Smt B.Baby Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :MYDUKUR

Present: Smt B. Baby Rani Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur, Monday, this the 12th day of July, 2021

IA No.273 of 2018

in

O.S.No. 100 of 2015

1. Chittiboina Rama Subbaiah.

2. Chittiboina Venkata Ramana,

3. Chittiboina Rama Krishna. …Petitioners/Plaintiffs.

Vs.

1. Mudireddy Veera Siva Reddy,

2. Mudireddy Venkata Subba Reddy,

3. Mudireddy Sidda Reddy. … Respondents/Defendants.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Ram Mohan, Advocate for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and Sri B.C. Madaiah, Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants and this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/O 6 Rule 17 of CPC praying this court to amend the plaint as per consequential amendment mentioned below.

Amendment Sought for:

3 (A) The plaintiff humbly submits to the Hon’ble court, the respondents high handedly occupied the plaint schedule property under the guise of dismissal of the Injunction Petition. And the respondents denied the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.

2. Amend the Court Fees para No.5 delete the Court Fees para and add in it’s place the total extent of the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.2.15 ½ cents and it’s value is at Rs.3,23,250/- and a court fee of Rs.5,726/- is paid under Section 24 (A) of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act.

3. Amend 6th para in prayer portion A) Declare the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties and add A.1) Direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs.

2

02. The brief averments of the affidavit are that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to his grand father i.e., Chittiboina Buchanna son of Chinna Subbanna. The grand father of the petitioners i.e., Chittiboina

Buchanna, Meda Venkataramaiah, Meda Seethaiah and Meda Kondaiah have jointly purchased the properties situated in Kuchupapa village fields in S.No.54, 55 and 197 for an extent of Ac.4.12 cents, Ac.4.51 cents and Ac.0.47 cents under registered sale deed, dt.18.11.1924, since then they were jointly in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties and other properties with their respective shares. Subsequently, Meda Venkataramaiah,

Meda Seethaiah and Meda Kondaiah sold their shares to Mudireddy Pedda

Subbaiah who is father of respondents under two registered sale deeds, dt.24.02.1938. The Grand father of the petitioners has not sold the petition schedule properties and after the death of the grand father of the petitioners the father of the petitioner i.e., Subbarayudu succeeded the estate of the deceased Chittiboina Buchanna and been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties. On 29.10.2011 the father of the petitioner died leaving behind him, the petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.2 and 3 as his legal heirs, since then the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. But recently due to hike of prices, the respondents are trying to grab the petition schedule properties high handedly and to that effect the petitioners have filed the above suit against the respondents for permanent injunction and petition seeking Ad-interim injunction. The Hon’ble court dismissed IA

No.245/2015, taking advantage of the dismissal of the injunction petition, the respondents are high handedly trespassed into the suit schedule property and occupied the same denying their title. Hence, it is just and necessary for them to amend the plaint for proper disposal and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Hence, prays to allow the petition.

3

03. The respondents/defendants filed counter denying the averments of the affidavit and contended that in the year 1925 one Mudireddy

Muneaiah who is great grandfather of the respondents purchased 1/4th share of the Chittiboina Buchanna in S.No.54 and 55 under oral sale and took delivery of possession of the same from him on the same day. Since then the said

Mudireddy Muneiah had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

The said Mudireddy Munaiah died in the year 1935 leaving behind him all his movable and immovable properties along with his sons i.e., Pedda Subba Reddy @ Pedda Subbaiah, Nadipi Subba Reddy, Pedda Bala Subba Reddy and Chinna

Bala Subba Reddy. Among them one Chinna Bala Subba Reddy died unmarried and issueless. Pedda Subba Reddy @ Pedda Subbaiah is having only son namely Venkata Subba Reddy who is father of the respondent No.3, Nadipi

Subba Reddy had only son namely Rama Subba Reddy who is the father of the respondent No.1 and 2. The above three persons were jointly enjoying their joint family properties. The elder son Pedda Subba Reddy @ Pedda Subbaiah was kartha of joint family to the knowledge of everybody. While the matter stood thus the said Mudireddy Pedda Subba Reddy @ Pedda Subbaiah purchased 3/4th share in the survey numbers 42, 54m, 55 and 196 of Meda

Venkata Ramaiah, Meda Seethaiah and Meda Kondaiah under registered sale deed bearing document No.363/1938, dt.24.02.1938. Therefore, the said

Pedda Subba Reddy @ Peddaa Subbaiah, Nadipi Subba Reddy and Pedda Bala

Subba Reddy were jointly succeeded the entire properties in S.No.54 with an extent of Ac.4.12 cents and S.No.55 with an extent of Ac.4.51 cents of

Kuchupapa revenue village. In or about 1950 the said Pedda Subba Reddy @

Peddaa Subbaiah, Nadipi Subba Reddy and Pedda Bala Subba Reddy orally partitioned their joint family properties, in the said oral partition Pedda Subba

Reddy @ Pedda Subbaiah got Ac.2.08 cents in S.No.54 and Ac.0.2.25 cents in

S.No.55, Nadipi Subba Reddy got Ac.2.04 cents in S.No.54 and Ac.2.26 cents in

S.No.55 and Pedda Bala Subba Reddy got some other properties along with some other properties. Since the date of oral partition the above three 4 brothers were enjoying their respective share of properties. In the year 1970 the petition schedule survey numbers were sub divided and sub letters were allotted to each survey number. The Pedda Subba Reddy and Nadipi Subba

Reddy got ryothwari pattadar pass books for their respective properties and they were also paying land revenue to the Government. After the death of

Pedda Subba Reddy @ Pedda Subbaiah his sole son namely Venkata Subba

Reddy succeeded all his movable and immovable properties including the petition schedule properties and after the death of Nadipi Subba Reddy, his sole son namely Rama Subba Reddy succeeded all his movable and immovable properties including the petition schedule properties and enjoying the same with absolute rights by obtaining pattadar passbook and title deeds and by paying land revenue. The said Venkata Subba Reddy and Rama Subba Reddy also dugged bore wells in their lands and took electricity connection from the

Electricity authorities and also paid electricity charges, their names were also mutated in revenue records like 1B Numanas and No.3 adangals. While, the matter stood thus in the year 1998, petitioner No.1 and his brothers by name

Chittiboina Subbarayudu who is the father of the petitioners No.2 and 3,

Chittiboina Gangaraju seriously tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties of Mudireddy Rama Subba

Reddy who is the father of the respondents No.1 and 2 and that the said

Mudireddy Rama Subba Reddy got filed a suit in OS No.376/1998 on the file of

Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur against Chittiboina Subbarayudu

who is the father of the petitioners No.2 and 3, Chittiboina Ganga Raju and petitioner No.1 herein for declaration of his title and consequential permanent injunction. The petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2 and 3 appeared by engaging their counsels and filed written statement and counter in injunction petition. On 11-08-1999 the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Proddatur allowed the injunction petition restraining the petitioner No.1 herein and his brothers namely Subbarayudu who is the father of the petitioner No.2 and 3 herein and Ganga Raju from in any way interfering with the peaceful 5 possession and enjoyment of the share of Rama Subba Reddy in petition

S.No.54 and 55. There is no appeal on the said orders. During the pendancy of the suit in OS No.376/1998, the petitioner No.1 and his two brothers tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of

Venkata Subba Reddy in petition survey numbers and that the said Venkata

Subba Reddy filed a suit in OS No.24/2000 on the file of the Hon’ble Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur against the Chittiboina Subbarayudu who is the father of the petitioners No.2 and 3, Chittiboina Ganga Raju and petitioner No.1 herein for declaration of his title and consequential permanent injunction for the petition survey numbers. But the defendants therein did not appear before the Honourable court and that on 10.04.2000 the Honourable court passed exparte decree and judgment in favour of Mudireddy Venkata Subba Reddy. At the same time the defendants in OS No.376/1998 are also called absent and set exparte. On 30.01.2001 the Honourable Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Proddatur passed decree and judgment in favour of Mudireddy Rama Subba

Reddy by declaring his title and also granted permanent injunction restraining the petitioner No.1 herein and his brothers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties. Hence,

Mudireddy Venkata Subba Reddy and Mudireddy Rama Subba Reddy were the absolute owners of the property in survey numbers No.54 and 55 but by suppressing the same the petitioners filed this suit for wrongful gain. The petitioners intentionally not added the son of the Mudireddy Venkata Subba

Reddy as defendant No.3 as party to the suit. Mudireddy Rama Subba Reddy obtained loan from the Alladupalli Farmers Service Co-operative Society Ltd., by mortgaging his share of properties in petition schedule survey numbers under two accounts and the said society brought his share of the petition schedule survey numbers for sale and that that said Mudireddy Rama Subba

Reddy and his sons and daughter in law paid the mortgage amount to the said society and redeemed his share of properties in petition survey numbers and obtained registered receipts from the said society. On 28.11.2012 the said 6

Mudireddy Rama Subba Reddy executed registered gift deed bearing document

No.2768/2012 in favour of respondent No.1 for S.No.55 to an extent of Ac.0.76 cents and delivered possession of the same to him on the same day and the respondent No.1 accepted the gift on the same day and took delivery of possession of same. On the same day i.e., on 28.11.2012 the said Mudireddy

Rama Subba Reddy executed a registered gift deed bearing document

No.2769/2012 in favour of his elder daughter in law namely Gowri for

S.No.54/1A with an extent of Ac.0.47 cents and S.No.54/1B with an extent of

Ac.0.75 cents with specific boundaries and delivered possession of the same to her on the same day. The said Gowri accepted the gift and took delivery of possession over the same. The respondent No.1 and Gowri mutated their names in the revenue records and obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. On 27.12.2013 Mudireddy Rama Subba Reddy died leaving behind him all his movable and immovable properties which including the petition schedule properties along with his sons and wife. After the death of Mudireddy Rama Subba Reddy, his wife namely Rama Subbamma mutated her name in the revenue records and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed book for the remaining properties which including the petition schedule properties. Hence, in the above said circumstances, the petitioner suppressed all the facts and filed this petition stating that these respondents occupied the suit schedule property, after dismissal of the injunction petition. The petitioner did not file any single scrap of paper to show their possession over the suit schedule property. The Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur recognized the possession of the father of the respondents for the suit schedule properties in

OS No.376/1998 and 24/2000 and after 20 years petitioners came with this

petition for declaration of title and recovery of possession by way of amendment of the suit with false allegations. Hence, the proposed amendment and the relief claimed in the proposed amendment petition is barred by law and hence, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

7

04. During the course of enquiry no documents were marked on behalf of the both parties.

05. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

06. Now the point for consideration is: Whether this petition can be allowed for amendment of plaint?

07. POINT:- A perusal of the record. Originally the suit in OS

No.100/2015 was filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over plaint schedule properties in survey No.54 to an extent of

Ac.1.03 cents and in survey No.55 to an extent of 112 ½ cents. The respondents herein filed written statement and when suit is posted for trial this application was filed for amendment of plaint.

08. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners filed

Interlocutory Application Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC., and the same was dismissed. Hence, they wants to amend the plaint for declaration of their title and possession. The respondents contention is that in respect of survey numbers No.54 and 55 already two suits were filed before Hon’ble Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur court in the year 1998 and in the year 2000 and the said suits were filed for declaration and consequential permanent injunction by one Mudireddy Venkata Subba Reddy and Mudireddy Rama Subba Reddy and both the suits were decreed exparte, declaring their right and title over the petition schedule properties, but by suppressing the said fact, this petition and suit was filed by the petitioners. Hence, this petition is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the petition.

8

09. There is no dispute about the document of the year 1925 through which Chittiboina Buchanna who is grand father of the petitioner No.1,

Meda Venkta Ramaiah, Meda Seethaiah and Meda Kondaiah had jointly purchased the land in S.No.42 to an extent of Ac.6.11 ½ cents, S.No.54 to an extent of Ac.4.12 cents, S.No.55 to an extent of Ac.4.51 cents and S.No.196 to an extent of Ac.0.47 cents of Kuchupapa revenue village. The contention of the petitioners is that out of 4.12 cents in survey No.54, Ac.4.51 cents in S.No.55

Mudireddy Pedda Subbaiah had purchased 3/4th share of Meda

Venkataramaiah, Meda Seethaiah and Meda Kondaiah under registered sale deeds, dt.24.02.1938 and Chittiboina Buchanna share was remained and has been enjoying by the petitioners herein.

10. The respondents contention is that Buchanna share was purchased by Mudireddy Pedda Subbareddy prior to purchase of 3/4th share, orally and thereafter he purchased 3/4th share under registered sale deed, dt.24.02.1938 and knowing about the same the petitioners got filed this suit for wrongful gain, though they have no property in S.No.54 and 55. A perusal of this petition, this petition was filed for amendment of relief i.e., for declaration and recovery of possession after dismissal of injunction IA No.245/2015. If this petition is allowed no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as trial is not yet commenced. The contention of the respondents is that already there was declaratory decrees in respect of petition schedule properties hence, it is hit by resjudicata but at this stage this court can not decide about the resjudicata and it can be decided in main suit.

11. I relied on citation reported in 2014 (2) ALT 640 a case between Vahida Begum and Others Vs., Yacoob and Others wherein their

Lordship held that; “Court is not bound to reject an application for amendment if a fresh suit is filed on the amended claim, it is barred by 9 limitation. An issue can be made on that point and decide in the main suit. “

12. I relied on another citation reported in 2019 (2) ALT 77 SC., in a case between Varun Pahwa Vs. M/s Renu Chowdari wherein their

Lordship held that ; “It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings can not be refused merely because of some mistake negligence inadvertance or even interaction of the rules of the procedure.”

As per ration in the above authorities and reading of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC this court is inclined to allow this petition for amendment of plaint.

13. In the result, petition is allowed to amend the plaint as per the consequential amendment mentioned in the petition.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade -III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me through Blue Jeans, this the 12th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- B. Baby Rani.,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MYDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR: EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:- Nil.

Id/- BBR.,

JCJ CUM JFCM.,

Myd.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: MYDUKUR

Present: Smt B. Baby Rani.,

Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur.

Thursday, this the 15 th day of July, 2021

Original Suit No. 257 of 2019

Gosetty Rama Mohan.

. . . Plaintiff.

Vs.

1. Gosetty Veeramma.

2. Gosetty Lakshmi Narayana.

3. Gosetty Rama Lakshumma.

4. Gosetty Sriramulu.

5. Gosetty Obulamma.

. . . Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri B.C. Madaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Kamanuru Sreenivasulu, Advocate for defendants No.4 and 5 and the defendants No.1, 2 remained exparte, Summons not served on defendant No.3 and this court made the following Judgment:

::JUDGMENT::

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for grant of preliminary decree by directing the defendants to divide the suit schedule properties into eight equal shares and allot one such share (1/8th share) to the plaintiff with specific metes and bounds after taking into good and bad qualities, directing the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of such 1/8th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties if the defendants failed to do so, the same may be done through the process of the Honourable court at the expenses of the plaintiff and for costs.

Petition filed U/sec. 109 of CPC to advance the suit to this day from 19.07.2021 and the same is allowed as the counsel for defendants No.4 and 5 endorsed no objection. Suit is advanced to this day. Memo filed by the plaintiff counsel stating that matter settled out of court and prays to dismiss the suit as settled out of court. Memo recorded. Suit is dismissed without costs as settled out of court.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15 th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- B. Baby Rani.,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MYDUKUR.

Appendix of evidence NIL

Id/- BBR.,

J.C.J CUM J.F.C.M.,

MYD.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: MYDUKUR

Present: Smt B. Baby Rani.,

Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur.

Tuesday, this the 13 th day of July, 2021

Original Suit No. 93 of 2020

Bhumireddy Chinnamadhannagari Srinivasulu.

. . . Plaintiff.

Vs.

Chennakesavula Narasimhulu having died His L.Rs.,

1. Chennakesavula Savitri.

2. Chennakesavula Narasimha.

3. Chennakesavula Sunandha.

4. Chennakesavula Srujana.

. . . Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri B.C. Madaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Summons of D1, D2 and D4 served, for Batta of D3 and this court made the following Judgment:

::JUDGMENT::

This is a suit for recovery of money a sum of Rs.6,37,933/- being the suit amount together with future interest to the plaintiff from the estate of late

Chennakesavulu Narasimhulu which is in the hands of the defendants and for costs.

Sri B. C. Madaiah filed petition U/sec. 109 CPC., to advance the suit and allowed. Suit is advanced to this day. Memo filed stating that matter settled out of court as he received Rs.5,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of suit claim. Hence, memo recorded. Suit is dismissed as settled out of court without costs.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13 th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- B. Baby Rani.,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MYDUKUR.

Appendix of evidence

NIL

Id/- BBR.,

J.C.J CUM J.F.C.M.,

MYD.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: MYDUKUR

Present: Smt B. Baby Rani.,

Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur.

Friday, this the 23 rd day of July, 2021

Original Suit No. 92 of 2021

Sure Vijaya Sekhar.

. . . Plaintiff.

Vs.

1. Sure (Vadde) Chalapathi.

2. Sure (Vadde) Pedda Guraiah.

3. Sure (Vadde) Santi Guraiah.

. . . Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri C. Sudarsana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Smt I. Sarada and Sri S. Siva Rama Krishna, Advocates for defendants and this court made the following Judgment:

::JUDGMENT::

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, their agents and their assignees from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs.

Suit is advanced to this day as per orders in IA No.711/2021, dt.23.07.2021. Memo filed in office stating that matter settled out of court and prays to dismiss the suit without costs. Memo recorded suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23 rd day of July, 2021.

Sd/- B. Baby Rani.,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MYDUKUR.

Appendix of evidence NIL

Id/- BBR.,

J.C.J CUM J.F.C.M.,

MYD.

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur

Case No. :CC/0000281/2017 Dandu Palakkagari Parvathi Vs Dandu Palakkagiri Venkata Ramana and 2 others

Date : 12-07-2021

Business: Both parties i.e., A1 to A3 and LW.1 appeared through Blue Jeans. Heard both sides and matter referred to Lok Adalat as the offence U/sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act can be compoundable if the parties settled and came forward to compound the main offence U/sec. 498-A IPC as per the Judgment between Muralilal Guptha and other Vs. State of UP in

Crl.A.No.2126/2014, dt.23.09.2014. Both parties appeared

through Blue Jeans before Lok Adalat and matter compromised at the intervention of the Lok Adalat members. Accordingly, award is passed. Accused are acquitted U/sec. 320 (8) IPC. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 12-07-2021 Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur