IN THE COURT OF V SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Smt. B. Prameela, B.A., B.L.,
V Senior Civil Judge
Tuesday, the 28 th day of April, 2015
O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
Between
Mr.S. Venkat Kiran Kumar ..Plaintiff
AND
1. Smt. K.Anuradha (died)
2. Mr.K.Saibaba
3. Kum.K.Srivani
4. Kum.K.Sumalatha
5. Kum.K.Swapna ..Defendants/Proposed defendants 2 to 5
(D2 to D5 are added as per the Court Order
Dated:23.3.2004 in I.A.No.214/09 as Lrs of defendant No.1 as
defendants 2 to 5)
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Sujatha V, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Govindh Singh Thaakur, Advocate for defendant Nos.2 to 5 and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed for possession of the suit schedule property by directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and in case of his failure, it may be directed to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by the Agency of the Court, for future mesne profits, and costs of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff is, that, originally the scheduled property belonged to Smt. Anjani Devi, she was the member of the Defence
Civilian Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, (Registered
No. TAV229), Defence Colony, Langer House, Hyderabad. The general body of the said society at its meeting held on 8.1.1984 directed the Managing Committee of the Society to issue allotment orders to all the members of the Society, who have paid full sale consideration and to hand over possession of the plots to the allotees.
Smt. Anjani Devi was allotted the suit schedule site at the rate of 2 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
Rs.55/ per sq. yard. The Managing Committee of the said Society further resolved to give agreement of sale to all the members as per the directions of the general body. Thus, the said society executed the agreement of sale dt.4.10.1993 infavour of the said Anjani Devi putting her in physical possession of the suit scheduled site. She constructed schedule house in the said allotted plot. She had been in possession and enjoyment of the said house till she sold the same to her vendees. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad issued a
Special Notice of House Tax on 8.3.95 while fixing Rs.2,400/ as a penalty for the unauthorized construction made by the said
Smt.Anjani Devi. The property tax was also fixed at Rs.242.15ps. Per half yearly. The said amounts were paid by the said Smt.Anjani Devi.
She also paid house Taxes for later period. She also obtained
Electricity connection for the said house and she was paying electricity bills regularly. The State Government found that the suit schedule site was excess land under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.
The suit schedule site and the other sites in the locality were acquired by the State Government under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 as 'excess lands'. The said fact came to light in the year 2002.
Smt. Anjani Devi submitted an application to the appropriate authority under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 for regularization of her occupation of the suit schedule site. By considering all the facts and circumstances and possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the said Smt.Anjani Devi, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 1072, dt.9.12.02 regularizing her occupation under the provisions of the said Act on payment of Rs.36,800/ payable as per G.O. Issued vide
P.O.No.831299, dt.28.10.02 of Punjab National Bank, Hyderabad. The allotment made by the Government shall be conclusive proof of the title of the occupant over such excess land allotted. Thus the said
Smtg.Anjani Devi became absolute owner of the suit schedule property. She had been in uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property from 41093 till she sold the same to her 3 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
Vendees. She sold the suit schedule property to Sri N.Badrinath and
Sri D.Krishna Murthy, by receiving a sum of Rs.7,17,500/ and executed a salecumGeneral Power of Attorney dt.19.2.2007 in their favour. They were also put in possession of the suit schedule property on the same date. Late the said Smt.Anjani Devi's vendees sold the suit schedule property for proper and valid consideration under a regular registered sale deed dt.,5.5.07 in favour of the plaintiff. He was put in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of sale deed itself. The suit schedule building is an old one and the same has been indilapidated condition. The construction of the said building is also defective one and the same is not in accordance with the Vaasthu
Sastra. The plaintiff kept the suit schedule house as vacant for the purpose of demolishing the same with a view to construct a new building in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is residing at
Vidyanagar, which is a far away place to the suit schedule property.
The defendant is having large following and also rowdy elements behind her back. She occupied the suit schedule house without any semblance of right in the first week of June, 2007. She tresspassed into the suit schedule property with the assistance of the rowdy elements and land grabbers. After knowing the fact of her criminal trespass and occupation of the suit schedule property by the defendant, the plaintiff approached the defendant personally and also along with the elders and his vendors. The defendant bluntly refused to vacate the premises with a view to get wrongful gain. Moreover, she has been sending messages through her people for the payment of huge amounts by the plaintiff to vacate the premises. She has no right to occupy the suit schedule property nor entitled to continue in the same. Her act of occupation is nothing but criminal trespass with a view to extract money from the plaintiff. Hence, she is liable to be evicted from the suit schedule property. After knowing of the illegal and unauthorized occupation of the defendant in the suit schedule property, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice on 9.7.07.
After receipt of the same, the defendant got issued a reply notice 4 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 dt.23.7.07 with all false and frivolous allegations. Her alleged occupation of the suit schedule property since March, 1994 is nothing but false. She was not at all in occupation of the suit schedule property till the first week of June, 2007. Her claiming of adverse possession is not at all correct and she has stated as such only with a view to grab the valuable property of the plaintiff.
3. Initially the defendant filed his written statement pending the suit the defendant died. On that the defendants 2 to 5 are impleaded as L.Rs. of the defendant there after the defendants 2 to 5 filed common written statement which is the verbation reproduction the written statement of the deceased defendant. The defendants in their written statement refuting the plaint pleadings as false in parawise, and have contended that the suit of the plaintiff is neither maintainable in law nor on facts, the plaintiff has not came to court with clean hands and by suppressing the true facts and by creating documents has filed the false suit with concocted and vexatious allegations. The defendant No.1 is not aware who the plaintiff is and with regard to his description. The plaint schedule property is in lawful possession and enjoyment of this defendant since March, 1994 onwards to the knowledge of one and all including the original owner
Smt.V.Anjani Devi and this defendant has got perfected the title to the suit schedule property by virtue of law of adverse possession for having being in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property for more then 12 years. Further with regard to the other contents this defendant No.1 has nothing to do with the same.
But it is vehemently denied to the extent that Smt.Anjani Devi was in possession and enjoyment of the said house till she sold the same to her vendees N.Badrinath and Sri Krishna Murthy, infact this defendant
No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the same since March, 1994 onwards. Smt. Anjani Devi created the document Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dt.19.2.2007 infavour of N.Badrinath and Sri Krishna Murthy in collusion with them for creating false 5 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 evidence to show that the possession was delivered to them, further it is vehemently denied that they were put in possession on the same date i.e., 19.2.2007 and later the said Smt.Anjani Devi's vendees sold the suit schedule property for proper and valid consideration under a regular registered sale deed dt.5.5.2007 infavour of the plaintiff. It is vehemently denied that the building is a old one and the same is in dilapidated condition, it is further denied that the building construction is defective and not accordance with vasthu sastra, and the plan filed by the plaintiff along with the suit shows only two rooms with Bathroom and Toilet and open land which in fact is not true and correct which clearly shows that the plaintiff himself is not aware of how many rooms are located in the said house, because the plaintiff was never inducted in physical possession of the same by his vendors on 5.5.07 as alleged by him in para 'C'. Further it is vehemently denied that the plaintiff kept the suit schedule house as vacant for purpose of demolishing the same with a view to construct a new building in the suit schedule property, further the defendant No.1 is not aware were the plaintiff is residing as he is a complete stranger to the defendants and after receiving the notice dt.9.7.07 the defendants came to know about him for the first time. Further it is vehemently denied that this defendant No.1 is having large following and also rowdy elements are behind the back of this defendant and it is false and baseless to allege that this defendant No.1 occupied the suit schedule house without any semblance of right in the first of
June, 2007 and further denied that this defendant No.1 tress passed into the suit schedule property with the assistance of rowdy elements and land grabbers further it is false and baseless to allege that after knowing the fact of the criminal tresspass and occupation of the suit schedule property by the defendants the plaintiff approached the defendant personally and also along with elders and also with the plaintiffs vendors and this defendant No.1 bluntly refused to vacate the premises with a view to get wrongful gains, further also it is vehemently denied that this defendant No.1 has been sending 6 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 messages through her people for payment of huge amounts by the plaintiff to vacate the premises further also it is denied that this defendant No.1 has no right to occupy the suit schedule property, nor entitle to continue in the same and her acts of occupation is nothing but criminal tress pass and with a view to extract money from the plaintiff. It is false and baseless to allege that after knowing of the illegal and unauthorized occupation of the defendants in the suit schedule property plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice on 9.7.07, and after receipt of the same this defendant gave a reply on 23.7.07 with all false and frivolous allegations. No cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file this suit, the alleged dates of cause of action are concocted and created one to file this false suit, and this
Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under reply as no cause of action arose for the same. The court fee paid is not proper and correct and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.1 further submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as this defendant is in uninterrupted physical and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since March, 1994 onwards i.e., for a period of more them 12 years, and have got perfected her title over the suit schedule property to the knowledge of one and all including the owner Smt. V. Anjani Devi and the subsequent purchasers from her, as such the defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property and residing in the same with her family since March, 1994 onwards. The defendant
No.1 reserve her right to claim damages from the plaintiff for causing defamation and causing mental agony and physical strain to the defendants against the plaintiff. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with exemplory cost u/s.35(A) of CPC.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 28.1.2008
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property?
2. To what relief?
7 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following Additional issues were framed for trial:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
2. Whether this Court got jurisdiction to try the suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff purchased the property through the registered sale deed dt.5.5.07?
4. Whether D2 to D5 are in possession of suit property since March,1994?
6. During the trial, plaintiff filed the evidence of Pws1 to PWs.4 but the evidence of Pws.2 & 3 were eschewed and marked Exs.A1 to A27.
On behalf of the defendant, DW1 is examined and Exs.B1 to B were marked.
7.Heard Arguments.
8. To prove the plaintiffs claim, the plaintiff as PW1 and also PW4 who was examined in support of plaintiff evidence have filed their respective affidavits inlieu of their evidence in chief. PW1 in his evidence affidavit has quiet reiterated the same averments that are pleaded in their plaint. In support of his evidence he got marked the documents Exs.A1 to A27.
Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated:4.10.99 Ex.A2 Special notice of housetax dated:8.3.1995 Ex.A3 Acknowledgment issued by Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad Ex.A4 Allotment of excess land under occupation Ex.A5 G.O.Ms.No.1072 Ex.A6 Endorsement from the Special Office and Competent Authority, ULC Ex.A7 Sale Deed dated:5.5.2007 Ex.A8 is the EC for the period 1.5.95 to 15.8.07 Ex.A9 Market value certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Golconda Exs.A10 to A16 are the property tax receipts Exs.A17 and A18 are receipts of Eseva Ex.A19 Receipt issued by the Assistant Accounts officer dt.6.8.07 Ex.A20 Notice dated:23.7.07 Ex.A21 Legal notice dated:9.7.07 Ex.A22 Electricity bill Ex.A23 is receipt Ex.A24 Receipt of MCH for payment of property tax Ex.A25 is MCH demand notice Ex.A26 Demand notice of property tax Ex.A27 Registered agreement of sale cum GPA( with possession) 8 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
dated:19.2.2007 executed by V.Anjani Devi infavour of N. Badrinath
and D. Krishnamurthi along with plan
9.During cross examination PW1 deposed that the plaint schedule and plaint plan referred by him to be read as part and parcel of the plaint referred in his chief examination is in respect of the property.
He has seen the suit property in the last week of May 2007. The plan
Ex.A4 was handed over to by V. Anjani Devi. Anjani Devi purchased the property in 1993 as per her documents given to them. Her document is Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated:4.10.1993. It is a fact that
Ex.A1 is only agreement of sale. It was not transformed into sale deed because of pendency of ULC proceedings. But she had been making payment of taxes from the time of Ex.A1. On suggestion he denied that Anjani Devi has no absolute right over the property and that she is not absolute owner as suggested Anjani Devi is not related to him.
His father retired as Senior Assistant in Animal Husbandary
Department at Guntur. Anjani Devi herself informed them that she has been in possession of the property since 4.10.1993. N. Badrinath and
D. Krishnamurthi the vendees in Ex.A27 have executed the sale deed in his favour. Badrinath and Krishnamurthi have handed over the documents relating to the property to him. Anjani Devi is not an attesting witness to his sale deed. On 5.5.2007 he has received the possession of property from his vendors. His vendors were in possession of the property sold to him by the date of his purchase to his personal knowledge. From February, 2007 they have been in possession of the property. The door number of the plaint schedule property is 911/B/16/4. Till now he has not seen the defendant
Anuradha. According to him the defendant trespassed into suit property in June, 2007. Prior to June, 2007 he was in possession of the suit property. He has not filed documentary evidence to show his possession over the property prior to June, 2007 except the sale deed.
Ex.A21 legal notice dated:9.7.2007 was issued to his instructions and he know the contents. The defendant replied the said notice under 9 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
Ex.A20. He has gone through the contents of Ex.A20. He did not lodge any police complaint against defendant for the tresspass prior to
Ex.A21 notice. Even later also he did not lodge such complaint to the
Police. He has gone through the written statement of the defendant.
He has made enquiries with neighbours about the allegations raised by the defendant in WS and reply notice. He do not know their names. He do not know the agent of the defendant who was coming to him as mentioned in his notice Ex.A21. He had been to the defendant personally along with his vendors to ask her to vacate. But she did not even open the gate therefore they could not approach her.
Therefore he could not meet her till date. It is a fact that in his notice he got it mentioned “inspite of repeated requests made by his client and also elders intervention, he did not choose to vacate the notice schedule premises''. Witness adds that, that reference is made as his vendors had been to the defendant on his behalf. He has been asking his vendors to see that the defendant vacate the premises. It is a fact that in his chief examination he has stated that he approached the defendant personally and also with the elders and also his vendors. It was stated by him referring to his evidence that he along with his vendors had been to her but she did not open the gate. He spoke to her from outside the gate itself as they were not allowed into the gate.
It is a fact that he did not mention in the notice Ex.A21 or in the plan about the defendant closing the gate, not allowing them to enter into the premises and their conversing with her from outside the gate. He did not lodge any private complaint into the Court about the alleged tresspass of the defendant. He did not file any electricity bill payment receipts from 1993 onwards. He did not enquire his vendors or Anjani
Devi about the said electricity bill payment receipts. He has paid the electricity consumption charges demanded under Ex.A22 under receipt Ex.A23, though “he was not in possession of the property, though he was not using the electricity because there was threat for disconnection if the bill amount is not paid. That threat was only oral one. Ex.A22 is dated:11.10.07 and Ex.A23 is dated:17.10.2003.
10 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
According to Ex.A22 the due date for payment is 24.10.2007. On suggestion he denied that without the knowledge of the occupant of the premises. He has collected the bill Ex.A22 and made the payment under Ex.A23 fraudulently to suit his case as suggested. After Ex.A23 he did not receive any bill for payment and he did not pay any bills for electricity consumption. He do not know who is making payment of the electricity charges from November, 2007. he do not know who was making payment of electricity consumption charges prior to
Ex.A22. He do not know if the defendant is making payment of the electricity consumption charges from March, 1994 as suggested. On suggestion he denied that there was no threat of disconnection of electricity as stated by him and that he has invented the same as suggested. On suggestion he denied that the defendant did not trespass into the premises much less in the first week of June, 2007 as claimed by him and that he is deposing false. Prior to his purchase of the property the electricity bills were in the name of V. Anjani Devi.
He did not make enquiries as to whether there were any arrears of electricity charges due to be paid by the date of his purchase. Anjani
Devi did not handover any receipts to him in respect of payment of electricity charges. Witness adds that she gave no objection for transfer. He saw the ration card shown to him. The photograph therein is that of the defendant. The house number mentioned in that is 911/B/16/4, Langar Houz. According to the said card shown to him it was issued on 5.2.2006. It is a fact that the said ration card belongs to the defendant and she is residing in the said premises. He do not know if she is in possession of the said premises as on 5.2.2006 as mentioned in the said ration card shown to him. The suit property is not existing on ground as shown in the plan appended to Ex.A7. It is a fact that to the plaint they have appended the plan of the suit schedule property. It is a fact that the features of the property shown in the said plaint plan also do not tally with the property on ground.
He has stated that his vendor was in possession from the time she made construction till she executed the sale deed. She commenced the 11 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 construction in 1993. He has filed documents relating to her possession since 2002. The said document is ULC clearance order.
The witness is shown Ex.A5. It is a fact in Ex.A5 the name of Anjani
Devi and her husband name is shown. On suggestion he denied that in
Ex.A5 there is no reference about possession of Anjani Devi over such property. Ex.A1 is the first document on which he is relying for his title. Ex.A1 agreement deed is in respect of open land. It is fact that in
Ex.A1 his vendor's residence is shown as H.No.911/C/167/4 Defence
Colony, Langar Houze. The said address is the suit schedule address.
It is a fact that in Ex.A1 there is a condition that the member shall not transfer the property to third parties without permission of the society. His vendor has obtained such permission. He has not filed such permission into the Court. In the sale deed in his favour there is no mention that his vendor has obtained such permission from the society to sell away the property. In Ex.A27 dated:19.2.2007 the address of Anjani Devi is shown as Kakityanagar Colony, Hyderabad,
Plot No.23, Anjani Devi is a Government servant. He do not know where she is working. He would examine said Anjani Devi on his behalf. It is a fact that in Annexure 1 A appended to Ex.A27 the age of the building is left blank. One hall and 3 rooms, one internal toilet and one external toilet are there. It is an RCC building. In Ex.A27 annexure 1 A the nature of construction is mentioned as ACC. The witness refers that according to him the structure of the suit property is concrete structure. In the plan appended to Ex.A27 two rooms were only shown to be in existence with one external toilet. There is no hall referred in that plan. In the annexure to Ex.A27 the photograph of
Anjani Devi is contained as vendor. The identity proof of Anjani Devi appended to Ex.A27 are that of the voters identity card issued by the
Election Commission. In that also her address is shown as 9484/23,
Kakatiyanagar, Hyderabad. According to it it was issued on 20.3.1996. The other identity poor appended to Ex.A27 relating to
Anjani Devi is household card. It was issued on 19.11.2006. In that also the same address is as mentioned above as Kakatiyanagar. In the 12 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 sale deed Ex.A7 in his favour also her address is shown as
Kakatiyanagar, Hyderabad. In annexure I A of Ex.A7 also, the nature of building as referred as “ACC and the age of the building is left blank”. It is a fact in the plan appended to Ex.A7 also, the same features of the plan appended to Ex.A27 are also shown. As per Ex.A1 agreement, the property was comprised in S.No.47,56,58,49, 54, 61, 50, 53, 55 and 71 totally adm. 23 Ac. 30 Gts. Witness adds that the said survey numbers refer to the total and sub division of the survey
No. relating to the plot of Anjani Devi was not mentioned therein. It is a fact in the immediate neat para the plot No. is referred as 16/4 referring to S.No.60/61 under Ex.A1. It is a fact that in Ex.A27 in respect of the property the survey numbers have been referred as 60/P and 61/P in Ex.A7 also the survey numbers have been referred as 60/P and 61/P. In both the documents after survey numbers 60/p, 61/P it is mentioned as “ in T.S.Nos. 66/P, 70/2, 71/1, Block M”. He cannot say the meaning of the said words. In Ex.A1 there is no addition to such survey numbers. It is a fact that vendor has handed over the original sale deed and concerned papers of schedule property to the vendee on that day. He has not filed the original sale deed of
Anjani Devi but he has filed only agreement of sale. He is not in possession of the said original sale deed therefore he cannot file it.
Witness adds that no such original sale deed is handed over to him.
Witness adds that only notarized sale deed is handed over to him.
With reference to his pleading and evidence that Anjanidevi sold the property to her vendees he has filed the agreementcumGPA A27.
She also delivered possession to her vendees under Ex.A27. He has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that Badrinath and
Krishna Murthy have been in possession of suit property at any time.
Witness adds that he had filed documents to show that Anjanidevi in is possession. He has filed documents in respect of possession of
Anjanidevi from 1993 to 2002 by way of Government order. It is not true that the said Government order Ex.A5 do not speak about the possession of Anjani Devi as suggested. Apart from Ex.A5 he has filed 13 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 some municipal receipts but he has not filed evidence by way of ration card, voters list, electricity bill, water bill to show that Anjanidevi was in actual possession of the said property. He see the property tax receipt dated 19.3.95 filed by him in that the signature of the party do not relate to Anjanidevi. The other property tax receipts filed by him also do not bear the signature of Anjanidevi as the party who paid the amount. Anjanidevi is a Government servant. He do not know whether in the service register her address is shown as suit property address. On suggestion he denied that Anjanidevi even since prior to 1993 has been residing at Plot No.23, Kakatiyanagar, Hyderabad, that the same address was shown in the records and that she never resided in the suit property as suggested. He cannot produce service record of
Anjanidevi. Anjanidevi herself informed him that she is in possession of the suit property from the date of her purchase in 1993 till she sold and delivered possession to her vendees. Anjani Devi transferred the property to her vendees under the agreement of sale cum GPA i.e.,
Ex.A27. In Ex.A27 the address of Anjani Devi was typed as Plot No.23,
Kakatiyanagar Colony, Hyderabad as her residential address. That residential address of Anjani Devi mentioned in Ex.A27 is correct.
Under Ex.A27 the vendees therein have paid the total consideration to
Anjanidevi. He cannot say as to why the regular sale deed was not executed though the entire sale consideration was paid, possession was delivered and by the agreement of sale cum GPA was got executed. The addresses of Badrinath, Krishna Murthy shown in
Ex.A27 are the same addresses mentioned in Ex.A7 the sale deed executed by them as GPA of Anjani devi in his favour. In both
Exs.A27 and A7 the sale consideration is one and the same without any change. According to Ex.A27 the amount therein was paid in cash. Under Ex.A7 he has paid the amount in cash to his vendor. He has not filed any separate acknowledgments for the payment of the said amounts. Witness adds that the acknowledgment in the documents itself is acknowledgment. He has drawn the consideration from the bank to be paid to his vendors. They were drawn from 14 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 several bank in SBH by his brother, Vijaya Bank by his father and himself from ICICI bank. The name of his brother is S.V.L. Prasad. He can filed the statement from the said banks, to show the withdrawal of the amounts by the date of Ex.A7. Badrinath and Krishna Murti have delivered the possession of property to him. At the time of Ex.A7 his vendors have handed over the agreement of sale in the name of
Nandinidevi, the copy of the G.O. Ex.A5, the other document and the endorsement dated:3.1.2003 by the Special Officer, ULC, the agreement of sale cum GPA infavour of them, Municipal Tax receiot, self assessment of tax. Even prior to the date of Ex.A5 Anjani Devi was in possession of property since 1995. He saw document shown to him. According to the slip attached to the pamphlet, the name of the defendant is mentioned with her house number as 911/B/16/4,
Langar House. The said address is the same as that of the suit property (the witness is confronted with the election pamphlet of one
P. Navaneeta Sekhar Yadav for the elections to be held on 22.1.2002 with some slip mentioning the details of booth, ward, voter number and the particulars of the voter without any bodies signature. he has not filed any electricity bill paid by either Anjanadevi or his vendors, for the period from 1993 till the date of filing the suit to show that they have paid the electricity charges in respect of the suit property.
He cannot say the service connection number of the suit premises because he do not remember it properly. After his purchase, he has perused the electricity bills relating to the suit property. His vendors have handed over the electricity bills in the name of Anjanidevi to him. He has filed the said documents into the Court. Ex.A19 is the electricity receipt, it is dated:6.8.2007. The other bill is
dated:11.10.2007 and the receipt is dated:17.10.2007. The witness
referred about Ex.A22 and A23. Among them the receipt in the name of Anjanidevi was handed over at the time of Ex.A7 and others he has obtained by making an application. He has not filed any other document than Ex.A6 to show the actual possession of Anjanidevi over the suit property. He has purchased the property on 5.5.2007 and was 15 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 in possession of the property only upto the first week of June, 2007.
From the date of their purchase Badrinath and Krishna Murthy were in possession till possession given to him. During that period
Badrinath and Krishna Murthy must have paid the electricity charges.
They did not hand over the electricity bills or receipts for that period.
On suggestion he denied that the defendant since is in possession of the suit property has been making the payment of electricity charges for the use of electricity as suggested. He do not have personal knowledge about the possession of Anjanidevi from 1993. Exs.A10 to
A16 the municipal property tax bills do not bear the signatures of
Anjanidevi in the ration card, the other documents relating to
Anjanidevi voter cards and other documents relating to Anjanidevi she has shown her address as Kakatiyanagar only. In Ex.A8 the nature of encumbrance for both the documents was shown as sale. On suggestion he denied that the electricity bills filed by him have been created to support his false claim though he is not in possession, that his vendors were also not in possession as suggested. On suggestion he denied that defendant do not have any large following including anti social elements as as suggested. Presently the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. On suggestion he denied that his claim and evidence that defendant was not in possession the property, prior to first week of June, 2007 is false. He do not have personal knowledge about possession of the property prior to his purchase. What all he has stated in respect of possession prior to his purchase is based on the information given by his vendors and Anjani
Devi and coupled with their document. For the help he has called his vendors when the defendant tress passed into the property. He has not lodged any police complaint. That Anjanidevi, her vendees and himself were never in possession of the property from 1993, at any point of time and that the defendant has been in possession of the property from 1994. It is a fact that he did not file any complaint also against the alleged tresspass of the defendant. On suggestion he denied that there is no cause of action to present the suit. The cause of 16 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 action is created for the purpose of the case. On suggestion he denied that he is not entitled for the suit relief, and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
10.PW4 in his chief affidavit has averred that he was leased out the suit schedule building in the year 2004 on a rental of Rs.2500/ for the first 3 years and later he was asked to pay the rentals by increasing the same @ 10% for every two years by Smt. Anjani Devi.
During his tenancy Smt. Anjani devi was intending to sell the suit schedule property, she informed him the same and has asked him to vacate the premises. But due to his personnel inconvenience, he has requested Smt. Anjani Devi to continue his tenancy even after the sale of the suit schedule property. Smt. Anjani Devi sold the suit schedule property to one Mr. N. Badrinath and Mr. D. Krishna Murthy on in the month of February, 2007. The vendees of the Smt. Anjani Devi have also accepted to continue his lease. Till the month of February, he has paid the rentals to Smt. Anjani Devi and subsequently from then onwards till the end of April, 2007 he has paid the rentals to Mr. N.
Badrinath. He was told by Mr. Badrinath that as their vendee that is the plaintiff herein has insisted to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property and as such he was asked to vacate the premises by the end of April, 2007. He is filing this affidavit without any force, coercion or undue influence of either parties and deposing with his free will and consent only.
11.In his cross examination he deposed that he has been asked by
Badrinath to give evidence in this case. He has not filed any material to show that he is residing presently at house at Vidyanagar referred in his chief examination affidavit. He is working in English and
Foreign languages University of Central Government at Hyderabad. In his address furnished to the office for the period 2004 to 2007 he has not furnished the suit premises as his residential address to the office.
During that period there is no such procedure to furnish the residential address. Prior to joining the suit premises, he has been 17 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 residing at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. Till he has joined the address at
Vidyanagar. He had no ration card or election voter card. But only after joining the Vidyanagar premises he obtained the ration card and voter. He is having driving license when he is residing at
Dilsukhnagar. During the period 2004 to 2007 he is not having any bank account. Since he is in possession of any record, he could not file documents to show his possession over suit premises during the period 2004 to 2007. Witness adds that Anjani Devi was not giving any receipts. During the period 2004 and 2007. Anjani devi herself was making payment of electricity and water consumption charges.
After Anjani Devi, he has become tenant of Badrinath. He was paying rent of Rs.2,500/ during the year 2007. He did not see the sale deed executed by Anjani Devi in favour of Badrinath. But he know that she executed a sale deed infavour of Badrinath. He saw the plan which is appended to Ex.A27 relating to the suit property. Witness adds that on ground the suit property is not as referred in the plan, but is consisting only one room on ground. The plaintiff was not having knowledge that he was the tenant in the suit schedule premises by the date of his purchase. He has vacated the suit premises on 30.4.2007.
On suggestion he denied that he was never in possession of suit schedule property of either Anjanidevi or Badrinath and that he is deposing false. During the period 2004 and 2007 he did not cast his vote at any place he has been residing with his wife and children. His wife is housewife. During the period 20042007 his children studied at St. Anns School, Mehdipatnam. It is a fact that he did not furnish his residential address in the admission form at St Anns High School, at Mehdipatnam. But he has given his cousin brother's address at
Mehdipatnam. He has mentioned on his own that he is filling this affidavit without force, coercion or undue influence from either parties. He has not seen the defendant. He has also not seen the plaintiff at any point of time. On suggestion he denied that he is unconcerned with the suit schedule property that he was never in possession of it, and that the instance of Badrinath he is deposing 18 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 falsely without knowing the facts as suggested. He do not know who is in possession of the suit schedule property after he vacated the same on 30.4.2007
12. After closure of plaintiff evidence the 3rd defendant got himself examined as DW1, by filing an affidavit in lieu of her evidence wherein she has quite reiterated the same averments that are pleaded in her written statement.
13. During her cross examination she deposed that she do not know V. Anjani Devi. The contents of chief affidavit were prepared during life time of her mother to her dictation. She do not know V.
Anjani Devi, her deceased mother might have acquaintance with V.
Anjani devi. She do not know boundaries to suit schedule property. In her chief affidavit at Page No.3, at 11th line it was mentioned to the knowledge of one and all, including the owner Smt. V. Anjani Devi and the subsequent purchasers, so where is the question of the Smt.
Anjani devi putting her vendees in physical possession and her vendees putting the plaintiff in physical possession and her vendees putting the plaintiff in physical possession of the suit schedule property on 5.5.2007, documents are created for the purpose of the filing this false suit and creating evidence to show that the plaintiff was put in physical possessing on 5.5.2007, so also his vendors on 19.2.2007 through agreement of sale cum General Power of attorney by Smt. V. Anjani Devi, and to grab the property from the defendants and to harass and cause loss to the defendants and force the defendants to submit to the tunes of the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff is based on false and concocted grounds and there are no merits in it. She filed document envencing they are in possession of property since 1994 i.e., electricity bill, water tax. The receipt of payment of property tax for the year 1994 was missing. After going through Exs.B1 to B10, witness says she has not filed any document related to 1994. She do not know who constructed suit schedule 19 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 building. Her deceased mother might have purchased suit schedule property. She do not know whether her mother has not constructed suit schedule property. She do not know why the bill stand in the name of V.Anjani Devi. The suit schedule property was constructed in the year 1993. Since 1994 they are residing in the suit schedule property. She was born and brought up at Langer House, Hyderabad.
They are children were born and brought up at Langer House,
Hyderabad. They have obtained Ration Card in the year 1994,it was lost, she has not filed the same into court, but later they obtained ration card. She do not remember when the ration card of the year 1994 was lost . Her mother expired in the year 2008. They have taken in the year 1994, subsequently they have not taken any ration. She do not remember at what age of her they started residing in the suit schedule property. After death of her mother as Exs.B1 to B10 in the house, she collected and filed into court. Ex.B10 documents No.158 is voters slip does not contain the date and year. In Ex.B10 her mother name is written as Anuradha w/o Malleshwara Rao. Witness says her father is Rama Rao. Anuradha's father is also Rama Rao. The person who collected the statistic might have written the wrongly. She do not know whether Malleshwar rao is brother of V.Anjani Devi. She never saw Malleshwar Rao. She do not know how 160 document came into possession of her mother. As they are residing the said house they got the document No.154. The said document stands in the name of
Anjani Devi. On suggestion she denied that document No.154 is not related to suit schedule property. Ex.A2 relates to suit schedule property. She do not know why Ex.A2 was given in the name of
V.Anjani Devi. She do not know about Ex.A7. She do not know about
Ex.A27. She cannot file voter list into court. Her father expired during her childhood, she do not remember when he expired. Her father not expired in suit schedule property, but in another house at Langer house, Hyderabad. She do not know whether they received in the rented house or own house at Langer House, Hyderabad. She do not know about Ex.A26. She do not know anything about the document 20 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 filed by plaintiff. Some of the documents i.e., 122 to 153 all are electricity bills in the name of plaintiff. On suggestion she denied that as they paid electricity bills in the name of plaintiff, they accepted he is owner of suit schedule property. She do not know whether her deceased mother gave application to electricity Department to insert her name. She has not given any application to electricity Department to change the consumer service number in her name. They paid
Municipality tax of suit schedule property. She do not remember whichyeartheypaidmunicipalitytax.
They have not filed municipality tax into court evencing they paid property tax in respect of suit schedule property. On suggestion she denied that they never property tax to the suit schedule property. She never made any application to the municipality authorities to mutate her name in respect of suit schedule property. Her brother is also residing alone with them in the suit schedule property. Herself and her brother are looking after family affairs. She is not going to examine her brother, as he is not taking care of family affairs. The suit schedule property consists five rooms. She acquired right over schedule property by birth. She has been residing in the said house since childhood, she cannot give the age going to school. She do not remember the age of defendant No.5, she was also a small child.
When they entered into the schedule property. She do not know the date of the death of her father. He died in the tender age. Her father died when they were residing at Langarhouse. Mr. Malleshwar Rao who is brother of Anjani Devi was not resided in their house. She cannot say the year of death of Malleshwar Rao. She cannot file the voter list relating to Ex.B10 voter slip. On suggestion she denied that her mother obtain all the documents filed her from Malleshwar Rao brother of Anjani Devi. She do not know as to how her mother obtained the said documents. She will not accept that the original owner of schedule property is Anjani devi. She do not know whether her mother accept in reply notice and written statement that Anjani
Devi is owner of schedule property. She do not know who constructed 21 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 the suit schedule property. Herself and her brother paying the electricity bills. She has no documents the schedule house was constructed in the year 1994. They joined in the schedule house thinking that their own house. She cannot give the reason as to why they are paying the electricity bill in the name of Anjani Devi. Witness says they are paying the bills since long time as it is. She cannot file the voter list relating to year 1994, 1999 and 2004 relating to
Assembly. She do not know in whose name the ownership stands at the time of their entering to house. She cannot examine the neighbors of their locality in support of her evidence. On suggestion she denied that her mother obtained documents from Malleshwar Rao which are filed by her in Court. She do not know whether her mother and
Malleshwar Rao are living as wife and husband. She never meet with
Anjani Devi. On suggestion she denied that she is giving false sentence.
14. Now let us settle the suit issues.
Before answering the main Issue No.1 I would like to settle the
additional issues which were framed after impleading the defendants
2 to 5 who filed their written statement which involved the point of law.
15. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO:1: In so far as the present issue is concerned, since the defendant pleaded that they perfected with the right of the ownership by adverse position the burden rests upon them to prove their right by placing relevant evidence to substantiate their plea of adverse position as per settled principle as observed by his lordship in case Penuboyine Raghavole (died) by L.R. Vs. Konakala
Mukuteswara Rao and others. Now let us ascertain whether the defendants established their right by placing cogent and relevant evidence. When we looked into the material evidence on record, it is seen that according to the version of the defense and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants, the suit is barred 22 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 by limitation as the defendant is in uninterrupted physical and peaceful position and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since
March, 1994 onwards i.e., for a period of more than 12 years. And have perfected with title over the suit scheduled property to the knowledge of one and all including the owner late V. Anjani Devi and the subsequent purchasers from her.
16.In turn according to the plaintiff and the counsel for the plaintiff. The plaintiff is claiming the position of the property on the basis of his title and is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. So when the defendant claiming the title by way of adverse position it is for them to establish when their position became adverse to the real owner or subsequent purchaser of the owner as it is not the case of the defendant that D1 was dispossessed by plaintiff on a particular point of time and the suit is not filed within the time of 12 years after such disposition. And she continued in position of the property with animus by asserting title over the property of the plaintiff. Since long position itself is not sufficient to seek adverse position.
17.The learned counsel for plaintiff has relied on ruling 1) R.N.
Davar Vs. Sri Ganga Saran Dhama AIR 1993 Delhi 2) Anna Sahib
Bapu Saheb Patel and others Vs. Balwanth alias Bala Saheb Babu
Saheb Patel (dead) by L.R's. and heirs etc., AIR 1995 Supreme
Court 3) Gajula Hanumanthappa Vs. Vadda Hanumanthappa @
Hanumanappa and another 2002 (3) ALT 259.
18.With due regard to the above rival contentions I have once again throughly gone through the evidence on record and the rulings relied on by the plaintiff. When we looked into the evidence of DW1 who is the only witness gave evidence on behalf of the defendant to substantiate their defense version, during her cross examination she has categorically deposed that she do not know V. Anjani Devi her 23 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 deceased mother might have acquittance with V. Anjani Devi. She do not know boundaries to the suit schedule property. She filed document envinsing that they are in possession of the property since 1994 i.e., electricity bill, water tax, the receipt of payment of property tax for the year 1994 was missing. After going through Exs.B1 to B10 she says she has not filed any document relating to 1994. She do not know who constructed suit schedule building. Her deceased mother might have purchased the suit schedule property.. She do not know whether her mother has not constructed suit schedule property. She do not know why the bill stand in the name of Anjani Devi. The suit schedule property was constructed in the year 1993. They have obtained Ration Card in the year 1994, it was lost they have not filed the same in Court, but later they obtained Ration card. She do not remember when the ration card of the year 1994 was lost. Her mother expired in the year 2008. They have taken in the year 1994.
Subsequently they have not taken any ration. She do not remember at what age of her they started residing in the suit schedule property.
After death of her mother she collected Exs.B1 to B10 and filed into
Court. Ex.B10 documents 156 volen slip does not contain the date and year. In Ex.B10 her mother name is written as Anuradha W/o
Malleswara Rao. DW1 says her father name is Rama Rao. Anuradha, father name is also Rama Rao the person who collected the statistics might have written wrongly. She do not know whether Malleswara
Rao is the brother of V. Anjani Devi she do not know how 160 document came into possession of her mother. As they are residing in the said house they got the document No.154 the said documents stands in the name of Anjani Devi. Ex.A2 relates to suit schedule property. She do not know why Ex.A2 was given in the name of V.
Anjani Devi. She do not know Ex.A7. She do not know Ex.A27. She cannot file voter list into Court. Her father expired during her childhood. She do not remember when he expired. Her father not expired in suit schedule property, but in another house at
Langerhouse. She do not know whether they resided in the rented 24 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 house or own house at Langer house, Hyderabad. She do not know about Ex.A26. Some of the documents i.e., 122 to 153 all are electricity bills in the name of plaintiff. She do not know whether her deceased mother gave application to electricity department to insert her name. She has not given any application to electricity department to charge the consumer service number in her name. They have not filed municipal tax into Court convincing that they paid property tax in respect of suit schedule property. She never made any application to the municipality authorities to mutate her name in respect of the suit property. Mr. Malleswara Rao who is brother of Anjani Devi was not resided in their house. She cannot file the voter list relating to
Ex.B10 slip. On suggestion she denied that her mother obtained all the documents filed by her from Malleswara Rao brother of Anjani
Devi. She do not know as to how her mother obtained the said documents. She will not accept that the original owner of the property is Anajani Devi. She do not know whether her mother accepted in reply notice and written statement that Anjani Devi is the owner of schedule property. She do not know who constructed suit house she has no documents that the suit house was constructed in the year 1994. They joined in the schedule house thinking that their own house. She cannot give reasons as to why they are paying the electricity bills in the name of Anjani devi .She cannot file voter list relating to the years 1994, 1999 and 2004. She do not know in whose name the ownership stands at the time of their entering to the house.
She cannot examine the neighbors of their locality in support of her evidence. She do not know whether her mother and Malleswar Rao are living as wife and husband. They never met with Anjani Devi.
19.On verification of the documents relied on the defendants it is seen that the DW1 marked Ex.B1 demand notices and electricity bills 153 in total 122 stands in the name of Anjani Devi 31 in the name of plaintiff. Ex.B2 receipt issued by Cooperative Welfare Society for joining late V. Anjani Devi dated:12.4.1994 Ex.B3 to B5 demand 25 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 notices issued Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to late V. Anjani
Devi to pay property tax dated:2.4.2000, 6.11.2006 and 2.2.2007
Ex.B6 voter slip to Anuradha the deceased defendant No.1, Ex.B7 voter slip issued to the son of Anuradha Son of deceased first defendant Ex.B8 circular issued by to V. Anjani Devi dated:17.4.94 by
Defense Civilian Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited.
Ex.B9 electricity receipt dated:30.4.99 issued by C.P.D.C. A.P. Limited.
Ex.B10 is household card in the name of Anuradha deceased first defendant dt.5.2.2006.
20.The above oral and documentary evidence deposed and relied on DW1 clinchingly shows that the defendant have taken contradictory plea claiming the right over the schedule property one way. They are claiming property of their own stating the deceased mother of DW1 i.e., K. Anuradha the first defendant was in occupation of the suit schedule property since 1994 she might have purchased the property. On the other way their mother occupied the property in 1994 since then they are in continuation possession of the property and paying electricity bills. So they are perfected with ownership by adverse possession. While taken such contradictory pleas also the defendants have not laid any evidence either oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their defense version since the only witness DW1 have categorically deposed that she has not produced any document evidencing that their mother purchased the suit schedule property. She has not even knows who constructed the suit schedule property. She has not produced the electricity bill or any document relating to the year 1994. Further while denying the ownership of Anjani Devi she has categorically stated that she do not know whether their mother late Anuradha (1st defendant) has admitted in reply notice that late Anjani Devi is the original owner of schedule property. But when we verified the pleadings and evidence of DW1 it is categorically mentioned that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since March, 1994 onwards to 26 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 the knowledge of one and all including the original owner Smt. V.
Anjani Devi. Another crucial aspect is that while denying the ownership of Anjani Devi they are produced number of documents
Ex.B122 electricity demand notice and bill in the name of V. Anjani
Devi and 31 in the name of plaintiff which are issued by electricity people since 19992009. Except the voter slips Exs.B6, B7 and household card Ex.B10 all the documents relied on them were stood in the name of the original owner V. Anjani Devi and the plaintiff. The said documents also do not disclose who paid the amount covered under the said bills. Further PW1 categorically deposed that she do not know how their mother K. Anuradha obtained the said documents. She cannot give reasons as to why they are paying the electricity bills. When we verified Ex.B6 voterslip the husband of
K. Anuradha is shown as K. Malleswara Rao. In Ex.B10 the name of
K. Anuradha (1st defendant) is shown as Rama Rao. DW1 in her cross examination also she has categorically deposed that her father's name is Rama Rao. But not Malleswara Rao. She do not know Mr.
Malleswara Rao who is the brother of V. Anjani Devi. He never resided in their house. She also denied that K. Anuradha and Malleswara Rao never resided as Wife and Husband. So the evidence of DW1 is contradicting her own documentary evidence with regard to the real owner of the suit schedule property and the identity of the first defendant who is the mother of DW1 who is claiming the right over the suit schedule property along with D2 to D5 as legal heirs of the deceased first defendant. More over mere filing of one or two other slips and house card can enquire the right of title or ownership over the property. So the mother of evidence deposed by DW1 cannot inspire any confidence in the mind of the Court to believe their defense version because the defendants have to establish their ownership by adverse possession by placing relevant evidence as observed by his lordship in the above cited ruling 2007(1) ALD 455.
Their Lordship in another ruling AIR 1995 S.C. held that a person who bares his title on adverse possession must show by clear and 27 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 unequivocal evidence i.e., possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed.
21.Further his Lordship in ruling 2002(3) ALT 259 while analyzing as to how, to prove the plea of adverse possession has observed that “An adverse possession is a mixed question of facts and law, which has to be decided only on the material placed the both parties adverse possession implies that it commenced in wrong and it maintained against the right concept proof of open hostile and continuous possession is required in order to substantiate a claim of perfection of title by adverse possession mere assertions would not be adequate without substantiating the same. Here DW1 clearly deposed that she does not know how her mother acquired the property. She does not know who constructed the suit schedule property she has also not filed a sight paper to show that when they occupied the property even she does not know who are the owner of the property at the time of their infer into the property. So as observed by his lordship the defendant has not filed any concrete proof of evidence to prove their plea.
22.Further even it is assumed that the defendants are in long possession of the property, as observed by his lordships in the above ruling AIR 1993 Delhi 19, A person who claims title to a property in adverse possession must definitely allege and prove as to how and when the adverse possession commenced what was the nature of his possession whether the fact of his adverse possession was know to the real owner the mere fact is that he was in un interrupted possession for several years and in that way he acquired absolute right and title is not enough to rise such a plea. So under Art.64 and 65 of the
Limitation Act long possession is not necessarily adverse possession.
So in light of above facts and law discussed supra this Court hold that the defendants have failed to established that they acquired the right by way as adverse possession and the suit is barred by limitation. As 28 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 such the plea taken by defendants have no force. Additional Issue
No.1 is thus decided accordingly against the defendant.
23.ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO:2: In so far as the present issue is concerned when we verified the material on record it is seen that the defendants have taken a plea simply that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for want of cause of action but DW1 has not whispered a single word in her evidence explaining as to how the plaintiff has got no cause of action. During cross examination of
PW1 also except putting denial suggestions it is not even suggested as to how the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. However when we verified the plaint pleadings, the plaintiff has categorically explained in para V of the plaint narrated the entire incidents in which dates the cause of action arose and also paid required court fees.
Further the suit schedule property also situated with the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. So this Court do not find any force in the plea taken by the first defendant to that affect. Additional Issue No.2 is thus decided accordingly against the defendants.
24. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO:3: In so far as the present issue is concerned, when we verified the above evidence it is seen that according to the plaintiff originally the plaint schedule property was alloted to Smt. V. Anajani Devi by the Defense Civilian Employees Co operative Housing Society Limited by issuing allotment order on payment of full consideration at the rate of Rs.55/ per sq. yard. The said society executed agreement of sale dated:4.10.1993 and put her in physical possession of the suit schedule property the Municipal authorities also fixed house tax and penalty for unauthorized construction. Subsequently on application submitted by Smt. Anjani
Devi the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.1072
dated:9.12.2002 regularized her occupation she had been in un
interrupted and peaceful possession of the property from 4.10.93 late she sold the said property to N. Badrinath and D. Krishna Murthy and 29 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 executed sale cum General Power of Attorney dated:19.2.2007 by receiving a sum of Rs.7,17,500/ and put them in possession of the suit schedule property. Subsequently the vendees of Anjani Devi sold the property to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated:5.5.2007 delivered possession of the property to plaintiff. Since the property is old one and in delapidated condition plaintiff kept the property vacant and he had been residing in Vidyanagar. So that the defendant trespassed in the said property in first week of June, 2007 on knowing that plaintiff approached the defendant personally along with elders and his vendors and asked the defendant to vacate the house but the defendant refused to vacate the house, the plaintiff issued registered legal notice on 9.7.2007. On receiving the same defendant got issued reply notice dated:23.7.2007 with false allegation stating that she was in occupation of the property since March, 1994 which is false.
25.To prove his version plaintiff apart from examining himself as
PW1 he has also examined PW4 while the evidence of PW2 Anjani
Devi and PW3 Badrinath been eshewed. In support of his evidence
PW1 also produce the material documents in support of his evidence.
When we verified the documents produced by him Ex.A1 is registered agreement of sale dated:4.10.1993 executed by the Defense Civilian
Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited in favour of
Smt. V. Anjani Devi in respect of the suit schedule property on payment of total consideration Smt. Anjani Devi also put in physical possession of the plot on a condition the plot shall be transferred by the Society after receipt of the exemption order under Urban Land
Ceiling Act. Ex.A2 is Special notice of House Tax Assessment
dated:1.10.94 issued to Amt. Anjani Devi. Ex.A3 is acknowledgment
issued by Special Officer JLC, Hyderabad for the application submitted by Anjani Devi. Ex.A4 is the sketch showing the allotment of excess land under the occupation of the party. Ex.A5 is order of allotment of excess land in favour of Smt. Anjani devi vide G.O.Ms.No.1072
dated:19.12.2002 wherein there is a direction to the authorities that
30 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 the name of Anjani Devi shall be incorporated in Revenue Registration and survey record. Ex.A6 endorsement issued by Special Officer
Government of Andhra Pradesh dated:3.1.2003 intimation of the allotment of surplus land in occupation of Smt. Anjani Devi wherein it is mentioned that the allotment made by the Government shall be conclusive proof of title of the occupant over such excess land allotted.
It is also mentioned that the land allotted under does not require any registration under Registration Act 1908 and no stamp duty shall be payable under Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Ex.A27 is registered agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated:19.2.2007 executed by Smt. Anjani Devi infavour of N. Badrinath and D. Krishna
Murthy on payment sale consideration of Rs.7,17,500/ and also delivered vacant possession of the suit property. Ex.A7 is registered sale deed executed by N. Badrinath and D. Krishna Murthy representing V. Anjani Devi as GPA holders in favour of plaintiff on receiving Rs.7,17,500/ as total sale consideration delivering vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property. Ex.A8 is certificate of encumbrance issued by subregistrar Golconda relating the period 1995 to 2007 in the name of plaintiff is shown as vendee in the name of Anjani Devi, Badrinarayna Krishna Murthy as executants (vendors)
Ex.A9 is market value certificate issued by subregistrar.Exs.A10 to A15 are property tax receipts issued by Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad relating to year 1993, 1997 and 2002. Ex.A16 to A19 electricity demanded notice and bills in the name of Anjani devi relating to the preiod of 2007. Ex.A21 is legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the deceased defendant No.1. Ex.A20 is reply issued by deceased first defendant Exs.A22, A23 and A24 are electricity demand notice and bill in the name of plaintiff relating to 2007 & 2008.
Ex.A25 is special notice of house tax assessment issued by Greater
Hyderabad Municipality to the plaintiff assessing the house tax in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.A26 is letter issued to the plaintiff by Deputy Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad changing the name by incorporating the name of plaintiff in the assessment register 31 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 in the place of Smt. Anjani Devi.
26.The above documentary evidence is very much in consonance of the oral vendee of PW1 which clearly discloses that Smt. Anjani Devi original owner of the suit schedule property as it was allotted to her by the defense Civil and Employees Cooperative Housing Society
Limited on receiving the valid consideration the same was conformed by the Government by regularizing under Land Urban Ceiling Act thereby the making Smt. Anjanidevi absolute owner. Later Smt.
Anjani Devi sold the said property to one Mr. Badrinath and Krishna
Murthy under registered agreement of sale cum General Power of
Attorney under Ex.A27 dt.19.2.2007. In turn the said property to the plaintiff under registered sale deed Ex.A7 dated:5.5.2007 for a valid sale consideration. During the life of Smt. Anjani devi. During her life only the name of the plaintiff also mutated in revenue records.
27. Further in the entire cross examination of PW1 also except contradicting the documents filed by the plaintiff nothing else elicited from by the learned counsel for plaintiff that would make the sale transaction under Ex.A7 dated:5.5.2007 not valid. Because the learned counsel for defendant on eliciting the aspect of Ex.A1 is an agreement of sale, has argued that it is only an agreement of sale but the property was not transferred as there was a condition that Smt.
Anjani Devi has to take permission from the santity to transfer the property so the sale deeds Exs.A27 and A7 are not valid. But the said contention cannot be accepted by this Court because as stated supra according to Ex.A1 the property shall transfered on the permission accorded by the authority under Urban Land Ceiling Act.
Subsequently the Government accorded permission and confirmed the allotment of property to Anjani Devi by passing order under Ex.A5 and intimated the same to her under Ex.A6 making Smt. Anjani Devi become absolute owner of the schedule property which is a conclusive proof. No stamp duty and registration is required under Registration 32 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
Act. It is also pertinent to see that in Exs.A5 and A6 it is no where mentioned that Smt. Anjani devi cannot transfer her right by selling the property to third parties so this Court do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the defendant counsel to that effect.
28.Further the learned counsel for defendant has tressed the point of non production of PW2 and PW3 the vendors of the schedule property and argued that non examination of original owners is fatal to the case of plaintiff. But as stated by the learned counsel for plaintiff when the defendants have not denied the signatures and photo of Smt. Anjani Devi on the document Ex.A7 simply stating that the said document is created to show that possession was delivered to
Badrinath and Krishna Murthy nonexamination the vendor is of no consequence. More over as per the evidence born by record
Smt. Anjani Devi fell sick and and died after filing of her evidence in chief even otherwise PW4 in his evidence categorically deposed that he was the tenant of Smt. Anjani Devi she asked him to vacate the suit property as she intended to sell the same Mr. N. Badrinath , D.
Krishna Murthy in the month of February, 2007 he requested Anjani
Devi to permit to continue his lease and subsequently he paid rent to
Badrinath. Later Badrinath told him that the vendee of Badrinath that is the plaintiff insisted to hand over vacant possession he was asked to vacate the possession by the end of April, 2007. All the above aspects are supported by the oral and documentary evidence produced by plaintiff. An overall recording of the above oral documentary evidence produced by plaintiff shows that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through the registered sale deed dated:5.5.2007 and name is entered in the revenue record. So that he became absolute owner and title holder of the suit schedule property.
Additional Issue No.3 is thus decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff.
33 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
29. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO:4: As discussed supra in Additional
Issue No.1 though the defendants claimed that they are in possession of suit schedule property since 1994. The defendants have not laid any documentary proof to show that they are in possession of the suit property since 1994. Further the documents produced by defendant
Ex.B1 electricity bill and demand notice are also in the name of
Smt. V. Anjani devi and the plaintiff till 1991 to 2007. Further as stated supra mere filing of the voter slip Exs.B6, B7 and ration card
Ex.B10 in the address of defendants No.1 and her son they confer the right of defendants as owners of the suit schedule property. Further except the oral evidence of the sole and only witness of DW1 there is no supporting evidence for defendants either oral or documentary to believe that they are in possessors of the suit schedule property since 1994 especially DW1 herself admitted that she has not filed any document relating to 1994 more over the documents filed by DW1 i.e., 153 electricity bill do not disclose the name of persons who paid the amount covered under the bills. Further DW1 has categorically deposed in his cross examination that he cannot examine the neighbors of her locality in support of her evidence to prove that they are in possession of the property since 1994. So all the above aspects clinchingly shows that the defendants miserable failed to establish that they are in possession of the suit schedule property since 1994.
Additional Issue No.4 is thus decided accordingly against the
defendants.
30. ISSUE NO:1: In view of the discussed held supra in Additional
Issue Nos. 1 to 4 since the plaintiff establish his title over the suit schedule property by producing the sale deed Ex.A7 and the link documents Exs.A1, A7 and also other Government record Exs.A8 to
Ex.A27 which were delivered to him by his vendor showing the conclusive proof of ownership of his vendors while the defendants failed to prove their right and title over the suit schedule property perfected with adverse possession and also in continuous enjoyment 34 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007 of the suit schedule property since 1994, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the claim of the plaintiff has been proved as unrebutted.
As such he is entitled to recover the suit schedule property. Issue No.1 is thus decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff .
31. ISSUE NO:2:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to vacate and deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months of this Judgment.
Typed to my dictation to the Senior Assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of April,
2015.
V Senior Civil Judge
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined
For plaintiff For defendants
PW1 S. Venkat Kiran Kumar Kum. K. Srivani PW2 Eschewed PW3 Eschewed PW4 V.V. Prem Kumar
Exhibits Marked
For plaintiff:
Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated:4.10.99 Ex.A2 Special notice of house tax dated:8.3.1995 Ex.A3 Acknowledgment issued by Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad Ex.A4 Allotment of excess land under occupation Ex.A5 G.O.Ms.No.1072 Ex.A6 Endorsement from the Special Office and Competent Authority, ULC Ex.A7 Sale Deed dated:5.5.2007 Ex.A8 is the EC for the period 1.5.95 to 15.8.07 Ex.A9 Market value certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Golconda Exs.A10 to A16 are the property tax receipts Exs.A17 and A18 are receipts of Eseva Ex.A19 Receipt issued by the Assistant Accounts officer dt.6.8.07 35 O.S.No. 2025 of 2007
Ex.A20 Notice dated:23.7.07 Ex.A21 Legal notice dated:9.7.07 Ex.A22 Electricity bill Ex.A23 is receipt Ex.A24 Receipt of MCH for payment of property tax Ex.A25 is MCH demand notice Ex.A26 Demand notice of property tax Ex.A27 Registered agreement of sale cum GPA (with possession)
dated:19.2.2007 executed by V.Anjani Devi infavour of N. Badrinath
and D. Krishnamurthi along with plan
For defendants: Ex.B1 Bunch of electricity receipt and bill in total 153 Ex.B2 Original receipt dt.12.4.1994 Ex.B3 Original demand notice dt.2.4.2000 Ex.B4 Original demand notice dt.16.11.2006 Ex.B5 Original demand notice dt.2.2.2007 Ex.B6 Original voter list dt.22.1.2002 Ex.B7 Original voter list dt.26.9.2003 Ex.B8 Original circular letter dt.17.4.1994 Ex.B9 Electricity receipt dt.30.4.1999 Ex.B10 Original household card in the name of Anuradha and other family members dt.5.2.2006
V Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.