O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
1
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, PAKALA
PRESENT: B.DEVENDRA REDDY
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PAKALA.
Tuesday, the 26th (Twenty-sixth) day of May,2020 (26-05-2020)
ORIGINAL SUIT No.66 of 2017
Doma Narayanamma ... Plaintif
-Versus-
1. V.Janardhanachari
2. V.Sankaramma(Died) L.R. is D1.
3. D.Sivaiah ...Defendants
This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 5-3-2020 in the presence of Sri G.Chandra Mohan, Advocate for Plaintif and of Sri B.C. Reddeppa Naidu, Advocate filed vakalath for D1 and D3, but written statement of D3 not filed within statutory period, hence, filing of written statement by D3 is forfeited and D2 died, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by plaintif for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc.
from in any manner interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
The suit schedule house and vacant site are classified as
Gramakantam and since the ancestors of plaintif, the said property has been enjoying by the plaintif and her family members situated at
Obulachettipalli in Sy.No.413, her family has no other house or house site in the village and in recognition of the long standing enjoyment of
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
2 the suit schedule house site, the then District Collector, Chittoor granted house under Indiramma scheme under Order No.696/
Indiramma/2006-07/ AM(ENGG) dated 18-3-2007 in the name of plaintif and in the said site constructed the house, adjacent to her house on eastern side, she erected safari and used the same for cooking food and bath room. Now the said safari was removed by her and raised two small rooms and laid the foundation for the above said purpose. Thus the plaintif has been enjoying the suit schedule property without any objection or obstruction from anybody in the village including the defendants. The Gramapa Panchayathh also collected house tax under
Assessment No.23 and issuing receipt in the name of plaintif’s husband.
2(a)It is further averred in the plaint that 2nd defendant is mother of D1, D3 is close associate of D1 and they are living in the village of plaintif, with a view of common intention, defendants are interested each other, want to grab away the property of the plaintif, making all sorts of nuisance as they never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property and even they have no right, title, possession or enjoyment over the suit schedule mentioned property. In the same manner on 7-6-2017 defendants gave obstructions with the help of their henchmen, the plaintif to raise the foundation in the suit schedule mentioned property. The plaintif is a senior citizen and no male person in the house to support her, she was able to succeed to prevent the high handed attempts of the defendants with the help of elders in the village.
The defendants are proclaiming that one day or other they will not allow
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
3 the plaintif to raise the foundation and they will occupy the suit schedule property, they are very influential and powerful persons and plaintif is not a match to resist the illegal and high handed acts of defendants. Hence the suit is filed for permanent injunction.
3.The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying all the averments in the plaint and further contended that the extent and boundaries of suit schedule are not correct and the suit filed by the plaintif is not only speculative but also divide of any merits and the plaintif is not entitled to claim any relief sought by her against them. The plaintif did not describe clearly in the plaint for what property either for house or house site she filed the suit, she did not come to the court with clean hands and she come to the court by suppressing the facts and filed the suit to grab the house site of D1 and D2 and she did not file any document to show her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property.
3(a)D1 further contended that the total extent of suit schedule mentioned property is Ac.0-01 ½ cents situated in Sy.No.413 of
Obulachettivaripalle village, Pakala Mandal. The said extent is originally is a Gramanatham land and it was occupied by the husband of D2 by name
V.Eswara Achary and he constructed a thatched house in an extent of
Ac.0-01½ cents and lived along with D2 and his children, he died leaving behind the D1, D2 and another son by name V.Doraswamy Achary and also three daughters by name V.Deva, V.Sarada and V.Chinnapapa. After death of said V.Eswara Achary, D1,D2 and his other legal heirs are in possession and enjoyment of the said thatched house. The
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
4
GramaPanchayathh also mutated the name of D2, she obtained ration card, aadhar card for the said door number as 3-16(old) 1-22 (new) for recognition of their possession and enjoyment of the defendant No.2 and her family members, the then Tahsildar issued house site patta to an extent of Ac.0-01 ½ cents measuring East to West 35 links, North to South 24 links situated within the following boundaries:
East: House of K.Balaji Naidu West: K.Sankara Naidu North: House of M.Sivaiah Naidu and South: House of N.Sriappa Achari
The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are also applied for construction of pucca building within the said boundaries under NTR scheme and the same was sanctioned for construction of house within the said boundaries, later they removed the thatched house and laid foundation in the said extent and raised wall and also they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, except that they have no other properties. The plaintif has no right, title, possession and enjoyment over the said property situated within the said boundaries and she wantonly came to the site of defendants site and obstructing the construction work and creating ugly nuisance and the villages were also resisted the attitude the plaintif, due to village politics some of the persons are instigated the plaintif and she filed false suit against them. In recognization of possession and enjoyment of the thatched house by D2, the revenue authorities issued Ration card, election I.D. card and Aadhar card and GramaPanchayathh assigned door number to the thatched house.
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
5 3(b)D1 further contended that on 14-06-2017 the plaintif filed an application before this Court and this court issued notice to D2 and she appeared and submitted document relating to her house site, after perusing the records, the court also directed the Tahsildar, Pakala to appear before the court, enquired about the site, said Tahsildar also clearly stated that D2 is in possession and enjoyment of the said site and laid foundation. This court also directed both parties to approach proper court for proper relief and the same was closed. The plaintif filed this suit against the defendants to grab the house site as the plaintif belongs to major community and the defendants belongs to lower community and poor people. Financially the plaintif is hale and healthy, that’s why to harass the defendants, she filed the suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintif is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
(3)To what relief?
5.On behalf of plaintif, herself is examined as PW1 another witness is examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A10 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, 1st defendant examined himself as DW1 and another witness is examined as DW2 and marked Exs.B1 to B5. Chief examination affidavit of DW3 is filed. As counsel for D1 filed a memo to eschew the chief examination affidavit of DW3, chief examination affidavit of DW3 is eschewed.
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
6
6.Heard arguments of the learned counsel on both sides.
Perused the material on record.
7.Issue No.1:Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?
The suit is filed by the plaintif for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants from in any way interfering with the plaintifs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property and for costs of the suit.
8.Since the suit is filed by the plaintif for grant of permanent injunction, the burden lies on the plaintif to prove her legal possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule mentioned property as on the date of filing of the suit. In a decision reported in 2014(4)
ALD 647, Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Lakshmamma, wherein it was held that, “in a suit for perpetual injunction, the court has to consider who is in possession of the suit schedule mentioned property as on the date of filing of the suit. However, the court can incidentally look into the title of the parties in an injunction suit, if the circumstances so warranted”.
9.So as per the above said decision the court has to look into the title of the parties in an injunction suit, if the circumstances so warranted, besides considering the legal possession and enjoyment of the parties over the suit schedule mentioned property, to grant perpetual injunction.
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
7
10.The learned counsel for the plaintif argued that the suit schedule mentioned property is a Gramakantam of Obula Chetty vari palli village, which consists a tiled house and house site which is the ancestral property of the plaintif, during the life time of her husband, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and after his death the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, recognizing the long standing possession and enjoyment of the family of the plaintif, the government sanctioned amount to the plaintif to construct a house in the suit schedule mentioned property, after laying foundation, at the time of raising pillars by the plaintif, the defendants came to the suit schedule mentioned property and obstructed her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule mentioned property, hence this suit is filed by the plaintif for grant of perpetual injunction.
11.The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 argued that, the written statement schedule property is a Gramakantam site situated in Obula Chetty vari palli village, the government assigned the said site to the defendant No.2 by name V.Sankaramma who is mother of defendant No.1 under Ex.B1/patta in the year 2016 and she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till her death and after her death, D1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, at the time of raising pillars by laying foundation in the said site with the amount granted by the Government under Ex.B5, the plaintif came along with his men and obstructed his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule mentioned property, the plaintif has no right and title over the said site and prayed to dismiss the suit.
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
8
12.A perusal of the record it discloses that there is no dispute with regard to the existence of a tiled house of the plaintif within the boundaries of the suit schedule mentioned property. It is also not in dispute that the vacant site is situated on the eastern side of the said tiled house of plaintif. The dispute between the plaintif and defendant is with regard to the site situated on the eastern side of the tiled house of the plaintif. To prove the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule mentioned property, wherein the plaintif has shown the tiled house and also site situated on its eastern side. The plaintif herself is examined as PW1 and a witness is examined as PW2 and also marked Ex.A1 to A10.
13.The plaintif filed her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint, which are in brief are that the suit schedule mentioned property is house and house site which is classified as Gramakantam, it has been enjoying by her and her family members from their ancestors time which is situated at Obula Chetty vari palli in
Sy.No.413 and their family has no other house or house site except the said property and in recognition of long standing enjoyment of the said property the District Collector, Chittoor granted a house under
Indiramma Scheme vide Order No.696/Indiramma/2006-07/AM(ENGG),
dated 18.03.2007 in her favour, adjacent to her house on the eastern
side she has been erected sapari and used the same for cooking food and bathroom, just before filing this suit she removed the said sapari to construct two small rooms for cooking and bathroom and laid the foundation therefore she has been in possession and enjoyment of the
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
9 suit schedule mentioned property without objection from anybody, the defendants who has no right and tile over the said property, they obstructed her to raise the foundation in the said property and gave all sorts of nuisance. PW1 further deposed that in the year 1993 one
Sivaiah Naidu purchased house property under Ex.A10/registered sale deed dated 20.03.1993, in the said sale deed the southern side boundary is shows as the vacant site of D.Subba Naidu who is her husband, which is the suit schedule mentioned property.
14.Turning the testimony of PW1 during the cross examination, she deposed that the tiled and vacant site are the ancestral property of her husband, the government issued house site patta for the tiled house and also vacant site to her under Indiramma
Scheme, during the life time of her husband and her mother-in-law, the government issued Ex.A1/house site patta to her, her husband was died 12 years ago. PW1 admitted that she filed this suit basing on
Ex.A1/house site patta, in the said Ex.A1 the suit schedule survey number and measurements are mentioned.
15.In support of the above said evidence of PW1, one Sivaiah
Naidu is examined as PW2. He deposed that he know the suit schedule mentioned property, it is a house and vacant site belongs to the plaintif, the said property is the ancestors property of the plaintif, the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the same which is situated in Obula Chetty vari palli village Gramakantam in Sy.No. 413, two years back the plaintif laid foundation to construct two small rooms for cooking and bathroom, she constructed the walls some
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
10 height on the eastern portion of the suit schedule mentioned property.
PW2 further deposed that he purchased house property from one
K.Munemma and her son K.Sathyanarayana Murthy under
Ex.A10/registered sale deed which is situated adjacent to the Northern side of suit schedule mentioned property, in the said sale deed the southern side boundary is shown as vacant site i.e., the suit schedule mentioned property of D.Subba Naidu who is husband of plaintif, the defendants have no right, title and possession over the suit schedule mentioned property, but they are obstructing the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the said property.
16.Coming to the evidence of PW2 in cross examination, he deposed that the plaintif is his cousin, the plaintif executed a will in favour of his wife as she has no children. He admitted that he accompanied to the plaintif when she gave an application to the
Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Pakala, on the directions of Chairman, the Tahsildar, Pakala enquired the matter and submitted his report. He denied a suggestion that the Tahsildar submitted his report stating the plaintif is not in possession and enjoyment of the said site. He further admitted that “as per his knowledge, the plaintif has no patta to the said site”.
17.No doubt PW2 purchased a house property which is situated on the northern side of the suit schedule mentioned property under Ex.A10/registered sale deed dated 20.03.1993, in the said sale deed the southern side boundary is shown as vacant site of the husband of plaintif by name D.Subba Naidu. In the evidence Pws 1 and
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
11 2 admitted that the suit schedule mentioned property is situated in
Gramakantam of Obula Chetty vari palli village. So to construct a house in the Gramakantam site one has to obtain patta from the Government.
In this case as per the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 the suit schedule mentioned property was the ancestral property of plaintif. As the property is the Government property it cannot be said that, it is the ancestral property of plaintif. As per the evidence of PW1 as referred above she filed this suit basing on Ex.A1, she is deposed that Ex.A1 is a patta. A perusal of Ex.A1 it discloses that it is not patta and it is an order issued by the District Collector, Chittoor sanctioning an amount of
Rs.25,000/- to the plaintif to construct a house. In the said order there is no mention about the suit schedule mentioned property. Except the said order which is stated by the PW1/plaintif as a patta, actually which is not a house site patta, the plaintif has not filed any document to show that the government assigned patta to her assigning the suit schedule mentioned property. In the cross examination PW2 who is cousin of PW1 admitted that as per his knowledge the plaintif has no patta to the suit schedule mentioned property. So it can be said that the government has not granted house site patta to the plaintif assigning the suit schedule mentioned property to her.
18.Basing on the Ex.A1 it cannot be said that the government assigned the suit schedule mentioned property which is situated in the Gramakantam is the property of plaintif. As per the cross examination PW2, as per the directions of Chairman, Mandal Legal
Services Committee, Pakala, the Tahsildar enquired and submitted a
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
12 report basing on the application given by the PW1. PW2 denied that
Tahsildar submitted his report stating that the plaintif is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. If really the report submitted by Tahsildar was in favour of the plaintif what prevented to obtain the copy of the report and submit the same in support of the evidence of plaintif. It shows that the plaintif has not been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. The plaintif also filed Ex.A2/certificate issued by the
Panchayath Secretary, Obula Chetty vari palli village, it shows that a house door bearing No.1-105 with assessment number 23 in Obula
Chetty Vari palli is in the name of D.Subba Naidu as per the records.
Ex.A3 discloses that to the said house the plaintif paid house tax and she has no children, she has been residing in the said house.
Ex.A4/enquiry report which was prepared by of Panchayath Secretary on the application submitted by PW2 who is cousin of PW1 under Right to Information Act, which discloses that a house door No.1-105 with assessment number 23 is in the name of D.Subba Naidu (who is husband of plaintif) and in the said Ex.A4 the boundaries of the said house is mentioned as mentioned in the suit schedule mentioned property and he also mentioned in the said report that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the said house and she is getting old age pension. Since the boundaries of the house of the husband of
PW1 which is mentioned in the said Ex.A4 issued by the Panchayath
Secretary are tallied with the suit schedule mentioned property and it has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintif, the plaintif is
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
13 claiming that the suit schedule mentioned property is in her possession and enjoyment. As discussed above the plaintif has not obtained any patta for the suit schedule mentioned property from the Government, only basing on the Ex.A4/enquiry report submitted by the Panchayath
Secretary which was not attested by the Mandal Development Officer it cannot be said that the suit schedule mentioned property is the property of plaintif. Since Ex.A4 enquiry report of Panchayath Secretary was not attested by the Mandal Development Officer is has no value. In the cross examination, PW1 stated that Government issued house site patta for the tiled house and also vacant site to her under Indiramma scheme. But she did not file the said patta to prove her possession and enjoyment over the said property. Even though PW1/ plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of tiled house which is in suit schedule property, her possession and enjoyment is illegal possession, as government has not assigned the said property which is in
Gramakantam. So, illegal possession of tiled house by plaintif would not be protected by way of perpetual injunction. Ex.A5 is the house tax receipt dated 02.06.2017, which is in the name of the husband of plaintif by name D.Subba Naidu for the house door bearing No.1-105 of
Obula Chetty vari palli village. As per the evidence of PW1, her husband was died fourteen years ago. When the husband of plaintif was died fourteen years ago, how the husband of plaintif had paid house tax under Ex.A5 on 02.06.2017 to the house door bearing No.1-105. So it can be said that Ex.A5 is created for the purpose of this suit. Ex.A6/Field
Map for Sy.No.413 and Ex.A7/adangal for the falsi 1426 for Sy.No.413
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
14 are filed to show that the suit schedule mentioned property is situated in Sy.No.413 and also it is a Gramakantam land. As stated above there is no disputes between the parties about location of the suit schedule mentioned property in Gramakantam land and also in Sy.No.413 of
Obula Chetty Vari Palli village. Ex.A8/photographs with CD filed by the plaintif to show that pits were dug to lay foundation by the plaintif. It is also not in dispute between the parties that there is a foundation in the site situated on the eastern side of the tiled house of plaintif which is visible in Ex.A8/photographs. Ex.A9 is the aadhar card of the plaintif.
It does not disclose the house number of plaintif only it discloses that the plaintif is resident of Obula Chetty vari palli village. So the above
Ex.A9 aadhar card is not helpful to show her possession over the suit schedule mentioned property.
19.In support of the case of defendants, defendant No.1 who is son of defendant No.2 is examined as DW1. He filed chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of written statement which are in brief are that, the plaintif is having own house situated towards western side of his site, basing on the said house property documents the plaintif filed the suit including his site which is situated towards eastern side of the plaintif house except that the plaintif has not filed any document relating to his site to an extent of 1½ cents, which site was given by the government to his mother/D2, with specific boundaries mentioned in the house site patta/Ex.B1, the government also sanctioned amount to construct a house in the said site under
Ex.B5, they laid foundation in the said site, while pillars were
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
15 constructing the plaintif came to the suit schedule mentioned property with her men and obstructed the construction and their possession and enjoyment over the said site. In support of the said evidence of DW1,
DW2 is examined. He deposed as deposed by DW1 in his examination in chief.
20.At the time of marking Nivasa stalamu appagintha patta file number 82 dated 03-11-2016 through DW1, the learned counsel for the plaintif objected to mark the same as exhibit on the ground that it is a colour photocopy, subject to the said objection the said document is marked as Ex.B1. On keen observation of the said Ex.B1 this court is of the view that it is not a colour photo copy and it is a original one. So the said Ex.B1 is taken into consideration. A perusal of Ex.B1 it discloses that 1½ cent site in Obula Chetty vari palli village in Sy.No.413 was assigned by the government to the mother of D1 who is D2, who died during the pendency of the suit. To prove the death of D2, D1 filed the death certificate of D2 which is marked as Ex.B2. Dws 1 and 2 stated in the evidence the boundaries of the site which is mentioned in written statement as mentioned in Ex.B1/house site patta of D2. DW1 also stated the boundaries of the suit schedule mentioned property as mentioned in the suit schedule by the plaintif. The defendant No.1 who is son of D2 is not disputing about the existence of the house in the suit schedule mentioned property and possession and enjoyment of plaintif.
DW1/D1 further stated that the said house of plaintif is situated on the western side of the vacant site which is now he is claiming under Ex.B1.
In the cross examination for the suggestions of learned counsel for the
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
16 defendant No.1, PW1 answered that “it is true on the western side of my said site, my tiled house is situated. It is true on the eastern side of my said site, the site of Balaji Naidu is situated. It is true on the southern side of my said site, the site of Ayyappa Achari is situated. It is true four stone pillars were also erected between my tiled house and the said site”. Since the learned counsel for D1 suggested to PW1 as stated above that “my site” i.e. site of PW1, the learned counsel for the plaintif argued that the defendant No.1 admitted that the site which is claiming by him (D1) is the site of PW1/plaintif, so the site which is situated on the eastern side of the tiled house of plaintif is the site of plaintif and defendants have no right over the said site.
21.D1/DW1 claiming the site which is mentioned within the boundaries noted in Ex.B1/patta which is in the name of her mother D2 and which boundaries are admitted by PW1 in her cross examination as noted in above paragraph. Now we have to look into the cross examination of DW1 and DW2 to know whether they stated the site mentioned in Ex.B1 is situated within the boundaries mentioned in
Ex.B1/patta or not. DW1 in the cross examination admitted that the plaintif old house is situated on the eastern side of Raja Veedhi, on the eastern side of plaintifs old house, foundation is laid and also some extent walls were constructed and on the eastern side of the said foundation there is a veedhi (street) and on the northern side of the said foundation and old house of plaintif, the vacant site of Sivaiah
Naidu is situated. DW2 also admitted that on the eastern side of the suit schedule mentioned property there is a veedhi (street). DW2
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
17 denied a suggestion that on the western side of street/way which is shown as eastern boundary in the schedule, the hut of one Subba Naidu is situated. When compared the above said boundaries stated by DWs1 and 2 are tallied with the boundaries of vacant site which is part of suit schedule property as stated by PW1/plaintif in the cross examination.
So, mere suggestions by the counsel for D1 to PW1 that “her site” does not create any title over the site to the plaintif as she did not get any valid patta for the suit schedule property from the government which property is situated in Gramakantam. From the above discussion, this court is of the view that the site mentioned in Ex.B1 is situated within the boundaries of suit schedule property.
22.The defendant No.1 also filed his aadhar card and ration card which are marked as Ex.B3 and B4 respectively. The above said
Ex.B3 and B4 are not helpful to the case of defendant No.1 to prove his possession and enjoyment over the site claimed by him under Ex.B1.
Basing on the Ex.B3 and B4 it can only be said that D1 is residing in
Obula Chetty Vari Palli village. Ex.B5 is statement issued by the State
Housing Corporation, Pakala which is in the name of D2, it discloses that amount was sanctioned to D2 to construct a house in Obula Chetty
Vari Palli village.
23.In view of the foregoing reasons stated, this court holds that, the plaintif failed to establish that the government assigned the suit schedule mentioned property to her and even she has been in possession and enjoyment of tiled house which is shown as part and parcel of suit schedule property, her possession over, it is not legal
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
18 possesson as such the plaintif is not entitled for grant of permanent injunction as sought for. Hence the issue is answered against plaintif and in favour of D1.
24.Issue No.2:Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
In view of the foregoing discussion on Issue No.1 this court holds that the plaintif is not entitled for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence the issue is answered against plaintif and infavour of defendant No.1.
25.Issue No.3: To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of May, 2020.
Sd/- B.Devendra Reddy,
Junior Civil Judge, Pakala
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
PW-1 : D.Narayanamma DW-1:V.Janardhana Achari PW-2 : M.Sivaiah Naidu DW-2: K.Reddy Prathap DW-3: D.Bhuvaneswar Naidu (Eschewed) EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1:Orders dated 18-3-2007 for grant of house under Indiramma Scheme.
Ex.A2:Certificate dated 2-6-2017 issued by the Panchayathh Secretary, Obulasettyvaripalle village in favour of plaintif.
Ex.A3:Certificate dated 2-6-2017 issued by the Panchayathh Sarpanch, Obulasettyvaripalle village in favour of plaintif.
O.S.No.66 of 2017 JCJ Court, Pakala
19
Ex.A4:The enquiry report dated 29-6-2017 issued by the Panchayathh Secretary, Obulusettyvaripalle village in favour of plaintif. Ex.A5:House tax receipt dated 2-6-2017 under assessment No.23 issued in the name of D.Subba Naidu.
Ex.A6:Field map for Sy.No.413 containing of house sites.
Ex.A7:Adangal dated 6-6-2017 for the Sy.No.413.
Ex.A8:Three photographs (3 in nos.) along with C.D. Ex.A9:Original Aadhar Card of plaintif.
Ex.A10:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 20-3-1993.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
Ex.B1:Original Nivasa Stalam Appagintha patta No.82, dated 3-11-2016 issued by the Tahsildar, Pakala in favour of defendant No.2. (The learned counsel for the plaintif objected to mark the said document on the ground that it is a colur photostat copy, subject to objection the said document is marked).
Ex.B2:Death certificate of D2.
Ex.B3:Aadhar card of D1. Ex.B4:Ration card of D1. Ex.B5:Copy of Statement issued by the A.P.State Housing Corporation, Pakala in favour of D2.
Sd/- B.Devendra Reddy,
Junior Civil Judge, Pakala
Fair judgment in OS No.66/2017
dated 26-5-2020 JCJC Pakala
// True copy //
Sd/- B.Devendra Reddy,
Junior Civil Judge, Pakala