1
N THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLE
Present : Sri B.Appala Swamy
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Anakapalle
Wednesday, the 8 th day of August 2018
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.183/2011
Between:
Pentakota Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Adinarayana, Hindu, aged 61 years, retired employee, resident of Lakshminarayana Nagar, Near Dadi Veerabhadra Rao’s house, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
…..plaintif
And:
T.Janardhan Rao, S/o.not known, hindu, 50 years, D.No.3-20-1, major, building construction contractor, resident of Paradise office, Ramatalkies back side, Visakhapatnam
... Defendant ..
This suit came up on 30-7-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Learned Counsel for plaintif and Sri Ch. Tirumala Rao, Learned counsel for defendant and upon hearing both side arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, followers and henchmen from ever interfering with suit schedule property.
2)The main case of plaintif, in brief, is that, he purchased an extent of 266 sq. yards of vacant site in plot
NO.23 situated in S.No.75/2 patta No.771, Rajupalem village, under registered sale deed bearing No. 3621/85 dt. 26-8-1985 from Malla
Adinarayana. The vendor of plaintif Malla Adinarayana purchased the same from K.Ammireddy for a valid consideration of Rs. 4,000/- on 11- 2 6-1985 under registered document No. 2635/85. The vendor of plaintif delivered the possession of suit schedule property to the plaintif on 26-8-1985. Since then the plaintif has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption from anybody. The plaintif’s title and possession was perfected by adverse possession and he is absolute owner of suit schedule property.
The defendant who is building contractor constructed a building in the name and style of Vanitha Apartments in Rajupalem village.Tthe defendant is an influenced person having money and muscle power. He is having men for his support. Since a few days he threatening the plaintif to sell away the suit schedule property to him to construct an apartment for which the plaintif refused. On that the defendant bore grudge against him and threatened the plaintif with dire consequences, if the plaintif does not sell away the same, he will occupy the schedule property by force.
On 6-8-2011, the defendant came along with his henchmen and rowdy elements to the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintif with dire consequences and stating that he will occupy the schedule property by force. Immediately, the plaintif approached the police but they refused to take the action as it is a civil in nature.
Hence, he filed present suit for permanent injunction.
3)Defendant filed written statement by denying plaint averments.
The main case of defendants in brief, is that, he purchased an extent of 800 sq. yds. of landed property under a Registered Agreement of sale cum GPA 1238/2008 dt.15-4-2008 from
Chekuri Kanaka Durga in S.No.75/2 of patta No.771 at Rajupalem 3 village with salable rights with specific boundaries east – Thammayya gedda, south- land belongs to Kovvuru Ammireddy @ G.Apparao, West -Road, North – Land belongs to J.Bhaskar Rao and the defendant alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The vendor of the defendant purchased 1199.72 sq. yds under registered sale deed from
Alluri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju in the year 2005 and in turn the said Alluri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju purchased an extent of Ac 0.44 ½ cents under registered sale deed in the year 1992 from Kovvuri
Vijayalakshmi and in turn the said Vijayalakshmi purchased an extent of Ac 0.50 cents from Pilaka Satyavathi and her sons and daughter. In turn the said property belongs to mother of Pilaka Satyavathi whose name also recited in the revenue records. After purchase of property by
Alluri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju an extent of Ac 0.44 ½ cents the revenue authorities issued patadar pass books and title deed books in his favour by government. Thus, the defendant and his vendor, vendor’s vendor, vendors’ vendor’s vendor alone have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in S.No.75. In fact defendant has constructed an apartment towards further west of the property and during that time of construction of apartment only the defendant used to place his building material in the suit schedule property and thereupon has purchased the entire property in the name of defendant and one J.Bhaskar Rao has purchased the northern side of defendant’s property and also the nephew of the defendant has purchased the rest of the property under a registered sale deeds. It is crystal and clear that without any doubt the defendant has got a most valuable documentary evidence to establish the most uninterrupted 4 peaceful possession and enjoyment of his own house site since 2008 onwards and prior to 2008 the vendors of the defendant has been in absolute, continuous uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of schedule property.
The defendant purchased an extent of 800 sq. yds house site under regd.sale deed in the year 2008 being the bonafide purchaser to construct an apartment and constructed an apartment opposite to the property presently in dispute. The defendant prepared in the year 2008 to construct an apartment and performed Bhoomi Pooja. After performing Bhoomi Pooja the defendant placed building material and raised sheds by engaging a watchman namely Rajasekhar. He incurred huge amounts to safeguard the said property. At the time of bhoomi pooja he erected a board displaying the site for apartment.
The defendant and family members prepared to construct an apartment and prepared building plans for approval through an architect, while so mother of defendant died and as per Hindu sastric dharmas one should not commence any such constructions thereupon and as such till now some how the defendant could not able to start any construction activity.
The suit is is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of parties.
There are no bonafidies in this suit. The plaintif obtained only status quo orders and by disobeying the orders of the court on 27-10-2011, the plaintif highhandedly constructed foundations in the petition schedule property with the help of unlawful elements and threatened the defendant’s watchman named Rajasekhar. The defendant lodged a complaint on 27-10-2011 with regard to high handed acts of the 5 plaintif. The plaintif is a chronic litigant and his demeanor may easily be concluded by perusal of the petitions filed by the plaintif for police aid and disobedience of orders in IA 1183/11 and IA 1184/11.
The suit is not maintainable under law and the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintif approached the court with unclean hands.
Hence, he prays the court to dismiss the suit.
4)On perusal of the pleadings of both parties, this Court framed the following issues for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintif is entitled to get permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for ?
2. To what relief?
5)During course of trial, PW1 to PW4 are examined and exhibited
A1 to A5. On behalf of defendants, DW1 to DW4 are examined and
Ex.B1 and to B15 are marked.
6) Learned counsel for defendant filed written arguments and perused.
7) Heard arguments of learned counsels for both sides.
issue no.1
8)It is case of plaintif that he purchased vacant site an extent of 266 sq. yards in plot NO.23 covered in S.No.75/2 of Rajupalem village,
Anakapalle under registered sale deed dt. 26-8-1985 and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant is illegally interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over plaint schedule property.
9)In order to prove the case of plaintif, plaintif himself examined as PW1 and also examined A.Madhavarao, A.Ramana and 6
M.Adinarayana, who are 3rd parties to the suit examined as Pws 2 to
PW4.
10)As seen from the evidence of PW1 that he purchased the suit schedule property an extent of 266 sq. yards of vacant site in plot
NO.23 covered in S.No.75/2 of Rajupalem village, Anakapalle under registered sale deed dt. 26-8-1985 from its rightful owner by name
Malla Adinarayana bounded by east – plot No.24, south – 15 feet road, west – plot NO.22 and north – plot No.6 and that since the date of purchase, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption from anybody in the knowledge of one and all including the defendant. His vendor Malla
Adinarayana purchased suit schedule property from one K.Ammireddy for valid consideration under registered sale deed dt. 11-6-1985 and delivered the suit schedule property to him on the date of registration.
The defendant is a building contractor and constructing buildings in
Visakhapatnam and surrounding areas. The defendant constructing buildings in the name and style of Vanitha Apartments in Rajupalem village and he is an influenced person, having money and muscle power and men power and men support. After completion of Vanitha
Apartments he put his eye on suit schedule property and since few days prior to filing of the suit the defendant threatening him to sell away the suit schedule property and he is going to construct apartment in the property. But, PW1 expressed that he is not willing to sell the property to the defendant. Thereupon, the defendant bore grudge against him and threatened the plaintif with dire consequences, if he do not sell away the schedule property to him he 7 will occupy the schedule property by force and that on 6-8-2011, the defendant came along with his henchmen and rowdy elements to the suit schedule property and threatened him with dire consequences stating that he will occupy the schedule property by force if he did not sell the property. However, he resisted the attempts of defendant with the help of neighbors. The plaintif is under threat that the defendant may occupy the suit schedule property by force. He approached the police authorities for appropriate relief, but police refused to register the case stating that the case is civil in nature. PW2 to 4 who are 3rd parties to the suit also supported the oral evidence of PW1 and deposed about purchase of plaint schedule property by the plaintif under registered ale deed and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the defendant illegally interfering with peaceful possession and enjoymnet of plainif over plaint schedule property. To support the oral evidence, the plaintif got marked Ex.A1 original registered Sale deed dt.26-8-1985, Ex.A2 Internet extract of sale deed dt. 11-6-1985, Ex.A3 Registration extract of sale deed dt. 11- 6-1985,Ex.A4 Original receipt of vacant land tax dt. 26-7-2014 and
Ex.A5 Challan No.1263 dt.28-7-2014 for S.No.75/2 for the year 2014-
11) Whereas the defendant contending that the plaintif has no legal right, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and that the plaintif is not at all bonafide purchaser and the defendant himself has got valid title, possession and enjoyment in the knowledge of one and all including plaintif regarding his site an extent of 800 sq.
yds.
8
12)In order to establish the contention of defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B15.
13)As seen from the evidence of DW1 that the plaintif has no legal right, title, possession and enjoyment, ownership, occupation at any point of time much in the knowledge of one and all in the locality and contrary to the same plaintif is not at all bonafide purchaser and he is alone got valid, tenable title and possession much in the knowledge of one and all in the locality including the plaintif too regarding his title, as such on this score alone the suit has to be dismissed. DW1 further deposed that the plaintif has no knowledge regarding the suit schedule property and quite deliberately and intentionally has suppressed the true physical features of suit schedule property. So, also the defendant totally disputed the alleged registered sale deed said to have been obtained from his vendor and also deeply disputing the boundaries of the suit schedule property and the plaintif had never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintif alone has to prove the correctness of allegations set out in the plaint, so also the documents mentioned in the list along with plaint are not at all maintainable. It is primery duty of the plaintif to prove and establish how much extent of land purchased by him from his vendor and how much extent they have sold to others with cogent evidence, whether it is on acreage basis and how this defendant is having nexus to the present litigation and to the plaintif and who is the real owner of the alleged suit schedule property and the defendant title holds good title valid than that of the documents relied by the plaintif. The plaintif quite measurable failed to prove his possession, 9 ownership, occupation over the schedule property. He further deposed that he purchased an extent of 800 sq. yds. Of landed property under regd. Agreement of sale cum GPA dt. 15-4-2008 from Chekuri Kanaka
Durga with salable rights covered in S.No.75/2 situated at Rajupalem village, Anakapalle bounded by east – Thammayya gedda, south- land belongs to Kovvuru Ammireddy @ G.Apparao (present private road),
West -Road, North – Land belongs to J.Bhaskar Rao (present kalyana mandapam owned by P.Sankara Rao). The defendant alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till today. In turn his vendor has purchased an extent of 1199.72 sq. yds under registered sale deed from Alluri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju in the year 2005 and in turn the said Alluri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju has purchased an extent of
Ac 0.44 ½ cents under registered sale deed in the year 1992 from
Kovvuri Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Ammireddy and in turn the said
Vijayalakshmi purchased an extent of Ac 0.50 cents from Pilaka
Satyavathi and her sons and daughter. In turn the said property belongs to mother of Pilaka Satyavathi named Katakam Mangayamma whose name has been clearly recited in the revenue records. However, after purchase of property by Alluri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju an extent of Ac 0.44 ½ cents the revenue authorities issued patadar pass books and title deed books in his favour . As on today the revenue records are stands in the name of Alluri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju and confirmed by the revenue authorities by addressing a letter to the
Sub Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Rural. The defendant and his vendor, vendor’s vendor, vendors’ vendor’s vendor alone have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property covered in 10
S.No.75/2 and he has constructed an apartment towards further west of the property shown in his document and during that time of construction of apartment he used to place his building material in the suit schedule property and thereupon he purchased the entire property and one J.Bhaskar Rao has purchased the northern side of his property and also his nephew has purchased further northern side of the property through registered sale deeds. However, both of them later sold the same to P.Sankar Rao and the said Sankara Rao constructed Kalyanamandapam by keeping watchman, staf and the same is let out to needy people. DW2 to DW4 who are 3rd parties to the suit are supported the oral evidence of DW1 about his purchase under agreement of sale cum GPA and title of vendors’ vendors of the defendant.
14)To support the oral evidence of DW1 to DW4, the defendant got marked Ex.B1 Registration extract of sale deed dt. 6-6-1985, Ex.B2
Registration extract of sale deed dt. 29-2-1992, Ex.B3 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 16-8-2005, Ex.B4 Certified copy of agreement of sale cum
GPA dt. 15-4-2008, Ex.B5 Attested copy of settlement fair adangal,
Ex.B6 : Encumbrance certificate dt. 25-4-2008, Ex.B7 : Encumbrance certificate dt. 18-4-2008, Ex.B8: Approved plan (torned condition),
Ex.B9 16 photos with CD, Ex.B10 Certified copy of letter sent by SI,
Anakapalle (Rural ) P.S. dt.19-4-2016, Ex.B11 Certified copy of letter addressed by Tahsildar, Anakapalle dt.18-5-2016, Ex.B12 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 25-6-2014 in favour of DW4, Ex.B13 Certified copy of
Registered agreement of sale with GPA dt.3-1-2008 in favour of
K.Dilleswara Rao, vendor of DW4, Ex.B14 Certified copy of agreement 11 of sale with GPA dt. 3-1-2008 in favour of J.Bhaskara Rao, vendor of
DW3 and Ex.B15 Certified copy of sale deed in the name of
K.Ammireddy, vendor of PW4.
15)Learned counsel for plaintif argued that the plaintif purchased plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 registered sale deed dt.26-8- 1985 from its lawful owner by name Malla Adinrayana and that his vendor purchased the same from its lawful owner and that since the date of purchase the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights by paying taxes to the government. The defendant is a building contractor under name and style of Vanitha Apartments who is influenced person having money, muscle and with support of men asked the plaintif to sell away the suit schedule property. On his refusal, the defendant illegally interfered with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintif over the suit schedule property without any manner of right, title. The documents filed by plaintif under Ex.A1 to A5 clearly and conclusively established the right, title and possession of plaintif over the plaint schedule property.
16)Per contra learned counsel for defendant filed written arguments and argued that the plaintif has no right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and that the defendant alone has got valid, title, possession over the site an extent of 800 sq.
yds. In sy no 75/2 which was purchased by the defendant under registered sale agreement cum GPA dt 15-4-2008 from its rightful owner with specific boundaries and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. His vendors’ vendors vendors have valid title 12 over the property covered in S.NO.75/2 situated at Rajupalem village and that in fact defendant has constructed an apartment towards further west of the property and during that time of construction of apartment only the defendant used to place his building material in the suit schedule property and thereupon has purchased the entire property in the name of defendant and one J.Bhaskar Rao has purchased the northern side of defendant’s property and also the nephew of the defendant has purchased the rest of the property under a registered sale deeds. It is crystal and clear that without any doubt the defendant has got a most valuable documentary evidence to establish the most uninterrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment of his own house site since 2008 onwards and prior to 2008 the vendors of the defendant has been in absolute, continuous uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of property covered under
Ex.B4. The documents filed by the defendants under Ex.B1 to B15 clearly and conclusively proves that the defendant purchased site an extent of 800 sq. yds. from its lawful owners and his vendors also having valid title over the said property. More particularly, Ex.B10 clearly proves the possession of the defendant for the site an extent of 800 sq. yds. In S.No.75/2 of Rajupalem.
17)The learned counsel for defendant relied upon the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1977 SC 1712 in para
16 where in their lordships held that , if admission is proved and it is therefore to be used against the party who has made it, the question comes within the provisions of Sec. 145 of Evidence Act. He further relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 2179 in para 11 13 wherein their lordships held that under Order 6 Rule 2 of CPC variances between pleadings and proof the pleadings of parties from the foundation of their case and it is not open to them to give up the case set out in the pleadings and propound a new and diferent case, and he further relied upon the decision reported in 2005 ALT page 36 in para 10 where in his lordship held it is well settled that the allegation not pleaded cannot be examined even if there is a evidence in support thereof, and the learned counsel for defendant further relied on a decision reported in 2004 SC 4665 para 8 wherein their Lordships held that plaintif can succeed only on the evidence to establish his own case but not on the weakness of defendant, and further relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1966 AP 260 para No.9 wherein his
Lordship held that parties c could lead extrinsic evidence to show what was the true state of afairs ,that is to say, whether the whole land is laying within the boundaried discribed was taken possession of land enjoyed in fact or only the eftent specified was taken possession of and enjoyed ,and he further relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 632 PARA 3 U/Sec. 57 of Evidence Act court bound to take notice of subsequent events and mould relief. He further relied upon the decision reported in 2012 ALD page NO.768 in para 10 in suit for injunction the burden squarely rests upon the plaintif to prove his possession over the schedule property. Apart from proving possession, he must also convenience the court as to the existence of semblance of right on him vis a vis the property. The reason is that if a person is in possession of property, without there being any right in him, and as a trespasser, he cannot be granted the relief of injunction against the 14 true owner. The possession over the vacant site land is mostly established through the extracts in revenue records.
18)To support the oral evidence of DW1, the defendant examined
DW2 to 4 who are 3rd parties to the suit also supported the oral evidence of DW1 about his purchase and about title of the his vendors.
19)Having perused the evidence of PW1 it is nothing but replica of contents of the plaint averments. Similarly in respect of the evidence of PW2 and 3 who are 3rd party to the suit whose evidence is consisting regarding purchase of property by the plaintif and interfering of the defendant over the suit schedule property. PW4 who is vendor of the plaintif in respect of the plaint schedule property also deposed about sale of plaint schedule property to the plaintif under Ex.A1 from him.
20)On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 who categorically admitted in cross examination that he has seen the defendant in the year 2011 much prior to filing of the suit. He further admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed any layout plan into the court to whom with his vendor has obtained layout approval and made land into plots. To substantiate the claim of the plaintif through PW4, he examined the vendor as PW4. PW4 admitted that Ammireddy made land into plots even assuming the land purchased by Ammireddy converted from agricultural land to non agricultural land and there must be some proceedings obtained from RDO By paying requisite fee to the government. In the absence of specific proceedings claim of the plaintif otherwise land made into plots is not believable. PW1 also admitted during cross examination that the plaint schedule property is vacant site and Ex.A4 and A5 are vacant land tax receipts and challans 15 pertaining to the year 2014 which are subsequent to the filing of the suit. Ex.A4 and A5 are not confirming the possession of the plaintif as on the date of filing of the suit. For the assuming that he paid vacant tax through Ex.A4 and A5 and there must be some proceedings to assess the tax. Those proceedings were not filed into the court.
Therefore, Ex.A4 and A5 has no legal sanctity and it is a proof of payment of tax to the schedule property subsequent to filing of the suit. PW1 further admitted that he has not filed any documents regarding schedule property and admitted that the defendant constructed plots in the name and style of Vanitha Apartments and plaint schedule property and apartments separated by road which leads from north to south leads to National high way. Whereas the evidence of DW2 categorically established that he along with
Dilleswara Rao purchased property an extent of 535.88 sq. yds. And 266 sq. yds. Which is situated northern side of the Ex.B4 and that both himself and said Dilleswara Rao in turn sold out the property to one
Sankara Rao and the said Sankara Rao constructed a function hall. His evidence further shows that the vendors’ vendor of Ex.A1 was purchased an extent of Ac 0.50 cents of land in S.No.75/2 dt.10-6-1985 and showing the northern boundary as land of Vijaya Lakshmi who is none other than wife of Ammireddy, whereas Vijayalakshmi purchased the same from Pilaka Satyavathi under regd. Sale deed dt. 6-6-1985 which is prior to this transaction.
21)PW1 also admitted during cross examination that he did not lodge any report before police when the defendant tried to dispossess him from the schedule property and issuing any legal notice claiming 16 right over the schedule property. Further PW1 admitted that the defendant purchased several vacant sites in and around plaint schedule property and he also admitted that there is a function hall constructed by Sankara Rao towards northern side of the plaint schedule property. Whereas in the plaint schedule property, towards northern boundary site is plot No.6, but no evidence to whom hold by alleged plot NO.6. As per the admissions made by the PW1 during cross examination that there is a function hall, towards northern side of his site. The evidence of DW1 is that he along with one Dilleswara Rao sold more than 800 sq. yds. to one Sankara Rao who in turn constructed function hall on northern side of the site covered under
Ex.B4. But, to discard the evidence of DW2 regarding the same transaction to P.Sankara Rao, there is no suggestion put to him that he had no landed property along with Dilleswara Rao much less than the property shown towards northern side. It is already discussed that no plots confirmed by the vendors’ vendor of Ammireddy. In fact
K.Ammireddy after his purchase sold the same on the next day i.e. on 11-6-1985 to PW4 by name Adinarayana. Therefore, the question of either conversion of land from construction, from agricultural land to non agricultural land or layout approval by VUDA or panchayat does not arise. However, PW4 admitted in cross examination that he purchased land from vendors of Ammireddy on acres but not on either way of plots or sq.yds. Therefore their own evidence goes to show that there is no such plots as on Ex.A1 transaction. The evidence of PW2 and 3 who are 3rd parties to the suit proceedings supported the version of plaintif regarding purchase of land from his vendors Malla 17
Adinarayana i.e. PW4 and possession of plaintif, where as PW2 in cross examination admitted that neither he is witness nor scribe of a document filed by the plaintif including Ex.A1.
22)Pw2 deposed that there is a gedda towards eastern side of the schedule property, where as the property claimed by the plaintif towards eastern side of plot No.24. PW2 further admitted that he never seen the defendant but he has seen his men and other persons who are appeared when the plaintif and his wife at the schedule property. But he failed to depose the date of alleged incident.
Therefore, the presence of PW2 on the alleged cause of action and witnessing the evidence found to be false and far away from the truth.
Therefore, his evidence cannot be considered regarding the occurrence of incident as deposed by the PW1 that the defendant and his men illegally trespassed into the suit schedule property.
23)Whereas the evidence of PW3 is concerned, he admitted that he has not perused the document of plaintif’s vendor Adinarayana. But, he deposed that he is an employee in Port trust, Visakhapatnam and he further admitted that neither he is a witness nor scribe of Ex.A1 document. He deposed that Adinarayana got constructed Vanitha
Apartments. Therefore, his evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of PW1 regarding construction of apartments under the name and style of Vanitha Apartments.
24)PW4 who is none other than vendor of PW1 stated in cross examination that his vendor’s vendor by name Pilaka Satyavathi converted her above 3 acres of land into plots with the approval of
Rajupalem Panchayat and sold the same in acreage basis and he did 18 not made lay out to his 7 vendees. On the other hand, the evidence of
DW1 who reiterated the contents of written statement that plaintif was not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the ground of oral evidence is not suppressed by virtue of
Sec 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act.
25)Learned counsel for plaintif cross examined at length to DW1 but nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of DW1. DW1 categorically deposed that the boundaries of property covered under
Ex.B4 towards eastern side property Thammayya gedda, southern side of property belongs to Kovvuru Ammireddy @ G.Apparao, Western side of property -Road, Northern side of property – Land belongs to
J.Bhaskar Rao (present kalyana mandapam owned by P.Sankara Rao).
DW4 deposed in his evidence that his vendor is CH.Kanaka Durga. DW1 denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for plaintif regarding his illegal interference over the schedule property. To suggest the suggestions to DW1 no documentary evidence is produced or oral evidence adduced to establish that the vendor’s vendor by name Vijayalakshmi under Ex.A4 sold out Ac 0.21 cents of land prior to the vendor’s vendor document. Therefore, without any evidence his evidence cannot be considered.
26)DW1 further stated that subsequent to filing of the suit, the son of PW2 A.Madhavarao who is Ex.Surpucnh by name Apparao of
Rajupalem panchayat who came to property covered under Ex.B4 and tried to dug pits and tried to raise piller construction. Immediately, the defendant resisted his acts and instructed DW2 J Bhaskara Rao who lodged complaint before Anakapalle Rural P.S., Basing on the report, 19 police registered the case in Cr.NO.27/16 U/Sec. 506,427,447 IPC and same is under investigation. Therefore, Anakapalle Rural P.S. sent a requisition to Tahsildar, Anakapalle with a request to enquire into the matter and inform the details of ownership of the property in question, in turn the Tahsildar, Anakapalle got enquired the same through
Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor and reported that the land belongs to the defendant covered under S.No.75/2 an extent of 800 Sq.Yds. As per the registered document, Alluri Venkata
Suryanarayana Raju who is vendor of defendant is pattadar to an extent of 44.5 cents. Therefore as per Ex.B10, it is evident that DW1 is lawful owner and he is in physical possession of the property for an extent of 800 sq,. Yds. Which was purchased from his vendor’s vendor
K.Vijaya Lakshmi. The evidence of DW2 who is 3rd party to the suit that he is looking after the afairs of DW1 regarding the landed property as
DW1 is not well versed with the Telugu who to depose the contents of written statement. Though he was at length cross examined by the learned counsel for plaintif nothing can be elicited against the interest of defendant’s case. Except deposed that he along with one Dilleswara
Rao sold out of property more than an extent of 800 sq. yds. to
P.Sankara Rao who in turn raised construction of function hall, the same is also deposed by PW1 and PW4. DW2 further deposed that vendor under Ex.B4 purchased site an extent of 1199.72 sq. yds from
Alluri Venkata Suryanarayana Raju and A.V.Subbaraju under Ex.B3 and the name of vendor under Ex.B3 was mutated in the revenue records and was issued pattadar pas book and title deeds. Though the learned counsel put the question that K.Vijayalakshmi sold the said 0.17 cents 20 to K.Devaki under regd. Sale deed dt. 3-2-1986, his answer is that he do not know. When the counsel for plaintif put such question it is for him to place lawful record to prove that the vendors’ vendor under
Ex.B4 K.Vijaya Lakshmi sold out of 0.17 cents prior to the transaction with the vendors under Ex.B3. Though DW3 admitted during cross examination that the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property but the fact remains the documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of DW 1 to 4 established that the plaintif was not in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit or prior to that. Therefore, his evidence established that DW1 was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property covered under Ex.B4. It is not the case of plaintif that part of the property was covered under Ex.B4 is the property covered under Ex.A1. It is specific case of the plaintif that the property covered under Ex.A1 is distant and diferent from that of
Ex.B4. In such a case it is for the plaintif to establish not only lawful possession but also right, title of property. When the defendant specifically pleaded in written statement neither the plaintif nor his vendors vendor of title to the property. Admittedly, no objection filed to amend the plaint. The suit is filed for injunction. In suit for injunction lawful possession is only significant, but incidentally the court may looked into title. As seen from the evidence of DW3, who is no other than Ex.Surpunch of Rajupalem Panchayat that DW1 purchased land through Ex.B4 to an extent of 800 sq. yds. from Ch. Kanaka Durga and same was put into possession and she is enjoying the same without anybody interruption. He further deposed that towards northern side of 21
Ex.B1 property, DW2 J.Bhaskara Rao and one Dilleswara Rao who too purchased property from the vendors vendor of Ex.B4 and they sold out an extent of 800 sq. yds. to one P.Sankara Rao and the said
Sankara Rao constructed a function hall. He further deposed that originally the property purchased by Smt K.Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.
Ammireddy from Pilaka Satyavathi under regd. Sale deed dt. 6-6-1985 which is prior to this transaction. Therefore, it is evident that K.Vijaya
Lakshkmi sold out her property an extent of 44.5 cents to Alluri
Venkata Suryanarayana Raju and in turn they sold an extent 1199.72 sq. yds to the vendor under Ex.B4. During cross examination he consistently deposed nothing in vengeancy,when he is 3rd party to the transaction and he is Ex.Surpunch the suit is for perpetual injunction only significance is lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit.
It is for the plaintif to establish his lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit. When the plaintif himself admitted that the plaint schedule property is vacant site, the plaintif is claiming through Ex.A1 document. Further more he admitted before the court during his cross examination that he is not filed any document to show his possession over the plaint schedule property by the time of filing of the suit. When the disputed property is a vacant site principle is that possession follows title. Two persons claim put in possession of vacant site, in such a case it may be necessary to examine and determine the title for deciding the de sure possession in such a situation title is clear and simple, the court may decided on that issue of title. So to decide the question of de issue even for a suit is for mere injunction. It is case on hand the suit schedule property is vacant site both parties to the suit 22 filed documentary evidence to establish their lawful title failed to establish and possession and entire evidence lead by the parties concerned both oral and documentary evidence. It is settled principle of law that the plaintif cannot depend on the weakness of the defendant and it is duty of the plaintif to establish his case with cogent evidence. There is no such plot either on 11-6-1985 or 12-6- 1985, in such a case it is duty of plaintif to establish that he was in lawful possession over the plaint schedule property within the boundaries shown in present case. Hence, upon foregoing discussion and gone through the above legal possession submitted by the defendant, this court holds that the plaintif failed to establish his possession over the plaint schedule property though cogent evidence as on the date of filing of the suit and the plaintif also failed to established the illegal interference of the defendant over the plaint schedule property . Hence, he is not entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.
Issue NO.2
To what relief ?
27)In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 8th day of August, 2018.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli 23
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintifs For Defendants
P.W.1 :P.Suryanarayana DW1: T.Janardhana Rao
P.W.2 : A.Madhavarao DW2: J.Bhaskar Rao
PW3 : A.Ramana DW3 : K.Satyanarayana
PW4 : M.Adinarayana DW4: P.Sankara Rao
Exhibits Marked For Plaintifs
Ex.A1 : Regd. Sale deed dt. 26-8-1985
Ex.A2 : Internet extract of the statement of sale deed dt. 11-6-1985
Ex.A3 : Registration extract of sale deed dt. 11-6-1985
Ex.A4 : Original receipt of vacant land tax dt. 26-7-2014
Ex.A5 : Challan No.1263 dt. 28-7-2014 for S.No. 75/2 for the year 2014- 15
Defendants
Ex.B1 : Registration extract of sale deed dt. 6-6-1985
Ex.B2 : Registration extract of sale deed dt. 29-2-1992
Ex.B3 : Certified copy of sale deed dt. 16-8-2005
Ex.B4 : Certified copy of agreement of sale cum GPA dt. 15-4-2008
Ex.B5 : Attested copy of settlement fair adangal
Ex.B6 : Encumbrance certificate dt. 25-4-2008
Ex.B7 : Encumbrance certificate dt. 18-4-2008
Ex.B8: Approved plan (torned condition)
Ex.B9: 16 photos with CD
Ex.B10: Certified copy of letter sent by SI, Anakapalle (Rural ) P.S. dt.
19-4- 2016 24
Ex.B11 : Certified copy of letter addressed by Tahsildar, Anakapalle dt.
18-5-2016
Ex.B12 : Certified copy of sale deed dt. 25-6-2014 in favour of DW4
Ex.B13 : Certified copy of Registered agreement of sale with GPA dt.
3-1-2008 in favour of K.Dilleswara Rao, vendor of DW4
Ex.B14 : Certified copy of agreement of sale with GPA dt. 3-1-2008 in favour of J.Bhaskara Rao, vendor of DW3
Ex.B15 : Certified copy of sale deed in the name of K.Ammireddy, vendor of PW4
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli 25
Copy of schedule is hereto enclosed to this Decree in
O.S.No.485/2006.
P.J.C.J., AKP.,