S/o late Ravada Appalaswamy, Hindu, aged not known to the petitioner, Pasiganagupeta Panchayat and Gramam, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District. … Defendant

This suit has come up on 10-08-2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri I.V.V. Gopal, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for Defendant, defendant called absent and remained exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.61,828/- (Rupees Sixty-one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight only) being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt. 26-11-2013 for Rs. 41,000/- (Rupees Forty-one thousand only) executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. with subsequent interest and costs.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.41,000/- on 26-11-2013 for his family expenses and to clear sundry debts and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under the pronote and the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 20-08-2016 to the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of pronote debt.

3.Though the defendant appeared through counsel, he did not choose to file written statements and he was set exparte.

4.To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.A1 and Ex. A2 on his behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

2

6.Now, the point that would arise for determination is:

Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

7. POINT:

The plaintiff as PW1 reiterated the averments of the plaint in his evidence in- chief examination stating that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 41,000/- (Rupees Forty-one only) on 26-11-2013 for his family expenses and clearing sundry debts and executed Ex.A1 pronote on the same date in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. He further stated that in spite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount either towards principle or interest. The defendant failed to pay any amount and he got issued Ex.A2 legal notice on 20.08.2016.

8.Admittedly, the defendant made appearance through counsel, but he did not choose to file written statements inspite of granting sufficient time and he remained exparte. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged and corroborated with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. This court has not found any reason to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff and in view of the above circumstances, this Court relied upon the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 and the plaintiff established his case and he is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for.

7. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for the suit amount of Rs.61,828/- (Rupees Sixty-one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.41,000/-(Rupees Forty-one thousand only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge/AKP,

FAC Junior Civil Judge,Gajuwaka

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: P.W1: Pogiri Appa Rao - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note for Rs.41,000/- dt: 26-11-2013. Ex.A2: Office copy of Legal Notice dt: 20-08-2016. FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL -

Sd/- B. Appala Swamy

PJCJ / AKP FAC JCJ/GWK 3

Date of presentation : 13-04-2018 Date of filing : 13-04-2018

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri B. Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Junior Civil Judge

Gajuwaka.

Friday, the 13 th day of July 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 68 / 2018

Between: Nambaru Appala Raju, S/o Chandrayya, Hindu, aged 44 years, Business, residence of D.No. 21-22-6, Seethanagaram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-

44. … Plaintif And: R. Sankar Rao, (Surname and father name of the defendant is not known to the plaintiff) Hindu, aged about 58 years, Employee in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Employee No. 115113, Deputy Technician, R/o D.No. 30-95-30/2, Appikonda Colony, Vadlapudi Post, Visakhapatnam-46. … Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,92,799/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety-two thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine only) being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dt. 04-05-2016 for

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. with subsequent interest and costs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.2,92,799/- and a court fee of Rs. 5,426/- is paid therein under Sec.20 Art 1 band c of Schedule 1 of APCF and SV Act.

This suit has come up on 06-07-2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and remained ex parte, this Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed.

2.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.2,92,799/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety-two thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine only) with future interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of decree and there from at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on Principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), and

3.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,808/- (Rupees ten thousand eight hundred and eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 13th day of August, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge/AKP.

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.

4

Memorandum of costs

For plaintiff: For Defendant: Exparte 1.Stamps on Vakalat-Rs. 2-00

2. Stamps on plaint -Rs. 5,426-00

3. Process Fees-Rs. 38-00

4. Advocate fees-Rs. 5,242-00

5. Typing Charges-Rs. 100-00 Costs allowed - Rs. 10,808-00

PJCJ/AKP FAC JCJ/GWK.

1 IV ACMMC/VSP

CC.NO.1718/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: SRI. B. APPALA SWAMY, IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Saturday, the 10th day of July, 2021

CC: 1718/2021

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before Lokadalat in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and the accused having admitted the offence, and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

a. The S.No. of the case : C.C.No.1718/2021 b. The date of commission of offence : On 18.06.2020 c. The name of the complainant :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

d. The name of the accused, parentage, residence, etc.,:

1) VELILAIDUM RAVI ROOK Address - D.No.7-1-50/1, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

2) Karikada Vishnu D.No.6-10-30, near Madhura Veedhi, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

3) Kadhithi Sagar D.No.36-9-22/36, Amarnagar, CBI Down, Visakhapatnam.

e. The offence complained of : Under Sections 188, 271, 269 r/w 34 of IPC f. The plea of the accused on their examination: Pleaded guilty 2 IV ACMMC/VSP

CC.NO.1718/2021

g. Final Order:

1.This is a Charge sheet filed by State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City against the A1 to A3 in

Cr.No. 558/2020 for the offence punishable under sections 188, 271, 269 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are:

In view of the AP Government order for control and prevention of spread of Corona Virus (COVID-19), on 18.06.2020 at III Town Police Station limits while the complainant the then Inspector of Police, III Town PS,

Visakhapatnam along with other staff was conducting vehicle checking the above noted 3 accused persons roamed on roads unnecessarily despite lockdown orders, then the Sub-Inspector of Police stopped the vehicles and asked the said A1 to A3 why are they roaming on the roads, on that A1 to A3 replied that they are roaming on roads by using their vehicles for time pass purpose, though they knew about said orders, as such they violated the quarantine rules and orders passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Then the Sub-Inspector of Police took them into custody, seized the said vehicles under cover of occurrence report as no mediators available at that time.

Basing on the occurrence report of complainant, a case in

Cr.No. 558/2020 was registered under sections 188, 271, 269 and r/w 34 IPC of III Town PS, Visakhapatnam and submitted the FIR along with original occurrence report to the court and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, the then Sub-Inspector of Police served notice u/s. 41(A) Cr.P.C., to the accused on the same day and released them. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3 IV ACMMC/VSP

CC.NO.1718/2021

3.The above case was taken into cognizance for the offence punishable

U/s 269 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.,.

4. When examined A1 to A3 under section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 269 r/w 34 IPC, they admitted voluntarily, that they committed the alleged offence. On being questioned, they did not comply any duras. I therefore, find that their admission is quite unequivocal without there being any force or compulsion. I am prima facie satisfied the admission made by the A1 to A3, which is voluntary in nature. Hence, I found the A1 to A3 guilty.

Therefore, the A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 269 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt against the

A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under section 269 r/w 34 of IPC.

XX Sd/- Sri. B. Appala Swamy IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

5.After pronouncement of the above judgment A1 to A3 are heard with regard to the sentence to be passed against them, then they pleaded mercy of this court. Taking into consideration of the plea of the accused and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the A1 to A3 are sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each [in total Rs.3,000/-] for the offence under section 269 r/w 34 IPC and indefault of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days each.

6. In the result, A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offence U/s. 269 r/w 34 of

IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted U/s.252 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I sentenced them to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each [in total Rs.3,000/-] for the offence under section 269 r/w 34 IPC and indefault of payment of fine 4 IV ACMMC/VSP

CC.NO.1718/2021

amount, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days each.

7.Property Order:- Unmarked property if any taken away by accused from police under receipt shall be holds good.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 10th day of July, 2021.

XX Sd/- Sri. B. Appala Swamy IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL- xxSd/- Sri. B. Appala Swamy IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam //True Copy//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate VisakhapatnamA 5 IV ACMMC/VSP

CC.NO.1718/2021

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

DISTRICT::VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.NO.1718/2021

Date of Offence:18.06.2020

Date of filing:01.10.2020

Date of appearance:10.07.2021

Date of Sentence/Order:10.07.2021

CALENDER & JUDGMENT in C.C.No. 1718/2021 in Cr.No. 558/2020 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Section 188, 271, 269 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused, parentage, age and residence. :

1) VELILAIDUM RAVI ROOK Address - D.No.7-1-50/1, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

2) Karikada Vishnu D.No.6-10-30, near Madhura Veedhi, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

3) Kadhithi Sagar D.No.36-9-22/36, Amarnagar, CBI Down, Visakhapatnam.

Offence:Under Section 269 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding:A1 to A3 admitted their guilt.

Sentence:In the result, A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offence U/s. 269 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted U/s.252 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I sentenced them to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each [in total Rs.3,000/-] for the offence under section 269 r/w 34 IPC and indefault of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo SI for a period of 15 days for each accused.

Property Order:Unmarked property if any taken away by accused from police under receipt shall be holds good.

Xx Sd/- Sri. B. Appala Swamy IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam //True Copy//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam