1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER.
Present: Smt. B.Baby Rani,
Prl. Junior Civil Judge,
Piler.
Tuesday, this the Twenty Seventh (27th ) day of March, 2018.
O.S.No. 93 of 2015
Between
1. Smt.Chekatipalli Salamma
2. Smt.C.Ramanamma…Plaintiffs.
And
1. Kotakonda Krishnaiah (died)
2. C.Ramakrishna
3. Kamalapuram Raja Reddy
4. Smt.Putta Lakshmi
5. Srosailam Vemanarayana
6. Smt.K.Saradamma
7. K.Gangadhar
8. K.Ganesh (Nos.6 to 8 are legal representatives of D.1, added as per orders in I.A.No.13/2013, dt.30.08.2013). …Defendants
This suit is coming up on 28.02.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Chinna Reddeppa, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri M.R.Venkataramana Reddy, Advocate for Defendants 3 to 5, Sri T.Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate for Defendants 6 to 8, the Defendant No.1 died and the Defendant No.2 remained exparte, and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for declaration of right and title of plaintiffs over plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the 2 defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that – The plaint schedule property originally belongs to one Cheekatipalli Munemma, D/o Nagadu, resident of Vaddi palli, H/o Bodumalluvaripalli of the then Vayalpad
Taluk. While the above said C.Munemma was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, C.Venkataswamy, S/o
Thimmana Boyudu who is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of 2nd plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property for valid consideration of Rs.50/ under a registered sale deed, dt.20.08.1943 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights of ownership by raising crops to the knowledge of the entire villagers, thus the said C.Venkataswamy perfected his right and title over the plaint schedule property by way of adverse possession also.
While so, the above said C.Venkataswamy died intestate on 31.01.2007 leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as his legal heirs to succeed his entire estate, and thus the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are succeeded the plaint schedule property by way of succession and after the death of the said C.Venkataswamy the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is situated in the main road leading from Yellamanda to Piler. While the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property, when the plaintiffs are laying fencing for plaint schedule 3 property to protect the crops, the 1st defendant objected the plaintiffs by denying the right of the plaintiffs by saying that he also obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour and hence immediately the plaintiffs preferred a revenue appeal in ROC.A2/190/2010 before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, for cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed and after observing the facts and circumstances in the above case, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli was pleased to stay the pattadar pass book and title deed stands in the name of 1st defendant until further orders on 11.01.2010.
After passing of the orders by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madanapalli, suppressing the fact of the above orders, the 1st defendant with active collusion of the defendants 2 to 5 seriously tried to create some antedated, nominal and collusive documents in respect of the plaint schedule property and thus the plaintiffs are forced to issue a legal notice, on 06.09.2011 through their advocate to the 1st defendant, 3rd defendant, to the husband of 4th defendant and also to the 5th defendant calling upon them not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and also calling upon them not to create any document in respect of plaint schedule property. The defendant No.1, 3rd defendant, the husband of 4th defendant and also the 5th defendant received the said notice and issued a reply notice with all false allegations denying the plaintiff’s right and title through their advocate on 19.09.2011.
4
The defendants 1 to 5 who has no manner of right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property, on 30.05.2012, when the plaintiffs are doing veeding out operation in the plaint schedule property, tried to obstruct the plaintiffs from doing so. The neighbours chastised the defendants and directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. While leaving, the defendants stated that they will dispossess the plaintiffs from interfering with the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs are forced to file this suit for declaration and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over plaint schedule property.
3.The defendants 3 to 5 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the suit survey number 734/1 which is an extent of Ac 1.09 cents with specific boundaries is owned and possessed by one Vadde Cheekatipalli Venkata Boyadu, S/o Papanna
Boyadu of Bodumalluvaripalli village and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights of ownership. While so, on 20.11.1941, the said Vadde Cheekatipalli Venkata Boyadu sold the said land of Ac 1.09 cents with specific boundaries to one Vadde Kotakonda
Venkata Boyadu, S/o Ganganna Boyadu for valid consideration of Rs.30/ and executed a registered sale deed in favour of said Vadde Cheekatipalli
Venkata Boyadu and delivered possession of said property to the said vendee. Since the date of purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Vadde Cheekatipalli Venkata Boyadu died intestate 5 leaving behind his two sons and daughters as his legal heirs. After the demise of said Venkata Boyadu, his two sons namely Kotakonda
Venkatramaiah, Kotakonda Krishnaiah, daugthers Lakshmamma,
Gangulamma, Yellamma succeeded the estate of their father including the property covered under the sale deed, dt.20.11.1941. Since then, the legal representatives of said venkata Boyadu were in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of Ac 1.09 cents with absolute rights of ownership. The government also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of
Kotakonda Krishnaiah (D.1) in respect of the said land after due enquiry.
Thus, Kotakonda Krishnaiah and his family members have been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of Ac 1.09 cents in suit Sy.No.734/1 of Bodumalluvaripalli Revenue Village.
While so, on 16.08.2017, the said legal representatives of Kotakonda
Gangana Boyadu sold the said land of Ac 1.09 cents in suit Sy.No.734/1 of Bodumalluvaripalli with specific boundaries to K.Bodi Reddy and
Bodumallu Harinatha Reddy for valid consideration of Rs.45,000/ and executed a regd. Sale deed in their favour and delivered possession of the same to the said vendees. Since then, the said Bodi Reddy and
Bodumallu Harinadha Reddy were in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under the said sale deed, dt.16.08.2007. On 15.09.2008, the defendants 3 to 5 purchased the land of Ac 1.09 cents in suit survey number 734/1 from the said Bodi Reddy and B.Harinatha
Reddy for valid consideration of Rs.55,000/ under a regd. Sale deed, dt.15.09.2008 and the said vendors delivered possession of said land to 6 the defendants 3 to 5. Since the date of purchase, these defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops etc., with absolute rights of ownership. The plaintiffs have no any manner of right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property and they are not entitled to claim the suit property. The defendants gave a reply notice that they fenced to their extent of Ac 1.09 cents in suit Sy.No.734/1 to prevent encroachments and also raised horse gram in the said property 15 days prior to the issuance of reply notice. The defendants 3 to 5 regularly raising crops and harvesting the same. The defendants 3 to 5 constructed 4 ankanams of shed in the property which they purchased. The plaintiffs have no any manner of right, title or possession over the extent of Ac 1.09 cents in Sy.No.734/1.
4.Defendant No.6 filed his written statement and it was adopted by
D.7 and D.8 by filing memo denying the averments of the plaint and contended that C.Venkataswamy, who is the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac 1.25 cents in suit survey number, without specific boundaries from one C.Munemma under a registered sale deed, dt.20.08.1943 and obtained possession from his vendor. The above said C.Venkataswamy sold an extent of Ac 1.50 cents in suit survey number without specific boundaries under a registered sale deed, dt.27.03.1957 to one V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o Konda Reddy and delivered possession to him on the same date. Though the said
C.Venkataswamy has only Ac 1.25 cents in suit survey number, he has sold an extent of Ac 1.50 cents to V.Chandrasekhar Reddy. As the said 7
C.Venkataswamy sold away the entire extent purchased by him under the sale deed, dt.20.08.1943, the said Venkataswamy himself has no land in suit survey number. So, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any right in the suit land as legal heirs of said C.Venkataswmay. The said
V.Chandrasekhar Reddy in turn sold an extent of Ac 1.05 cents in the suit survey number to one Cheekatipalle Thimmana Boyudu under a registered sale deed, dt.10.06.1959 and delivered possession to him on the very same day.
The said Cheekatipalle Thimma Boyudu in turn sold the entire extent purchased by him to one Dandu Thimma reddy, S/o Dandu
Chengal reddy under a registered sale deed, dt.22.10.1959 and delivered possession to him on the very same day. The said Dandu Thimma Reddy,
S/o Dandu Chengal Reddy, in turn sold away the entire extent purchased by from the C.Thimmana Boyudu to Kotakonda Ganganna Boyudu, S/o
K.Venkata Boyudu under a regd. Sale deed, dt.21.04.1960 and delivered possession to him on the date of purchase itself. Since the date of purchase Kotakonda Ganganna Boudu was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Kotakonda Ganganna Boyudu died long back leaving behind him his sons i.e., 1st defendant and one
K.Venkatramana to succeed his entire estate including Ac 1.05 cents which he got under regd. Sale deed, dt.21.04.1960. Thus, the 1st defendant and his brother became entitled to Ac 1.05 cents which was purchased by their father Late Kotakonda Ganganaboyudu.
8
The 1st defendant during his lifetime, sold different extents to different third parties in the suit survey number including the extent which he got through succession in the suit survey number besides afore said Ac 1.05 cents. Now, the 1st defendant family owns only Ac 0.23 cents in suit survey number. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs much less for the declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
Defendants 3 to 5 filed additional written statement denying the death of D.1 on 21.11.2012 during the pendency of the suit and contended that the suit valuation is not correct and prays to dismiss the suit.
Defendant No.2 remained exparte on 14.08.2013. D.1 died, D.6 to
D.8 were added as his legal heirs as per orders in I.A.No.13/2013, dt.30.08.2013.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issued are framed for trial :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are having right and title over the plaint schedule property or not ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of his right and title over the plaint schedule property or not ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for ?
4. To what relief ?
9
6.To substantiate the case of plaintiffs, P.Ws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 are marked. To prove the contention of defendants,
D.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 are marked.
7.Issue No.1 and 2 :
To prove the contention of plaintiffs, they have to establish that they are having legal right and title over the suit schedule property and are in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule proeprty as on the date of filing of the suit and there is a threat or invasion or interference by the defendant and she approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands.
8.To substantiate the contention of plaintiffs, 2nd plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. Ex.A.1 is the sale deed, dt.20.08.1943. Ex.A.2 is served copy of stay orders of Revenue Divisional
Officer, Madanapalle, dt.11.01.2010. Ex.A.3 is office copy of legal notice, dt.06.09.2011. Ex.A.4 is served copy of reply notice, dt.19.09.2011. In her cross examination, she deposed that the suit survey number is 734 for an extent of Ac 1.34 cents. Her father purchased the suit schedule proeprty in the year 1943 i.e., Ac 1.25 cents under Ex.A.1. The boundaries to suit schedule property are East – PVS Mohana Lakshmi
Kumar, West – Yellamanda Road, South – Varanadi Kalavathamma site,
North – M.Krishna Reddy. The total extent of Sy.No.734 is Ac 6.96 cents of Bodumalluvaripalli Revenue Village. One Chikatipalle Venkta boyudu,
S/o Papanna Boyudu has got Ac 1.09 cents in suit survey number. She 10 cannot say the boundaries of Ac 1.09 cents. She know that one Bodi
Reddy and B.Harinadha Reddy purchased the said Ac 1.09 cents from the
L.Rs of Kotakonda Venkata Boyudu. She do not know whether D.2 to D.5 purchased the property from Bodi Reddy and Harinadha Reddy under a registered sale deed, dt.15.09.2008 and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till today. She admitted that the defendants 2 to 5 constructed asbestos sheeted shed on their south – west corner, in her land. She denied the suggestion that she filed for the property situated on the eastern side of Piler Yellamanda road and not west of the said road. The said shed was constructed on the west of Piler –
Yellamanda road. She denied the suggestion that the defendants 2 to 5 constructed the said shed in their site purchased by them. The boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule property are correct and it is situated on the eastern side of Piler – Yellamanda road. The suit survey number was subdivided into three divisions i.e., Sy.No.734/1 for Ac 1.20 cents, Sy.No.734/2 is road to an extent of Ac 0.4 or 0.5 cents,
Sy.No.734/3 Ac 0.23 cents. Remaining extents belongs to other persons which is not subdivided. She denied the suggestion that her father sold
Ac 1.25 cents to V.Chandra Sekahr Reddy in the year 27.03.1957 under regd. Sale deed for valuable consideration and V.Chandrasekhar Reddy in turn sold the said property to C.Thimmana Boyudu who is her grandfather under regd. Sale deed, dt.01.06.1959. She denied the suggestion that her grandfather sold Ac 1.05 cents to Dandu Thimma
Reddy under Registered Sale deed, dt.22.10.1959. She denied the suggestion that the said Dandu Thimma Reddy sold to Kotakonda 11
Gangana Boyudu under regd. Sale deed, dt.21.04.1960. Apart from suit schedule property, she had got Ac 0.20 cents in suit survey number. But she did not file any document to show that she has got Ac 0.20 cents apart from plaint schedule property. Sy.No.734/2 was acquired by the government to lay road from Yellamanda to Piler. Out of Ac 1.25 cents in
Sy.No.734 only, the road was laid in her property. Her property is situated on either side of the said road. She did not mention the specific boundaries for the properties situated on either side of the said road.
Roc.A2/190/2010 was filed against K.Krishnaiah. She denied the suggestion that though her father has got Ac 1.25 cents, he sold away Ac 1.50 cents to V.Chandrasekhar Reddy on 27.03.1957 under a registered sale deed and handed over the original documents to said V.Chandra
Sekhar and not eaten by white ants. She denied the suggestion that Ac 0.23 cents in Sy.No.734 belongs to D.6 to D.8 and not belongs to her.
9.P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are third parties filed chief affidavit and later their evidence was eschewed.
10.P.W.4 who is third party filed his chief affidavit supporting the evidence of P.W.1. In his cross examination, he deposed that the suit survey number is 734 and the total extent is Ac 1.75 cents and above. The said survey number was not subdivided and the total extent belongs to the father of 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiff only enjoying the total extent of suit survey number. He do not know from whom the husband of plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property. Prior to 10 years, he has got land near to the suit schedule property. He know that one Munemma 12
Venkataswamy purchased the property and he came to know the same through the villagers. He never signed as an attestor in Ex.A.1. The suit schedule property is situated on the east and western side of Yellamanda,
Piler road. The boundaries of suit schedule property are East – Surendra
Reddy, West – Rompicherla Baby, North – Viswanadha Reddy, South –
Surendra Reddy and Chandra. To his knowledge, the 2nd plaintiff’s father never sold the suit schedule property. He do not know whether D.3 to D.5 were enjoying Ac 1.09 cents after purchasing from Bodi Reddy and
Harinadha Reddy. He heard that one Venkata Boyudu purchased an extent of AC 1.09 cents from Vadde Chekatapalli Venkataboyudu on 20.11.1941. He hard that Bodireddy and Harinadha Reddy sold Ac 1.09 cents to D.3 to D.5. D.1 is son of Kotakonda Venkataboyudu. He denied the suggestion that Venkataswamy purchased Ac 1.75 cents and not Ac 1.25 cents. He denied the suggestion that Venkataswamy sold Ac 1.50 cents instead of Ac 1.25 cents to V.Chandrasekhar Reddy under regd. Sale deed, dt.27.03.1957 and in turn V.Chandrasekhar reddy sold Ac 1.05 cents to C.Thimmana Boyadu who in turn sold Ac 1.05 cents to Dandu
Thimma Reddy under regd. Sale deed, dt.22.10.1959 and Thimma reddy sold to Kotakonda Gangana Boyadu under regd. Sale deed, dt.21.04.1960.
He denied the suggestion that D.6 to D.8 are having land in suit survey number and other survey numbers. He admitted that through suit schedule property a road is leading from Piler to Yellamanda and to the either side of road, suit survey number is there. Plaintiffs filed documents to show their possession over suit schedule property i.e., title deed, pattadar pass book and 1B namuna. The total extent of suit survey 13 number is Ac 6.90 cents. He denied the suggestion that in the year 1957 itself, Venktaswamy, husband of 1st plaintiff sold the suit schedule property and plaintiffs have no right over the same.
11.The 3rd defendant filed his chief affidavit as D.W.1 and got marked
Exs.B.1 to B.4. Ex.B.1 is registration copy of regd. Sale deed, dt.20.11.1941 executed by Vadde Cheekatipalli Venkata Boyadu, S/o
Papanna Boyadu in favour of Vadde Venkata Boyadu, S/o Ganganna
Boyadu bearing Document No.1726/1941. Ex.B.2 is pattadar pass book issued in favour of 1st defendant. Ex.B.3 is registered sale deed, dt.16.08.2007 executed by the 1st defendant and his brother in favour of
K.Bod Reddy and Bodumallu Harinatha Reddy. Ex.B.4 is registered sale deed, dt.15.09.2008 executed by K.Bod Reddy and Bodumallu Harinatha
Reddy in favour of defendants 3 to 5.
12.In his cross examination, he deposed that the total extent of
Sy.No.734/1 is Ac 6.96 cents. Out of Ac 6.96 cents, he purahsed Ac 1.09 cents under regd. Sale deed from Harinatha Reddy and Bodireddy under
Ex.B.4. He denied the suggestion that their property and the property of plaintiff are separate properties and without having any right, unnecessarily they are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The boundaries of the property covered under Ex.B.4 are East – Yellamanda road, West – Cheekatipalle
Reddeppa, North – Viswanatha Reddy and South – Narayana. He denied the suggestion that they are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sold their land to 14 one Chandrasekhar Reddy in the year 1957 itself and claiming their land.
He did not file any document to show that the plaintiffs sold the said property in the year 1957. He denied the suggestion that the 1st plaintiff’s husband died in the year 2007 and he purchased property in the year 2008. He denied the suggestion that the 1st plaintiff’s husband purchased suit schedule property in the year 1943 under Ex.A.1 and since then the plaintiffs have been enjoying the said property till today. He do not know whether the plaintiffs filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the pattadar pass book issued in favour of deceased defendant
No.1 and obtained stay orders.
13.D.W.2 filed chief affidavit supporting the evidence of D.W.1. In his cross examination, he deposed that the suit survey number is 734 and its total extent is Ac 6.86 cents and the suit property is Ac 1.09 cents.
Originally Ac 1.09 cents belongs to Cheekatipalle Venkatramaiah who sold the same to Kotakonda Krishnaiah in the year 1941. Kotakonda
Krishnaiah sold Ac 1.09 cents to Bodireddy and Harinatha Reddy. He verified the records of Ac 1.09 cents as he is doing real estate business and intended to purchase the same and due to that he verified the documents. He denied the suggestion that as per record, the plaintiffs have title over Ac 1.09 cents and due to that he did not purchase. He denied the suggestion that he do not know the recitals of Ex.B.4 and at the request of D.3 to D.5 only, he signed on it without knowing the transaction.
15
14.The 6th defendant filed his chief affidavit as reiterated in his written statement, and got marked Exs.B.5 to B.8. Ex.B.5 is registration copy of sale deed executed by Cheekatipalli Venkataswamy in faovur of
V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, dt.27.03.1957. Ex.B.6 is registration copy of sale deed executed by V.Chandrasekhar Reddy in faovur of Cheekatipalli
Thimmanna boyudu, dt.10.06.1959. Ex.B.7 is registration copy of sale deed executed by Cheekatipalli Thimmana Boyudu in faovur of Dandu
Thimma Reddy, dt.22.10.1959. Ex.B.8 is registered sale deed executed by
Dandu Thimma Reddy in favour of Kotakonda Ganganna Boyudu, dt.21.04.1960. In her cross examination, she deposed that the total extent of sy.No.734 is about Ac 1.75 cents. She do not the extent of suit schedule property but she has got Ac 0.23 cents. She has not filed any document to show that she has Ac 0.23 cents of land in said survey number. She do not have personal knowledge about document, dt.20.08.1943 and Exs.B.5 to B.8 but she came to know through her elders. Cheekatipalli Ramanamma (2nd plaintiff) filed suit against her husband Kotakonda Krishnaiah and others to whom her husband and her fatherinlaw sold property in this survey number. Originals of Exs.B.5 to
B.7 were filed in another suit filed in this court. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property till today and not in her possession.
She denied the suggestion that pattadar pass book and title deed issued in her favour were cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madanapalli. She denied the suggestion that since 40 years, the plaintiffs 16 have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
15.Perused the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4, D.Ws 1 to 3, Exs.A.1 to A.4 and
Exs.B.1 to B.8.
16.Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed by
Cheekatipalli Munemma, D/o Nagadu in favour of Cheekatipalli
Venkataswamy, S/o Thimmana Boyadu, dt.20.08.1943 for an extent of Ac 1.25 cents. Ex.A.2 is stay order sanctioned by Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madanapalli in Roc.No.A2/190/2010, dt.11.01.2010. Ex.A.3 is office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff’s counsel to the defendants, dt.06.09.2011. Ex.A.4 is reply notice issued by the defendants.
17.The plaintiffs contention is that the husband of 1st plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from C.Munemma and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same but without having any right the defendants are interfering. To prove her contention, plaintiffs filed Exs.A.1 to A.4. Except that the plaintiff did not file any piece of document to show that they are having title over the suit schedule property till today and have been enjoying the same.
18.On the other hand, the defendants filed Exs.B.1 to B.8. A perusal of
Ex.B.1/Certified Copy of registered sale deed, dt.20.11.1941 through which Kotakonda Venkata Boyadu, S/o Gangana Boyadu purchased Ac 1.09 cents in Sy.No.734. A perusal of Ex.B.2/pattadar pass book of
Kotakonda Krishnaiah, S/o Gangana Boyadu contains an entry for Ac 17 1.20 cents in Sy.No.734/1C. Ex.B.3 is certified copy of regd. Sale deed, dt.16.08.2007 executed by one Venkatramaiah, Krishnaiah who are the sons of Kotakonda Gangana Boyadu, one Venkateswarlu, S/o
Venkatramaiah, Saraswathi, D/o Venkatramaiah, Gangadharam,
Gangadevi, Ganesh, Lakshmamma, Gangulamma, Yellamma, Gangadevi, who are the family members of Kotakonda Gangana Boyadu in faovour of
Kummathala Bodi Reddy and Bodumallu Harinatha Reddy for an extent of
Ac 1.09 cents in Sy.No.734/1. Ex.B.4 is registered sale deed executed by
Kummathala Bodi Reddy and Bodumallu Harinatha Reddy in faovur of
Raja Reddy, Vemanarayana, Putta Lakshmi for an extent of Ac 1.09 cents.
(D.3 to D.5).
19.The contention of Defendants 3 to 5 that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac 1.09 cents is supported by Exs.B.1 to
B.4, which are link documents and documents executed in their favour.
20.A perusal of Ex.B.5/certified copy of regd. Sale deed, dt.27.03.1957, it was executed by Cheekatipalli Venkataswamy, who is husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff in favour of V.Chandrasekhar Reddy,
S/o V.V.Konda Reddy for an extent of Ac 1.50 cents in Sy.No.734. As per
Ex.B.5, it is clear that the property which was purchased under Ex.A.1 was sold under Ex.B.5 and extent is also more than the extent purchased by Cheekatipalli Venkataswamy under Ex.A.1.
21.Ex.B.6/certified copy of regd. sale deed, dt.10.06.1959 executed by
V.V.Chandrasekhar Reddy in favour of Cheekatipalli Thimmana Boyadu,
S/o Thimmana Boyadu for an extent of Ac 1.05 cents in Sy.No.734.
18
Ex.B.7 is certified copy of regd. Sale deed, dt.24.10.1959 executed by
Cheekatipalli Thimmana Boyadu in favour of Thimma Reddy, S/o Chenga
Reddy for an extent of Ac 1.05 cents in Sy.No.734. Ex.B.8 is certified copy of regd. Sale deed, dt.21.04.1960 executed by D.C.Thimma Reddy, S/o
Chengal Reddy in favour of Kotakonda Gangana Boyadu, S/o Venkana
Boyadu.
22.On perusal of Ex.B.3, the boundaries mentioned therein are as follows (for Ac 1.09 cents) :
East : Yellamanda road
West : Cheekatipalli Reddeppa
North: Viswanatha Reddy
South: Cheekatipalli Narayana.
It is clear from Ex.B.3, Ac 1.09 cents situated to the west of
Yellamanda road. In Ex.B.1 also, the eastern boundary is shown as
Yellamanda road and the western boudnary is shown as Cheekatipalli
Reddigadu. Northern boundary is Cheekatipalli Munekka, southern boundary Kuna Chengaiah. The boundaries of Ex.B.1 i.e., eastern boundary and western boundary were tallied with Ex.B.3, through which,
D.3 to D.5’s vendor purchased Ac 1.09 cents. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 4, P.W.1 deposed that the western boundary of suit schedule property is Yellamanda road. She further deposed that “It is true defendants 2 to 5 constructed asbestos sheeted shed on their southwest corner in her land and the said shed was constructed on the west of Piler
Yellamanda road.” She further deposed that the boundaries mentioned in 19 plaint schedule for Ac 1.25 cents are true and correct and the same is situated on the eastern side of Piler Yellamanda road. She further deposed that Sy.No.734/1 is for Ac 1.20 cents and 734/2 is road to an extent of 0.05 cents and 734/3 is for Ac 0.23 cents. Ex.A.1 and B.5 clearly goes to show that there is no property to Cheekatipalli
Venkataswamy in Sy.No.734 as he sold Ac 1.50 cents under Ex.B.5.
Either in Ex.A.1 or in Ex.B.5, boundaries of the said property were not mentioned. When the plaintiff filed suit for declaration, the burden heavily lies on them to prove each and every aspect to declare their right and title over suit schedule property.
23.The plaintiffs claimed right and title over Ac 1.25 cents in Sy.No.734 with the following boundaries :
East : The land of P.S.M.L Kumar and V.Chinna Reddeppa
West : Yellamanda road
North : The land of V.Kalavathi
South : Land of Krishna Reddy
But the documents filed by the defendants 3 to 5 clearly goes to show that their property was situated on the western side of Yellamanda
Road. The plaintiffs did not file the original of Ex.A.1. Though
Cheekatipalli Venkataswamy sold Ac 1.50 cents through Ex.B.5, the plaintiffs suppressed the fact and filed this suit.
24.P.W.4, who is third party deposed in his cross examination that the suit schedule property is situated on East and Western side of Yellamanda – Piler road and he further deposed that the plaintiff only enjoying the 20 total extent of suit survey number. He further deposed that “I can say the boundaries of suit schedule property.
East : Surendra Reddy
West : Rompicherla Baby
North : Viswanatha Reddy
South : Surendra Reddy and Chandra.”
He came to know about Ex.B.1, B.3, B.4 and B.5. He do not know whether the total extent of Sy.No.734 is Ac 6.66 cents. He further deposed that “It is true, through suit schedule property there is a road leading from Piler to Yellamanda and to the either side of the road, suit survey number is there. P.W.4’s evidence is no way helpful to the plaintiff’s contention that the suit schedule property is situated on the eastern side of Yellamanda road.
25.Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of D.Ws 1 to 3 to prove the version of plaintiffs that they have got right and title over the suit schedule property. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiffs sold their land to one Chandrasekhar Reddy in the year 1957 itself. D.W.2 deposed that the suit survey number is 734 and Ac 1.09 cents originally belongs to
Cheekatipalli Venkatramaiah who sold the same to Kotakonda Krishnaiah in the year 1941, and the said Krishnaiah sold the same to Bodi Reddy and Harinatha Reddy. D.W.3, who is wife of Late Kotakonda Krishnaiah deposed in her cross examination that she do not have personal knowledge about the document of the year 1943, so also about Exs.B.5 to
B.8. But she came to know about the said documents through his 21 ancestors. Originals of Exs. B.5 to B.7 are filed in another suit on the file of this court. She do not know about appeal filed by the plaintiff herein for cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of her husband.
26.The documents filed by the plaintiffs were not supported to their contention to prove their right and title over the suit schedule property.
The defendants filed Exs.B.1 to B.8 which clearly shows that the husband of plaintiff sold Ac 1.50 cents in Sy.No.734. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 4 also not corroborated with each other with regard to boundaries.
27.In view of my foregoing discussion, plaintiffs failed to establish their right and title over the suit schedule proeprty and accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiffs.
28.Issue No.3 :
The plaintiffs contention is that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.
Hence, prays to grant permanent injunction. But plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document to show their title and possession over the suit schedule property and the property covered under Ex.B.1 was also sold by
Cheekatipalli Venkataswamy under Ex.B.5, hence plaintiffs failed to prove their lawful possession over suit schedule property. Hence, they are not entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
22
29.Issue No.4 :
In view of answering of issue Nos.1 to 3, the suit has to be dismissed.
30.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of March, 2018.
Sd/
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PILER.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
On behalf of Plaintiff : On behalf of Defendant :
P.W.1 : C.RamanammaD.W.1 : K.Raja Reddy
P.W.2 : Vemula Ramakrishna (Eschewed)D.W.2 : B.Narendra Reddy
P.W.3 : Vemula Raveendra (Eschewed)D.W.3 : Saradamma
P.W.4 : Cheekatipalli Venkatappa
Exhibits marked On behalf of Plaintiff :
Ex.A.1 : Certified copy of sale deed, dt.20.08.1943.
Ex.A.2 : Served copy of stay orders of Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madanapalle, dt.11.01.2010.
Ex.A.3 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.06.09.2011.
Ex.A.4 : Served copy of reply notice, dt.19.09.2011.
23
On behalf of defendant :
Ex.B.1 : Registration copy of regd. Sale deed, dt.20.11.1941 executed by Vadde Cheekatipalli venkata Boyadu, S/o Papanna Boyadu in favour of Vadde Venkata Boyadu, S/o Gangana Boyadu.
Ex.B.2 : Pattadar pass book issued by the revenue authorities in favour of 1st defendant.
Ex.B.3 : Registered sale deed, dt.16.08.2007 executed by 1st defendant and his brother in favour of K.Dobi reddy and Bodumallu Harinatha Reddy.
Ex.B.4 : Regd. Sale deed, dt.15.09.2008 executed by K.Bodi Reddy and Bodumallu Harinatha Reddy.
Ex.B.5 : Registration copy of sale deed executed by Cheekatipalli Venkataswamy in favour of V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, dt.27.03.1957.
Ex.B.6 : Registration copy of sale deed executed by V.Chandrasekhar Reddy in favour of Cheekatipalle Thimmana Boyudu, dt.10.06.1959.
Ex.B.7 : Registration copy of sale deed executed by Cheekatipalli Thimmana Boyudu in favour of Dandu Thimma Reddy, dt.22.10.1959.
Ex.B.8 : Original regd. Sale deed executed by Dandu Thimma Reddy in favour of Kotakonda Gangana boyadu, dt.21.04.1960.
Sd/ PJCJ, PILER.