IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT
MAHABUBNAGAR
Monday, the 29th day of April, 2024.
Present: Sri. B.Papi Reddy, Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC I-Addl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
O.S.No. 12 of 2013
Between:-
1. Burri Vijaya Reddy s/o Malla Reddy, aged 41 yrs, Agriculture,
2. Burri Vikram Reddy s/o Malla Reddy, aged 41 yrs, Agriculture,
Both are r/o H.No.2-2-1075/13, Tilaknager, Hyderabad, represented by their GPA Holder, B.Sivashanker s/o Posaiah, aged 32 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o H.No.3-69, Yedira village of Mahabubnagar mandal and District.
… Plaintiffs A N D
1. MA.Farooq s/o Md.Yunus, aged 40 yrs, Business,
2. Razak s/o Md.Yunus, aged 42 yrs, Business,
3. Md.Yunus s/o Md.Ali Mohmed, aged 59 yrs, Business,
All are r/o H.No.28-154, Jany Trading Company, Nagarkurnool Road, Main Road, Jedcherla of Mahabubnagar District, A.P. … Defendants
Sub:- Suit for Perpetual Injunction. @@@ This Original Suit came up before me for final hearing on 21-3-2024 in the presence of Sri G.Hanumanthu, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Sri K.Pratap Kumar, Counsel for the Defendants, having perused the material on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This Original Suit filed by the Plaintiffs Under Order VII Rule 1 r/w
Sec.26 of CPC against the Defendants seeking Perpetual Injunction, 2 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
2.The case of Plaintiffs as per the plaint is that the plaintiffs are real brothers. The defendants are strangers to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are owners and possessors of the suit plot admeasuring 340 Sq.yards of plot
No.4 in Sy.No.53 situated at Badepally sivar of Jadcherla of Mahabubnagar.
The plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule plot from its previous owner namely Golkonda Babu Rao through registered sale deed document bearing
No.1910/1991 dt.16-12-1991,since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
3.The defendants are strangers to the plaintiffs and they are no way concerned with the suit plot, they have no right or interest over the same, they never in possession of the suit plot at any point of time. The defen- dants are the followers of some real estate business persons, who are well known as land grabbers. In-fact the defendants are demanding the plain- tiffs to sell the suit plot for meager amount, but the plaintiffs refused for the same and informed the defendants that they have no intention of sell- ing the suit plot and they are going to construct building in the suit plot.
The defendants developed bore grudge against the plaintiffs and started troubling the plaintiffs by various means. On 22-2-2013 the defendants tried to occupy the suit plot by dispossessing the plaintiffs, however the plaintiffs have resisted the illegal acts of the defendants with great diffi- 3 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
culty and prevented the defendants from succeeding in the said efforts.
The defendants while leaving the suit plot, threatened the plaintiffs that they will come again with more men and occupy the suit property. Hence, the Suit.
4.Defendant No.1 filed Written Statement. Whereas the Defendants
No.2 and 3 adopted the Written Statement filed by the Defendant No.1.
5.Defendant No.1 filed Written Statement by denying the averments made in the plaint and further pleaded that the plaintiffs filed Registered
AGPA document No.624/2013 dt.23-1-2013 as document No.1 in which it is mentioned that they sold the said property through the said Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA by receiving Rs.10,19,500/- out of total consideration of
Rs.10,20,000/- from B.Shiva Shanker s/o Pochaiah and inducted him into possession over the suit schedule property and further appointed him as their GPA Holder. Thus, the own document of the plaintiffs shows that they are not in possession of the suit plot from the date of execution of the said
Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA on 23-1-2013. When the plaintiffs are admit- ting that they are not in possession of the suit schedule property and in- ducted to third party into the possession of the suit property even prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the present suit for perpet- ual injunction by claiming that they are in possession of the suit schedule property.
4 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
6.The RegisteredAgreement of Sale-cum-GPA document No.624/2013 dt.23-1-2013 is not properly stamped and the said agreement shows that possession of the suit property was delivered to the GPA Holder and hence the said document has to be stamped as if it is a sale deed and the said document is inadmissible in evidence.
7.The real facts of the case are that the defendant No.1 purchased three separate open plots which are adjacent to each other under three separate sale deeds which are out of Sy.No.51 shows as Sy.No.51/AA of
Badepally village, Jadcherla mandal, Mahabubnagar. The defendant No.1 purchased an extent of 200.05 Sq.yards out of the said land through regis- tered sale deed document No.10290/2006 from Smt.G.Subhadra w/o
G.Laxmaiah on 22-12-2006 and purchased an extent of 94.25 Sq.yards out of the same survey number from the same vendor through registered sale deed document No.10291/2006 on the same day and purchased an extent of 382.66 Sq.yards out of the same survey number from G.Laxmaiah s/o
Narsimhulu who is husband of said Smt.G.Subhadra on the same day through registered sale deed document No.10291/2006. The defendant
No.1 paid valid sale consideration to his vendors for purchasing the said plots and he was inducted into possession of the said plot by his vendors.
The defendant No.1 purchased total extent of 676.96 Sq.yards through the three sale deeds. The said Smt.G.Subhadra who is one of the vendors of the defendant No.1 purchased the said 200.05 Sq.yards from its earlier 5 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
owner M.Bal Lingam through registered sale deed document NO.1363/2005 on 13-4-2005 and she also purchased 94.25 Sq.yards on the same day from said M.Bal Lingam through registered sale deed document
No.1364/2005. The other vendor of the defendant No.1 G.Laxmaiah who is husband of Smt.G.Subhadra purchased 382.66 Sq.yards from M.Bal
Lingam on the same day through registered sale deed document
No.1362/2005. The vendors of the defendant No.1 were put into posses- sion of the said plots by their vendors in pursuance of their respective sale deeds and they enjoyed possession of the said plots till the same were sold to the defendant No.1. The said M.Bal Lingam purchased 200.05 Sq.yards from original owner of said land Smt.Narsamma w/o Ramachandraiah on 11-4-2002 through registered sale deed document No.665/2002 by paying valid sale consideration and further he purchased an extent of 94.25 Sq.- yards from the same vendor Smt.Narsamma on 11-4-2002 through regis- tered sale deed document No.667/2002 by paying valid sale consideration and he purchased 382.66 Sq.yards on 11-4-2002 itself from Smt.-
Narsamma through registered sale deed document No.666/2002. The said
Smt.Narsamma was earlier owner of the land bearing Sy.No.51 shown as
Sy.No.51/AA situated at Badepally village and she has become owner of the said property by virtue of ownership rights conferred under the provi- sions of Sec.38-E of Tenancy Act and she was in possession of the said land as an absolute owner and she sold part of the said land to M.Bal
Lingam and inducted him into possession of the said plots. Though three 6 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
separate sale deeds were purchased by M.Bal Lingam, he enjoyed the same by treating it as single plot and later he sold the said plots to the vendors of the defendant No.1 and they were also inducted into possession of the said plots and later they sold the said plots to the defendant No.1 and put him into possession of the said plots. The defendant No.1 is in ex- clusive possession of the said property since the date of purchase till today, obtained permission from the Grampanchayat, Badepally for construction of a small room/shop in the said property. Subsequently the defendant
No.1 constructed a small room in the said property and the Grampanchayat allotted premises No.9-34/1/A to the said room, issued ownership certifi- cate in respect of the said premises. The defendant No.1 also paid property tax to the Municipality in respect of the suit schedule property.
8.The defendant No.1 is in settled possession of the said property which includes the suit property as an absolute owner since the date of purchase till today. The plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule prop- erty and they never in possession of the suit schedule property. The plain- tiffs are claiming right in the land bearing Sy.No.53 which is adjacent to the land bearing Sy.No.51 of Badepally village and planned to occupy the land of the defendant No.1. The alleged GPA Holder of the plaintiffs and their friends who are shown as attested witnesses to the said GPA started doing real estate business and hence they have struck a deal with the plaintiffs and as part of their plan they created a sham and false Agree- 7 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
ment of Sale-cum-GPA in respect of some land in Sy.No.53 in the name of
B.Shiva Shanker who is their GPA holder and representing the plaintiffs in the present suit and started troubling the defendant No.1 and intended to extract money from the defendant No.1 by their illegal efforts to occupy the property of the defendant No.1. The said GPA Holder and his friends as part of their plan filed the present suit in the name of the plaintiffs and ob- tained exparte interim injunction in respect of the suit property by claiming the property of the defendant No.1 on the spot. The plaintiffs obtained in- junction orders in the suit and planned to occupy the property of the defen- dant No.1 and made efforts to illegally dispossess the defendant No.1 from his property. Hence, the defendant No.1 filed suit OS.No.15/2013 before this Court in respect of his entire property of 676.96 Sq.yards in Sy.No.51 against the plaintiffs, their GPA Holder and others and obtained injunction against them.
9.The defendant No.1 is in exclusive possession of the entire extent of 676.96 Sq.yards in which there was structure and the defendant No.1 is regularly paying property tax to the Gampanchayat and Municipality in re- spect of his property. The plaintiffs are claiming right over the suit plot in
Sy.No.53 through one G.Babu Rao. In-fact the material collected by the defendant No.1 shows that the said G.Babu Rao himself has no right over any of the land in Sy.No.53. The said G.Babu Rao and two others have pre- viously filed suit OS.No.105/1991 on 8-7-1991 before the District Munsiff 8 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
Court, Mahabubnagar in respect of 14 guntas out of Sy.No.53 against
Smt.Thota Narsamma and others for Perpetual Injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession over the said property.
10.The alleged vendor of the plaintiff G.Babu Rao claimed in the said suit that the protected tenants of land bearing Sy.No.53 were given 15 guntas of land by the land holder as a part of compromise and the said protected tenants sold 14 guntas of land to him on 20-6-1983 and the said G.Babu Rao sold plots No.1 to 3 to the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 of the said suit and in possession of the rest of the land. The plaintiffs are now claiming that they purchased plot No.4 from said G.Babu Rao on 16-12-1991 i.e., subsequent to filing of the said suit. The said suit was resisted by the said Smt.Thota Narsamma with specific plea that the plaintiffs therein filed the said suit for non-existing land and trying to occupy the land in Sy.No.51 belongs to her and stated that the entire land extent in Sy.No.53 was already sold by the land holders long back and denied the right, title and possession of the said G.Babu Rao and others over the subject matter of the said suit.In fact, it has come in the evidence in the said suit that the original owners of the said land bearing Sy.No.53 have sold more than 2-00 Acres of land by claiming it as Sy.No.53 and again claiming that they have given 00-15 Guntas of land to the said Tenants. In fact, the total extent of Sy.No.53 is 00-29 9 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
Guntas. The part of the extent in Sy.No.53 is covered by two roads and the said G.Babu Rao claimed in 0.S.No.216/1996 that road area is covered about 00-09 Guntas. The said suit was dismissed on merits on 31-07-1997 by the said Court and the Court clearly gave finding that the land holders of Sy.No.53 have already sold entire land in Sy.No.53 and in fact sold more land than the total extent of Sy.No.53, there is nothing left to give to the tenants and the question of purchase of land by said G.Babu Rao from the tenants does not arise. The Court also gave finding that the
Plaintiffs therein are not in possession of the said land of 00-14
Guntas of land. The alleged tenant late Jangam Chennaiah one of thevendors of said G.Babu Rao has given evidence in the said suit and other witnesses also deposed in the said suit, they have admitted that more than 2-00 Acres of land out of Sy.No.53 was sold in land in Sy.No.53 by the land owners and their legal heirs including late Beechunath Rao and his brothers. The said G.Babu
Rao and others have filed appeal A.S.No.44/1997 against the said
Judgment and Decree on the file of VI-Additional District Judge,
Mahabubnagar and the said appeal was also dismissed by the said
Court on 20-04-2006. The Appellate Court has also clearly gave finding that the original owners have no land left to give to the tenants and rejected the case of the Appellants therein. The
Plaintiffs are claiming right in the suit land by claiming that the suit 10 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
land is out of land which is the subject matter of O.S.No.216/1996.
When the alleged vendor of the Plaintiffs has already lost earlier set of litigation in the said suit in respect of the same property, the
Plaintiffs cannot claim that they are having right over the suit schedule property and they purchased the same from their vendors.
11.The vendors of the Plaintiffs is not claiming any right through the Pattadars of the said land namely Ranga Rao and Rajeshwar
Rao and their legal heirs, but claiming that the tenants Jangam
Chennaiah and his family members have sold the said 00-14 Guntas to said G.Babu Rao through Registered Sale Deed Document
No.700/1983. The Plaintiffs have also filed said document which shows that the said Sale Deed was executed byJangam Pochamma w/o Anthaiah, Jangam Pedda Chinnaiah, Jangam Chinna Chinnaiah and Jangam Ramachandraiah, all are sons of Anthaiah. The said persons are admittedly not having any title to the land in Sy.No.53 and they have claimed that the said land came to them through compromise. The said compromise decree if any is not registered and no title will pass to the said Tenants over the said land through said decree. Hence, they cannot sell 00-14 Guntas of land to the
Vendors of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs cannot purchase the property from their Vendors. The alleged Sale Deed of the vendors of the Plaintiffs was filed in O.S.216/1996 and marked as Ex.A.4 in 11 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
the said suit. The Court has already rejected the claim of said
G.Babu Rao and rejected the said document by considering the evidence. Thus, the Plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the suit schedule property in view of the fact that their vendor has no valid title or possession over the suit Plot.
12.The Plaintiffs have colluded with the revenue officials including Tahsildar and Surveyor subsequent to filing of the suit and they have also taken the help of the local police and trying to create false evidence to show that the suit schedule property is part of Sy.No.53. The said proceedings if any are illegal and not binding on the Defendant No.1 as no notice was given to the Defendant
No.1 before alleged proceedings. In fact, no survey was conducted and the Plaintiffs have created all the false records to grab the property of this Defendant.
13.The Defendant No.1 is specifically denying the right, title and possession of Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and so also the identity of the suit schedule property and specifically asserting that the Plaintiffs are claiming right in the suit property by claiming it as part of Sy.No.53 and claiming the land of this
Defendant in Sy.No.51. Hence, the Plaintiffs have no right to tile the present suit for Injunction and they have to file suit for declaration of title and possession particularly in view of the fact 12 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
that their Vendor G.Babu Rao has lost earlier set of litigation in
O.S.No.216/1996.
14.The description of the property as given in suit
O.S.No.216/1996 and in the present suit is not tallying with each
othcr. The Plaintiffs cannot maintain the present suit in view of dismissal of said suit as the alleged purchase of the suit property by the Plaintiffs is subsequent to filing the said suit and during the pendency of the said suit.
15.The Plaintiffs have suppressed real and material facts and not come to the court with clean hands and filed the present suit with the collusion of their G.P.A. Holder. Hence, the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief in the suit.
16.The Plaintiff's have no subsisting right or possession over the suit schedule property even as per their two documents and hence the Plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
17.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaint schedule is correct?
2. Whether sale deed dated 16-12-1991 is true valid and binding on the defendants?
13 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
3. Whether plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?
4. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed?
6 To what relief?
18.On behalf of the Plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A16. On behalf of Defendants, DW1 and DW2 are examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B17. Advocate Commissioner is also examined as CW1 and got marked Ex.X1 to Ex.X7.
19.Heard both sides, gone through the entire evidence.
ISSUES NO.1 to 5:-
20.This Suit is filed for Permanent Injunction where it is essential to prove that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.
21.Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the plaintiff in order to prove their possession marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 apart from commissioner’s report Ex.X1 and the plaintiff also examined the Advocate Commissioner as
CW1, as such the plaintiff clearly proved their possession,
22.Learned Counsel for the Defendants argued that when the GPA executed in favour of PW1 how can the plaintiff again filed the suit and the 14 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
suit schedule property is not in Sy.No.53, but it is in the defendants’
Sy.No.51/AA and the Advocate Commissioner proceeded without adhering to the commissioner warrant, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
23.According to the plaintiffs, they purchased the suit property under
Ex.A6 dt.16-12-1991 and since then they are in possession of the suit schedule property and apart from the said document Ex.A1 AGPA executed in favour of PW1 by the plaintiffs. The GPA holder of the plaintiff examined as PW1, he reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit and to avoid unnecessary repetition it is not discussed, but to substantiate the oral testimony, marked Ex.A1 Agreement-cum-GPA dt.23-1-2013 in respect of plot No.4 in Sy.No.53 to an extent 340 Sq.yards; Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance
Certificate shows the existence of Ex.A6; Ex.A3 is the Encumbrance
Certificate; Ex.A4 is tounch map of plot No.4 in Sy.No.53; Ex.A5 is the panchanama prepared by the Mandal Surveyor dt.30-11-2012 in respect of
Sy.No.53; Ex.A6 is the sale deed executed by one Babu Rao/vendor of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 dt.16-12-1991 vide document No.1910/1991; Ex.A7 is the registered sale deed executed in favour of Babu Rao, who is vendor of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 by Jangam Pochanna vide document No.700/83 dt.24-6-1983; Ex.A8 is the pahani for the year 1982-83 in respect of
Sy.No.53 to an extent 29 guntas; Ex.A9 is the surveyor report dt.8-3-2013;
Ex.A10 is the proceedings of Commissioner, Badepally Nagara Panchayat dt.4-8-2015 with plan; Ex.A11 is Miscellaneous receipt; Ex.A12 is the 15 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
certified copy of ROR extract in the name of Babu Rao, who is vendor of the plaintiff.
24.Apart from PW1, plaintiff No.2 also examined as PW3 and through him Ex.A13 to Ex.A16 sale deeds marked in respect of the suit schedule property.
25. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited that the defendant
No.1 filed suit is OS.No.15/2013 in respect of 676.96 Sq.yards in Sy.No.51,, but the suit schedule property survey number is 53, which is different. But according to PW1 both the parties are claiming the suit schedule property as their property. He purchased the property for sale consideration of
Rs.10,19,500/- from the plaintiffs and possession also delivered to him and after one month of execution of the same only he filed the suit. Admittedly he has not mentioned in the plaint that he purchased the property, but it is the consistent case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 executed
AGPA in favour of PW1. According to PW1, he verified the link documents of the plaintiffs.
26.PW2 also supported the case of the plaintiffs by stating that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit plot and they executed the registered agreement of sale-cum-AGPA in favour of PW1 by delivering the possession.
27.During the cross examination, nothing worth is elicited, but when the registered owner-cum-GPA Holder examined before the Court, filing the suit 16 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
in the same description mentioned in GPA is not fatal to the case of the plaintiffs.
28.Defendant No.1 also examined as DW1 and according to him the suit schedule property is not in Sy.No.53, but the plaintiff falsely shown the property which is in Sy.No.51 and through him Ex.B1 certified copy of the plaint in OS.No.216/1996 marked in respect of 14 guntas in Sy.No.53;
Ex.B2 is the certified copy of deposition of PW3; Ex.B3 is the certified copy of the Judgment in OS.No.216/1996; Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the
Decree in OS.No.216/1996; Ex.B5 is certified copy of the Judgment in
AS.No.44/1997; Ex.B6 certified copy of the Decree in AS.No.44/1997;
Ex.B7 is the pahani for the year 1974-75; Ex.B8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1984-85 and Ex.B9 to Ex.B17 are the registered sale deed documents, but during the cross examination he clearly admitted that he is not at all related to the land in Sy.No.53 as he has not purchased any property in the said survey number, but he admitted that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 purchased plot No.4 under registered document executed by Babu
Rao in the year 1991, but according to him Babu Rao sold excess land than what he had, but it is elicited that he has not filed the total extent of land sold by Babu Rao. He does not know the findings of Advocate
Commissioner, but he purchased plot in Sy.No.51, but not in Sy.No.53, where the suit schedule property is situated, there is no clarity whether the 17 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
suit plot No.4 in Sy.No.53 is covered in 14 guntas as mentioned in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.
29.DW2 also supported the defendants’ evidence, but during the cross examination he clearly stated that he does not know the survey number and the parties to the suit and he cannot say the survey number of DW1, as such his evidence is no avail to the case of defendants, but the material witnesses is the Advocate Commissioner, who examined as CW1 and he testified before the court that on 22-10-2017 he proceeded to the suit land in the presence of both the Counsels along with GPA Holder of the plaintiffs and in their presence with the help of village map he measured the land in
Sy.No.51 to 53, but he could not fix the boundary stones since Tippon was not available, but thereafter on 29-10-2017 he again went to the suit land and at that time also Tippon was not available, but he inspected the suit land with the help of village map and GPS machine, he prepared sketch map of the suit land and he stated that the boundaries are as under:-
East: 10 feet road
West: There is road leading to old bus station of Badepally
North: There is an open plot and Gouda Function Hall
South: Houses of Indira and M.A.Hafeez
He clearly stated that the suit schedule plot is in Sy.No.53. Ex.X1 is commissioner’s report; Ex.X2 is the location sketch map prepared by him; 18 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
Ex.X3 is the panchanama dt.22-10-2017; Ex.X4 is the panchanama dt.29-10-2017; Ex.X5 is the work memo filed by the plaintiff; Ex.X6 is the work memo filed by the defendant and Ex.X7 is the warrant.
30.Learned Counsel for the defendants argued that the Advocate
Commissioner exceeded limits of the commissioner warrant, but as seen from the Advocate Commissioner warrant he was appointed to visit along with surveyor to note down and identification of specific boundaries over the property in Sy.No.53 of Badepally and the suit schedule property mentioned in the Advocate Commissioner warrant is as under:-
East: 10 feet Road
West: Road from old bus stand to Jadcherla
North: Feet lane and plots of Mandadi Venkat Ramulamma and Goundla Sangam
South: Plot No.3 and plot of Smt.Indira w/o Chandr Shekar.
The boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property and the Advocate
Commissioner Warrant also disclosed the same schedule of property and same boundaries and Advocate Commissioner’s report discloses the boundaries as under:-
East: There is 10 feet Road
West: There is Road of Old Bus Stand, Badepally
North: There is an open plot in Sy.No.53 and after that Gouda Function Hall situated in Sy.No.55
South: H.Nos.9-34 and 9-33 belongs to Indira and M.A.Hafeez 19 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
respectively in Sy.No.53
That as seen from the boundaries mentioned in all the documents are supporting the suit schedule boundaries mentioned in the plaint and even according to DW1, he clearly stated he is not related to the land in
Sy.No.53, but the learned Counsel for the defendants argued that PW3 admitted that plot claimed by him is in the possession of defendant No.1, but when the documents are clearly supporting the version of the plaintiffs stray sentence in the cross examination is not clear admission and the learned Counsel for the defendants also argued with regard to the AGPA with regard to some discrepancy, but when PW3 who is plaintiff No.2 and
AGPA, who is examined as PW1, there is no question of any discrepancy.
The plaintiffs clearly proved their possession within the specific boundaries in Sy.No.53, moreover defendants also admitted that they are not claiming any property in Sy.No.53, the Advocate Commissioner Report also supporting the plaintiffs’ case with regard to the possession or boundaries of the suit schedule property, as such the plaintiffs are clearly proved their possession over the suit schedule property.
31.The above evidence clearly goes to show that the suit property with the specific boundaries is tallied with the Commissioner Warrant, Report and supported by the evidence of Advocate Commissioner CW1, as such schedule of property is proved to be correct and the documents filed by the plaintiffs Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 subsequent to the sale deed dt.16-12-1991, as 20 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
such the said sale deed was acted upon and the plaintiffs clearly proved that they are in possession of the suit plot in plot No.4 in Sy.No.53 and
DW1 also clearly admitted that they are not claiming any property in
Sy.No.53, as such the plaintiffs clearly proved that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit and the defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession, as such the plaintiffs are entitled for Permanent Injunction.
Hence, the Issues No.1 to 5 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE No.6:-
32. IN THE RESULT, this Original Suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed with costs and the Defendants are restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Property.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of April, 2024.
Sd/-
Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC I-Addl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WINTESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:- FOR DEFENDANTS:-
P.W.1 -:B.SivashankarD.W.1 -:Mohd.Farooq
P.W.2 -:Pedala GopalD.W.2 -:K.Praveen Kumar
P.W.3 -:Burri Vikram Reddy 21 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
C.W.1:V.Sriram Kumar
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1:Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA executed in favour of PW1 by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 vide Document No.624/2013 dt.23-1-2013 Ex.A2:Encumbrance Certificate issued by District Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla dt.19-11-2012 Ex.A3:Encumbrance Certificate issued by District Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla dt.20-11-2012 Ex.A4:Tounch Map of Plot No.4 in Sy.No.53 prepared by Executive Officer, Badepally Grampanchayat Ex.A5:Panchanama prepared by Mandal Surveyor dt.30-11-2012
Ex.A6:Registered Sale Deed executed by Babu Rao Vendor of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 vide Document No.1910/1991 dt.16-12-1991 with sketch Ex.A7:Copy of Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of Babu Rao Vendor of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 by Jangam Pochamma w/o Shankaraiah vide Document No.700/1983 dt.24-6-1983 (subject to objection on Admissibility) Ex.A8:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1982-83
Ex.A9:Survey Report vide File No.B/503/2013 dt.8-3-2013
Ex.A10:Proceedings of Commissioner, Badepally Nagara Panchayat, dt.4-8-2015 with plan Ex.A11:Miscellaneous Receipt issued by Badepally Nagara Panchayat vide File No.G1/738/2015-16 Ex.A12:Certified copy of ROR Extract in the name of Babu Raop vendor of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 Ex.A13:Certified copy of Sale Deed Document No.216/1990, dt.12-2-1990 Ex.A14:Certified copy of Sale Deed Document No.400/1988, dt.8-2-1988 Ex.A15:Certified copy of Sale Deed Document No.1551/1988 dt.3-8-1988 Ex.A16:Certified copy of Sale Deed Document No.97/1983, dt.15-2-1983 Ex.X1:Advocate Commissioners Report
Ex.X2:Location Sketch Map
Ex.X3:Panchanama dt.22-10-2017 22 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
Ex.X4:Panchanama dt.29-10-2017
Ex.X5:Work Memo filed by the plaintiff
Ex.X6:Work Memo filed by the defendant
Ex.X7:Warrant Entrusted to CW1
FOR DEFENDANTS:-
Ex.B1:Certified copy of Plaint in OS.No.216/1996 on the file of District
Munsiff Court, Jadcherla dt.8-7-1991
Ex.B2:Certified copy of Deposition of PW3 (late Jangam Chennaiah) in
OS.No.216/1996 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Jadcherla
dt.28-2-1997
Ex.B3:Certified copy of Judgment in OS.No.216/1996 on the file of
District Munsiff Court, Jadcherla dt.31-7-1997
Ex.B4:Certified copy of Decree in OS.No.216/1996 on the file of
District Munsiff Court, Jadcherla dt.31-7-1997
Ex.B5:Certified copy of Judgment in AS.No.44/1997 on the file of
VI-Addl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar dt.20-4-2006
Ex.B6:Certified copy of Decree in AS.No.44/1997 on the file of
VI-Addl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar dt.20-4-2006
Ex.B7:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1974-75 dt.15-4-2013
Ex.B8:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1984-85 dt.15-4-2013
Ex.B9:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document
No.10290/2006 dt.22-12-2006
Ex.B10:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document
No.10291/2006 dt.22-12-2006
Ex.B11:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document
No.10292/2006 dt.22-12-2006
Ex.B12:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document
No.1363/2005 dt.13-4-2005 23 of 23
O.S.No.12 of 2013 Dt.29-4-2024
Ex.B13:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document
No.1364/2005 dt.13-4-2005
Ex.B14:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document
No.1362/2005 dt.13-4-2005
Ex.B15:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document No.665/2002 dt.11-4-2002
Ex.B16:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document No.667/2002 dt.11-4-2002
Ex.B17:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Document No.666/2002 dt.11-4-2002
Sd/-
Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC I-Addl.District Judge, Mahabubnagar.