IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT MEDAK
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA,
VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet
FAC VIII Addl.District Judge, Medak.
Thursday, the Sixth day of September, 2018.
APPEAL SUIT NO. 28 OF 2015
Between:
Mohd.Ibrahim S/o Aneefuddin, age:60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Doulthabad village, Hathnoora Mandal, Medak District. …Appellant/Plaintiff
A N D
1.Mohd. Fareed S/o Yousuf, age: 40 years, Occ: Business
2.Mohd. Sajeed S/o Shaik Hussain, age: 35 years, Occ: Business Both are R/o Doulthabad village, Hatnoora Mandal, Medak District.
...Respondents/Defendants
Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 04-08-2015 passed by the
Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur in
O.S. NO. 65 of 2010
Between:-
Mohd.Ibrahim S/o Aneefuddin, age:60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Doulthabad village, Hathnoora Mandal, Medak District. …Plaintiff A N D
1.Mohd. Fareed S/o Yousuf, age: 40 years, Occ: Business
2.Mohd. Sajeed S/o Shaik Hussain, age: 35 years, Occ: Business Both are R/o Doulthabad village, Hatnoora Mandal, Medak District.
…Defendants
This Appeal Suit having come before me for final hearing Sri Jagadeshwar Harkar, Advocate for appellant and of Sri V.Prathap Reddy, Advocate for respondents, upon perusal of material papers available on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:- 2 of 14 AS 28 of 2015
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The unsuccessful plaintiff in OS 65 of 2010 filed this appeal seeking to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 04-08-2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,
Narsapur.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Lower court.
3.OS 65 of 2010 was filed by plaintiff against two defendants seeking the relief of
Perpetual Injunction. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
4.Brief pleadings of both sides before the Trial court are as follows:-
Plaint averments:
5.1Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of open plot in Block No.3 of
Doulthabad Gram Panchayath admeasuring 70 square yards adjacent to East of house
No.3-77 and bounded by East: Open place of Nasar Ahmed, West: Chicken shop of plaintiff, North: House of plaintiff and South: G.P.Road leads to Doulthabad village which is the suit property.
5.2Originally, suit land belongs to one Hussain Sab S/o Nasar Mohammed.
Plaintiff purchased open land admeasuring 156 sq.yards (13 sq.yards from North to
South and 12 sq.yards from East to West) bounded by East: House of Gudu Sab, West:
G.P.Road, North: Open place of Bashumiya and South: Pathway from its original owner vide registered sale deed document No.123/1978 dated 25-01-1978. After purchase, plaintiff was inducted into physical possession over the land.
5.2In the year 1979, plaintiff constructed a house in 80 square yards out of 156 square yards after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayath, Doulthabad and obtained approved sketch map dated 04-05-1979 and house number 3-77 was allotted to the house and the remaining land 70 square yards towards south of house of plaintiff was kept vacant. About 2 years back, plaintiff erected a tin shed for running a chicken center towards south west corner to the house of plaintiff in an area of 6 square yards and remaining land is kept vacant. Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property since the date of purchase.
3 of 14 AS 28 OF 2015 5.3Defendants without having any right, title and interest over suit schedule property are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and they came on 11-09-2010 with unsocial elements and tried to interfere in the possession. Plaintiff could resist the illegal attempts of defendants with great difficulty, but apprehends dispossession at the hands of the defendants. Hence, the suit.
Written statement averments of Defendants No.1 & 2.
6.1It is denied that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land. It is true that originally suit schedule land belongs to one Hussain Sab. It is denied that plaintiff constructed house in 80 square yards out of 156 square yards and kept the remaining 70 square yards vacant. Plaintiff is never in possession of the suit property.
It is denied that defendants without any right or title interfered in the suit land.
6.2Plaintiff purchased 156 square yards vide document No.123/1978. Plaintiff constructed house No.3-77 in more than his purchased area of 156 square yards.
Plaintiff sold 52 square yards out of 156 square yards to Mohd. Khaja S/o Moulana on 21-04-1978 through registered sale deed document No.563/1978. Original certificate issued by Executive Officer, Gram Panchayath Doulthabad shows that purchaser
Bukka Kahaja @ Md. Khaja constructed his house and the same was numbered as 3-76 as per the Revision Register of 1999. Plaintiff who is the owner of 25-38 square yards is claiming the suit property which belongs to D1. Plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property.
6.3D1 is the absolute owner and possessor of open place in Block No.3 measuring 166.65 square yards situated at Doulthabad village, Hathnoora Mandal bounded by
North: Shop of Md.Ibrahim, South: G.P.Road, East: House of Nasar Mohammed and
West: G.P.Main Road.
6.4Originally, said site belongs to Shaik Hussain and his brother Nasar Mohammed and D1 purchased said land from above said owners for a sale consideration of
Rs.16,700/- dated 28-11-1992 and dispute arose between Gram Panchayath Doulthabad and with District Collector and with one P.Durgaiah, who was the Gram Panchayath
Member and contractor, for which D1 filed suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of Injunction against District Collector, Gram Panchayath
Doulthabad and others and on contest the suit was decreed on 29-02-2000 in favour of
D1 vide OS 94 of 1993. The present suit property is part and parcel of said suit.
4 of 14 AS 28 of 2015 6.5The District Collector and Executive Officer went in appeal and filed AS 10 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Medak and the same was dismissed on 29-01- 2003.
6.6D1 again applied for construction of pacca building over purchased property in the year 2006 and then Gram Panchayath Secretary accorded permission for construction of shops, rooms and halls etc. The same was renewed from time to time.
D1 is in possession of suit property. Hence the suit may be dismissed with costs.
7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues were framed for trial before the Lower Court:
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
2.To what relief?
8.Before the Trial Court, on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. On their behalf, defendants examined 1st defendant as DW1 and also examined DW2 and got marked Ex.B1 to
B15.
9.Learned Trial Judge after appreciation of the fact situation borne by the pleadings of both sides and oral and documentary evidence on record, in the impugned
Judgment held that burden is on the plaintiff to prove the location of the suit property in reference to its survey number, extent and boundaries, but the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property is part of the property purchased by him under Ex.A1 registered sale deed and that the plaintiff also failed to prove that suit property is in the given extent and it is in the possession of the plaintiff. Learned Trial Judge also observed that the written statement filed by the defendants is full of contradictions, that both sides are claiming title and possession over the immovable property and both sides failed to prove that their documents refer to the suit property and ultimately held that the burden is only on the plaintiff and observed that plaintiff failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit.
10.Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred this appeal with the following grounds:
5 of 14 AS 28 OF 2015
Grounds of Appeal:
1.Learned Junior Civil Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and failed to consider the documents filed by plaintiff under Ex.A1 to A3.
2.Learned Junior Civil Judge failed to appreciate the principles for grant of injunction suit.
3.Learned Junior Civil Judge gave unnecessary weight to the evidence of defendants.
4.Learned Junior Civil Judge failed to appreciate that the plaintiff constructed house in part of the open plot and kept remaining land open by obtaining permission from the gram Panchayath.
5.Learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate Ex.A1 and approved plan.
6.Learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the plaintiff is not a party to the proceedings in OS 95 of 1993.
7.Learned Trial Judge failed to observe that DW1 admitted that the boundaries of land purchased by plaintiff and land purchased by him are different and that they are different lands.
11.No additional evidence is adduced in this appeal on either side.
12.Heard arguments on behalf of both side counsel. Learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently submitted that the trial court had failed to appreciate that the land claimed by the plaintiff and the land claimed by the different are different and the plaintiff is claiming none other than the remaining extent of open land out of the 156 Sq Yd land which the plaintiff purchased nearly 4 decades back and it is the plaintiff who is in occupation of the suit land and that the defendants who are claiming to have purchased 166 Sq Yd of land from the sons of plaintiff's vendor failed to show that the plaintiff's vendor still got land after selling the land to the plaintiff.
13Learned counsel for defendants/respondents submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court, and the evidence of the plaintiff itself is sufficient to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff which the Trial Court rightly did and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment.
14.The points that arise for determination in this appeal are -
1. Whether the Lower Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record in the right perspective?
6 of 14 AS 28 of 2015
2. Whether the Judgment and Decree in OS 65 of 2010 dated 04-08-2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur is sustainable?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants No,1 & 2 from interfering in the possession of the
plaintiff.
4. To what relief?
Points No.1 to 3:
15.Admitted facts of the case are that one Hussain Sab S/o Nasar Mohammad was the original owner of some open land and he sold the land and plaintiff purchased open land measuring 156 Sq.yards within the given boundaries under Ex.A1 registered sale deed document No.1223/1978 dated 25-01-1978. According to the plaintiff, after purchasing open land within the given boundaries, he approached the Grampanchayath
Doulthabad in the year 1979 seeking permission for construction of house, and the
Grampanchayath Doulthabad accorded permission to him for construction of house and he constructed house in an extent only 80 Sq.yards and kept the remaining 76 Sq.yards vacant towards south of the house and the Grampanchayath allotted House No.3-77 to the constructed house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also contended that about two years prior to filing of the suit, he erected tin shed for running a Chicken centre towards south-west corner of his house in an area of 6 Sq.yards and kept suit schedule land an extent 70 Sq.yards vacant. Plaintiff alleges that defendants without any right, title and interest over the schedule land, are trying to interfere in to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.
16.Defendants though admitted that the plaintiff purchased 156 Sq.yards within the given boundaries from Hussain Sab S/o Nasar Mohammad, they categorically pleaded that the plaintiff constructed his house No.3-77 in more than the purchased area of 156
Sq.yards, that plaintiff sold an extent of 52 Sq.yards out of 156 Sq.yards to one Mohd.
Khaja S/o Moulana on 21-4-1978 under a registered sale deed document No. 563/1978 and that the purchaser Bukka Khaja @ Md.Khaja constructed his house and was allotted house No.3-76. Defendants also pleaded that plaintiff is owner of 25.38
Sq.yards, that plaintiff is claiming suit property which belongs to defendant No.1. As to how the defendants arrived at this extent of 25.38 Sq.yards is not explained in the written statement. However, defendants categorically pleaded that the plaintiff sold away part of his purchased land and that there is no question of plaintiff being owner and possessor of the suit land. Defendants also claimed that first defendant purchased 7 of 14 AS 28 OF 2015 166.65 Sq.yards measuring 50 Sq.feet x 30 Sq.feet in block No.3 within the given boundaries under Ex.B2 registered sale deed document No. 4162/1992 Dated 28-11- 1992 and that said plot belongs to Shaik Hussain and his brother Nasar Mohammad.
17.The defendants also categorically pleaded that earlier, the title of the first defendant over his purchased land was in question, upon which, first defendant filed suit for declaration of title against District Collector and Executive Officer
Grampanchayath, Doulthabad vide OS No.94 of 1993, that said suit was decreed on contest on 29-2-2000 and the appeal filed by the District Collector vide AS No.10 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Medak was also dismissed on 29-01-2003 confirming the title and possession of first defendant over the 166.65 Sq.yards of land purchased by him, and that the present suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff is nothing but part and parcel of this 166.65 Sq.yards of land purchased by defendant
No.1.
18.The above rival contentions show that not only there is a strong title dispute between the parties in respect of the suit schedule land, but the identity of the suit land is in dispute. Be that as it may, as it is the plaintiff who approached the Court seeking the equitable relief of perpetual injunction, burden is only on the plaintiff to establish that - The suit schedule property is clearly identifiable on ground in reference to its dimensions, extent and boundaries.
Plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land as on the date of filing the suit.
The right of plaintiff to legally possess and enjoy the suit land was infringed with or threatened to be infringed with by the defendants No.1 and 2 prior to filing the suit.
19.Firstly, coming to the identity and location of the suit land, plaintiff apart from examining himself as PW1 also examined PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The suit schedule land is described as follows:
That the open plot in Block No.3 of Grampanchayath Doulthabad, Admeasuring 70 Sq.yards adjacent to Eastern side to H.No.3-77 situated at Doulthabad, Hathnoora Mandal, Medak District bounded by - 8 of 14 AS 28 of 2015
East : open place of Nasar Ahmed West : Chicken shop of plaintiff North: House of plaintiff South: G.P.Road leads to Doulthabad village.
20.Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed document No.123 of 1978 dated 25-01-1978 with true translation in English. As per the recitals of this true translated document, the property purchased by the plaintiff under this document is described as follows:
North to South (39) feet equivalent 13 Sq.yards East to West (36) feets equivalent 12 Sq.yards Total extent 156 feets 136.44 Sq.yards situated at Doulthabad village, Narsapur Taluq, Medak District, bounded by
East : House of Gudu Sahab West : Way North : Open place of Bashumiya South : Way
21.Plaintiff claims that by obtaining permission under Ex.A2 from
Grampanchayath Doulthabad, he raised a residential structure in only 80 Sq.yards of land for which the Grampanchayath Doulthabad allotted H.No.3-77 and that this house is on the northern portion of the 156 Sq.yards and the southern portion is suit vacant land. Ex.A2 is said to be the approved plan issued by Grampanchayath. Ex.A2 merely containts the signature said to be of the Sarpanch with date written as 04-5-1979 and with round-seal which is not visible. Caption of this plan reads as “proposed construction and shops in Block No.3 attached to H.No.3-77 Grampanchayath
Doulthabad belongs to Mohd. Ibrahim S/o Aneefuddin”.
22.The important aspect to be noted from Ex.A2 alleged sanction plan is that the total area is mentioned as 340.Sq.yards and the plinth area is mentioned as 150
Sq.yards. The extent of 340 Sq Yd is more than twice the extent of land purcahsed by the plaintiff under Ex.A1. The extent of land purchased by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 was only 156 Sq.yards. From where plaintiff got the remaining land is to be explained by the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff that apart from the purchased land of 156 Sq.yards, he is also the owner and possessor of some more open land and that for both the lands, he sought permission for raising structure in a total area of 344
Sq.yards.
9 of 14 AS 28 OF 2015
23.It is also seen from the boundaries extracted above that the boundaries of 156
Sq.yards purchased by plaintiff under Ex.A1 registered sale deed show that there is way on two sides i.e. west and south, there is open place of one Bashu Miya on the
North and house of one Gudu Sab on the East. Plaintiff has to explain from which direction the remaining land was acquired by him, so that he sought for raising a structure in a total area of 340 Sq.yards.
24.Coming to the the boundaries of this then proposed structure as seen from
Ex.A2, they are North: Way; South: Grampanchayath Road; West: Main road of
Doulthabad and East: Open place. These boundaries do not tally with the boundaries under Ex.A1. Further more, according to the plaintiff, he raised a tin shed on the south-west corner of his land. To identify and locate his 156 Sq.yards of land, the constructed area of his house, the area of the tin shed area and the disputed suit vacant land, plaintiff got marked Ex.A3 said to be rough sketch showing their location. As seen from this rough sketch, at the outset it is noted that it is not upto scale. The north and east boundaries are not shown in this rough sketch. The western boundary is shown as road leading to Doulthabad and southern boundary is shown as pathway. These boundaries also do not tally with the boundaries given in Ex.A2. This rough sketch does not even remotely give the location of the 156 Sq.yards and more particularly, the location of tin shed in an extent of 6 Sq.yards and the suit schedule land of 70
Sq.yards. The above documents shall be appreciated with the oral evidence adduced by plaintiff examined as PW1.
25.The chief affidavit of PW1 is reiteration of the facts pleaded in the plaint. PW1 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2. Questions were put to PW1 regarding the total extent of land in which he constructed his house and on the other aspects. In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that he purchased 156
Sq.yards of land from Hussain Sab, he applied for permission for construction of house, but he does not remember when he applied, he constructed house in 80 Sq.yards but he did not construct the house as per Ex.A2 plan. Having occasion to explain about the extent of land and the proposed plan in Ex.A2, PW1 failed to give any explanation.
26.When questioned about the land sold by him to Mohd. Khaja, PW1 admitted that he sold 52 Sq.yards to Mohd. Khaja, but he stated that said 52 Sq.yards is located in another place and denied that it is part and parcel of Ex.A1 land. PW1 further stated that his vendee Bukka Khaja constructed a house and said house is 10 of 14 AS 28 of 2015 abutting his house, but he does not know the house number of Bukka Khaja. Thus, it was categorically elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that the land sold to Bukka
Khaja and the house constructed by Bukka Khaja in his purchased land is abutting the house of PW1. Though PW1 failed to give the house number of his neighbour abutting his house to whom he sold land, at least the boundaries given by him in the plaint, or the rough sketch or the plan, shoule be showing the house of Bukka Khaja as one of the boundaries of house of plaintiff. None of the boundaries in any document show the house of Bukka Khaja on any direction.
27.When questioned about the location of the land of Defendant No.1, PW1 answered that defendant No.1 purchased some land behind his house and it is towards east of his house. He denied that defendant No.1 is owner and possessor of suit property and that he (PW1) constructed his house by exceeding his area of purchase.
The above discussion shows that the testimony of PW1 is also not at all convincing regarding the identity and location of not only the suit land, but also of the tin shed allegedly located in 6 Sq.yards and the house of plaintiff bearing No.3-77 and also the 52 Sq.yards of land sold by plaintiff to Mohd.Khaja.
28.Plaintiff examined PW2 said to be a person acquainted with both parties and the land of plaintiff. she affirmed in her chief affidavit that she knows both parties to the suit and the subject matter of the suit, that plaintiff purchased 156 Sq.yards land in the year 1978 from Hussain Sab S/o Nasar Mohammed through registered sale deed and constructed a house in an extent of of 86 Sq.yards and left 70 Sq.yards towards eastern side of house. This chief affidavit of PW2 is contradicting the plea of plaintiff on two aspects. According to the plaintiff, he constructed his house in 80 Sq.yards, whereas
PW2 stated that the plaintiff constructed his house in 86 Sq.yards. Plaintiff claimed that the vacant land of 70 Sq.yards is towards south of his house, whereas PW2 stated that the remaining 70 Sq.yards is towards east of the house. However, the boundaries given in the chief-affidavit of PW2 are tallying with the boundaries given in the suit schedule.
29.PW2 further affirmed that the defendants are never in possession of the suit land and that the house of defendant is located far away from the suit land and her house is adjacent to the house of plaintiff bearing No.3-77. Importantly, having given the house number of the plaintiff, PW2 failed to reveal her own house number.
11 of 14 AS 28 OF 2015
30.Coming to her cross-examination, PW2 deposed that she does not remember her house number, she does not know the suit survey number and its boundaries and measurements. She also stated that she does not know defendant No.1. Thus, the cross-examination of PW2 reveals that PW2 know nothing about the suit disputed land and she does not even know the first defendant. When PW2 does not even know the first defendant, there is no question of her seeing or never seeing the defendants in the suit land. Thus, this evidence of PW2 is absolutely of no use to the plaintiff.
31.Coming to the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the defendants, defendants examined the first defendant as DW1 and also examined DW2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B15. The chief affidavit of DW1 is reiteration of the facts pleaded in their written statement and the lengthy cross-examination of DW1 did not elicit any favorable material in favor of the plaintiff. Coming to the documentary evidence relied upon by the defendants, Ex.B1 is the CC of registered sale deed document No.563 of 1978. This document is got marked by the defendants and admittedly, it is the document under which plaintiff sold 52 Sq Yd of land to Bukka Khaja.
32.As seen from Ex.B1, the vendor is the plaintiff and vendee is Mohd.Khaja S/o
Moulana. Property sold under this document is described as 52 Sq.yards bounded by
East: passage to houses, West: Road, North: vacant place of vendor and on South:
Passage and Garbage pit. This 52 Sq.yards of land is that land of plaintiff in which admittedly Mohd.Khaja constructed a house which according to the defendants was allotted H.No.3-76. PW1 though could not give the House number of Mohd.Khaja, he admitted that Mohd.Khaja constructed house in the land purchased from him and said house is abutting his house (plaintiff's house).
33.It is already discussed above that the house of Mohd.Khaja is not shown on any boundary of the suit schedule land or in the rough sketch Ex.A3 or the alleged permission plan Ex.A2. As seen from Ex.B1, the vacant place of Mohd.Ibrahim is located to the north. There is no evidence to show that this land sold by the plaintiff to
Mohd.Khaja is not part and parcel of the land purchased under Ex.A1. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that he purchased some other land abutting Ex.A1 land and that subsequently he sold it to Bukka Khaja. Plaintiff merely stated in his cross- examination that the land sold to Bukka Khaja is located at some other place. But there is absolutely no evidence even to remotely suggest that plaintiff also got land at some other place which he sold to Bukka Khaja.
12 of 14 AS 28 of 2015
34.Coming to the other documents relied upon by the defendants, Ex.B3 is the certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Grampanchayath, Doulthabad, where it is certified that as per revision register of the year 1999, house of Bukka Khaja is bearing
No.3-76 and it is measuring 37 feet x 12 feet, whereas house No.3-37 of Mohd.
Ibrahim is measuring 38 feet x 37 feet and 25 feet x 38 feet as per records. Two measurements of house No.3-77 are given in this certificate and there is no clarification on these measurements.
35.Ex.B2 is the original registered sale deed of the defendant No.1 as per which defendant No.1 purchased 166.5 Sq.yards of land from the vendors Shaik Hussain and
Nazar Mohammad S/o Nazeer Mohammad. This document is of the year 1992 and to the north of this property, shops of Mohd.Ibrahim, towards south a Grampanchayath road, towards east house of Nazar Mohammad and on the west Grampanchayath main road are shown. This property when compared with the property sold by Nazar
Mohammad in favour of the plaintiff shows that it locates some where between the south portion of shops of plaintiff and north of Grampanchayath road. However Ex.A1 registered sale deed of the year 1978 which is much prior to the transaction of the first defendant shows that to the south of the land purchased by plaintiff, there was only way and there is no more open place. As to where this land of first defendant purchased under Ex.B2 is located is the look out of the defendants.
36.Learned counsel for the plaintiff had vehemently submitted that the father of the vendors of first defendnat had sold his entire land to the plaintiff in the year 1978 itself and there is no more vacant land for his sons to sell to first defendant in the year 1992 and by creating a false sale deed in the year 1992, the sons of the vendor of the plaintiff and the first defendant are claiming the land of the plaintiff. This court observes that the present suit being one filed by the plaintiff where he sought only the relief of perpetual injunction, the burden is on the plaintiff to identify and locate the suit schedule land and prove his legal possession over it and it is not for the defendants to establish that the suit land claimed by the plaintiff is the land of defendants. Further, the scope of this suit also does not require to conduct a roving enquiry and adjudicate on the identity and location of the land purchased by the first defendant.
37.Defendants also got marked other documents Ex.B3 to B12. These documents more particularly Ex.B9 and Ex.B10 show that the first defendant filed suit vide OS
No.95 of 1993 against District Collector and Executive Officer, Grampanchayathy 13 of 14 AS 28 OF 2015 seeking to declare them as absolute owner and possessor of 166.5 Sq.yards purchased under Ex.A1 and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal preferred by the
Government vide AS No.10 of 2000 was also dismissed on 29-1-2003. Thus, it is fact that defendant No.1 is claiming 166.6 Sq.yards of land located to the south of shop of plaintiff and north of Grampanchayath road and filed said suit for declaration of title and he was declared as owner, but it is also a fact that plaintiff is not a party to said suit. Thus, the Judgment and Decree in OS 94 of 93 and AS 10 of 2000 are not binding on the plaintiff, but the fact remains that this defendant No.1 is proclaiming to be absolute owner of some disputed land from the year 1993. In the light of these facts, burden is heavily on the plaintiff to clearly locate the suit schedule property and prove his title incidentally and his possession.
38.However, the above discussion shows that the plaintiff absolutely failed to prove the total extent of land he held as owner, the extent of land which he is still holding as owner under registered documents or otherwise as on the date of filing the suit, the land in which he is in possession, where this land is located and where the disputed land is located. Except the fact that plaintiff purcahsed 156 Sq Yd land under
Ex.A1 in the year 1978 and that he constructed a house bearing No.3-77 in the purchased land, there is absolutely no evidence to show the extent of the house portion and if there is any vacant portion. The very own document filed by the plaintiff i.e.
Ex.A2 propounded by the plaintiff as the sanction plan of the Gram Panchayath shows that he sought for construction in 340 Sq Yd with plinth area of 160 Sq Yd. The above discussion shows that the plaintiff failed to establish that he got land as shown in
Ex.A2. Further, as per Ex.B2, plaintiff sold 52 Sq.yards to Bukka Khaja in which
Bukka Khaja constructed house bearing No.3-76 and this house is abutting the house of plaintiff. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff itself is sufficient to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. Thus, viewed in any angle, I hold that the plaintiff failed to prove his case.
39.Learned Trial Judge had thoroughly discussed the oral and documentary evidence on record. The observation and findings in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur are based on sound principles of law and on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and I do not find any reason to disturb said findings. These points are decided against the Appellant/plaintiff.
14 of 14 AS 28 of 2015
Point No.3:
40.In view of the findings given in Points No.1 and 2, the appeal shall fail.
IN THE RESULT, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment and
Decree in OS 65 of 2010 dated 04-08-2015 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge,
Narsapur. Each party to bear their own costs.
Partly Typed By Me, Partly Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, Transcribed by him, Corrected and Pronounced by Me in the Open Court on this the 6 th day of September, 2018.
VI Addl. District Judge,
Siddipet. FAC VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak.
Additional evidence
-Nil-
VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet. FAC VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak.