Sri.B.Srinivas Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : SRI B.SRINIVAS RAO

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

WEDNESDAY, THE 31 st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

O.S.No.1543 OF 2009

BETWEEN: Smt.Bhumula Sathamma, W/o.B.Illaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-30, Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

... Plaintiff

A N D

1.Tallari Laxmaiah, S/o.T.Gandaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-57/3A, Hafizpet, Serilingampally Mandal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Tallari Ramesh, S/o.T.Gandaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-57/3A, Hafizpet, Serilingampally Mandal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

3.B.Sattaiah (died as per Lrs) S/o.B.Narasimha, Age: 51 years, Occ: Ex-Sarpanch, Hafizpet, Serilingampally Mandal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

4.Smt.B.Lalitha, W/o.B.Sattaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Housewife,

5.B.Gautam, S/o.B.Sattaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Private Service,

6.Smt.Rekha, D/o.B.Sattaiah, Age: 24 years, Occ: Housewife,

7.Smt.Satya, D/o.B.Sattaiah, Age: 22 years, Occ: Housewife,

8.Manirupa, D/o.B.Sattaiah, Age: 20 years, Occ: Housewife,

The defendants No.4 to 8 (i.e., LRs of defendant No.3) are R/o.1-89, Hafizpet, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. (Amended as per orders in I.A.186/2011 dated 05.08.2011)

... Defendants

2

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Srikar Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri.R.Mahender Reddy, advocate for defendants No.3 to 8 and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants No.1 to 8 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e., plot No.12 admeasuring 123 sq.yards in Sy.No.208 at Madeenaguda village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Originally, this suit was filed only against defendants No.1 to 3 alone but subsequently defendants No.4 to 9 were added as parties vide orders of the court in I.A.186/2011 dated 5.8.2011 as legal representatives of deceased defendant No.3.

2.The contents of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property having acquired the same through agreement of sale in 1987 after paying entire consideration and plaintiff was put in possession since from the date of agreement of sale.

On 4.10.2005 the defendants came to suit property and tried to interfere which was resisted with the help of neighbours. The plaintiff made a complaint before SHO, Miyapur and case was registered against defendants No.1 & 2 under Section 447 of IPC vide Cr.No.288/2005. On 18.11.2005, the defendants again tried to interfere but police did not take any action when subsequent complaint is made, as such the plaintiff filed this suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction and prayed that suit may be decreed as prayed for.

3.The defendant No.1 was set exparte and as the process of defendant No.2 was not paid as such the suit against defendant No.2 was 3 dismissed in default. The defendant No.3 alone filed written statement by denying all the allegations and denied that the plaintiff is the owner or possessor of suit property and stated that plaintiff has forged the said agreement of sale. He denied that they interfered with the possession of plaintiff on 4.10.2005. The defendant No.3 stated that one Hari Kishan

Bajaj was the owner and possessor of Ac.1-26 gts in Sy.No.208 and

Ramesh Chandra was owner of another Ac.1-26 gts in Sy.No.208 and they sold the entire land to defendant No.2 under two agreement of sale

dated 3.2.2006 by paying entire consideration and defendant No.3

converted land into plots and sold away many plots and retained certain plots and the vendor of plaintiff has no right to execute the alleged agreement of sale. The defendant No.3 stated that the alleged agreement of sale dated 24.4.1987 does not confer any ownership and suit for injunction cannot be filed basing on agreement of sale without specific performance and stated that there is no cause of action to file this suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Subsequently after bringing legal representatives of defendant

No.3, the defendant No.4 alone made appearance but did not file any written statement and the other defendants stood exparte.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2)To what relief?

6.Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

7.The preliminary burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish her right and title over the suit property. The plaintiff got examined herself as 4

PW.1 by filing examination in chief in the form of affidavit repeating the contents of plaint in nutshell and marked Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.A1 is agreement of sale dated 24.1.1987, Ex.A2 is certified copy of GPA vide document No.92/1987 and Ex.A3 is encumbrance certificate from 1.1.1983 to 25.11.2005. In the course of cross examination, PW.1 stated that she do not know the names of the defendants upon whom this suit is filed and she filed this suit against Sathaiah, Narsimha, Ramesh and

Sailoo tried to demolished the room in the plot purchased by her and she cannot say the nature of document under which it is purchased and cannot say the boundaries of the suit plot. She stated that she filed documents of her possession and she cannot say where she was on 4.10.2005 and admitted that in her plaint she pleaded that defendant

No.3 and others demolished the room over the suit plot. She denied that she has not filed any documentary evidence to show her possession over the suit property and denied that defendant No.3 purchased the land of

Ac.3-12 gts in Sy.No.208 on 3.2.1986 from Hari Kishan Bajaj and Ramesh

Chandra and divided into plots and sold other plots retaining plot No.12 & 13 and denied that they filed a false case keeping evil eye over the open land of defendant No.3. She denied that she have not concern with the suit property which was already purchased by defendant No.3 in 1986 and denied that they filed a false case and speaking falsely without having any plot or room over the suit property.

8.The defendant No.5 got examined himself as DW.1 who filed examination in chief in the form of affidavit repeating the contents of written statement in nutshell and marked Ex.B1 & B2 and Ex.B1 is registered sale deed of 1967 and Ex.B2 is set of photographs. In the course of cross examination, DW.1 stated that he is a graduate and admitted that in the year 1987 he was two years and admitted that he 5 was child in the year 1987 and he had no personal knowledge of the affairs at the time and came to know only from his father and admitted that Ex.B1 and also the other unmarked document dated 3.2.1986 belong to his father. He admitted that photographs under Ex.B2 is not showing any plot number. He denied that they did not file any document to show that they purchased plot No.12 in Sy.No.208 admeasuring 123 sq.yards at Madeenaguda village and that his father was never handed over any possession of the property and denied that under Ex.A1 one

Ramesh Chandra sold the suit property to the plaintiff. He denied that when defendants forcibly tried to occupy the suit property a criminal trespass case was also filed and denied that he do not have any right or title over the suit property and that he is deposing falsely.

9.One M.Raju is examined as DW.2 who filed his examination in chief in the form of affidavit stating that he is the owner of plot No.14 in

Sy.No.208 of Madeenaguda village having purchased in the year 2004 and constructed a house. He stated that he know the defendant No.3 & 5 who are owners of plot No.12 in Sy.No.208 and defendant No.3 used to visit plot No.12. In the course of cross examination, he admitted that

Miyapur and Madeenaguda are different villages and he did not file any documents pertaining to plot No.14 in Sy.No.208 and did not mention any municipal number of plot No.14 and stated that he know one Satyamma and admitted that he did not mention any boundaries in his chief affidavit. He stated that he never mentioned boundaries of plot No.12 in his chief affidavit and admitted that he did not mention from whom he purchased plot No.14. He denied that he do not know the case facts and that plaintiff is only in possession of the suit property and he is deposing falsely to help the defendant to grab the suit property as he is well acquainted with plaintiff.

6

10.From the above discussed evidence, it is seen that the suit is filed only for bare injunction and it is the contention of the plaintiff that she purchased the suit property on 24.1.1987 from one Ramesh Chandra through agreement of sale which is said to be regularized before the

District Registrar office on 20.10.2005. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that it is only an agreement of sale but not regular sale deed and though the agreement is dated 24.1.1987 but it is scribed on the stamp paper of

Rs.7/- which is said to be purchased on 9.1.1987 before 15 days of alleged agreement of sale. It is further surprising to see that the stamp paper is purchased in the name of the alleged GPA holder Ramesh

Chandra but not in the name of the plaintiff herein. Further, in the body of sale deed, it is seen that the plot number is slightly corrected with pencil and the numerical '2' is overwritten and the same is not bearing any initial of the purchaser or seller. It is the contention of the defendant

No.3 that already the original owners sold away the entire land of Ac.3- 12 gts in the year 1986 after paying entire consideration and defendant

No.3 made plots and sold to various persons by retaining plot No.12 & 13 and stated that the alleged vendor of plaintiff has no right or title to execute the said document in the year 1987 as they sold away the entire property in 1986 itself. The plaintiff counsel contended that though the defendant No.3 alleged that he developed the plots and sold to various purchasers, but he did not place any documentary evidence to show that he obtained any layout or executed any sale deeds in favour of prospective purchasers. He argued that the defendant No.3 did not file certified copy of any sale deeds alleged to have executed by him in favour of third parties. It is seen that this suit is filed for bare injunction and not for any declaration of title or possession. Now it would be pertinent to see certain contentions in the cross of PW.1. The PW.1 in her 7 cross stated that she do not know the names of defendants upon whom this suit is filed and stated that suit is filed against one Sathyaiah,

Narsimha, Ramesh and Sailu when they tried to demolish the room in the plot. She stated that she do not know nature of document under which she purchased and she do not know boundaries of suit plot. It is important to see that there is no defendant by such name Narsimha and

Sailu whose names are stated by PW.1. The plaintiff counsel argued that the defendants failed to establish their right or title over the suit property and stated that defendant No.3 died already and DW.1 who is son of defendant No.3 do not have any personal knowledge. He argued that they did not place any evidence before the court to show their right or title over the suit property. He further argued that DW.2 have any knowledge regarding to the case facts and he did not place any evidence to show that he is neighbour of defendants. It is well settled law that it is plaintiff who approached the court seeking the equitable relief of injunction and when the plaintiff approached the court, in such case the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case irrespective of the fact whether the defendants have established their case or discharged their burden of proof or not. In other words, it is for the plaintiff in every case to establish his or her case beyond the reasonable doubt by placing all relevant and material evidence without depending over the weakness of the defendant and the plaintiff in any case cannot be permitted to win over his case over the weak stand of defendant. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not possessing any regular document in her favour till today and though she is alleged to have been in possessing of plot since 1987 but she did not file any document such as revenue receipt etc., to establish her possessing over the suit schedule property as on date of filing suit.

Be that as it may be, though she alleged that there is a room over the 8 suit property but she did not mention whether any municipal number is allotted to that room and she did not file any electricity bill etc., to show her possession. Even otherwise, as already stated there is a overwriting in the agreement of sale at the plot number for which there is no reply by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, it is seen that suit was dismissed against defendant No.2 at the initial stage itself when the process was not deposited and the defendant No.2 who filed written statement as died as such the cause of action abated against him. Though subsequently an amended plaint is filed by adding legal representatives of defendant No.3 but no cause of action is separately shown against defendant No.4 to 8 and the original cause of action shown in the original plain is also shown in the amended plaint also in which there is no cause of action shown against defendant No.4 to 8. It is seen that even otherwise the crux of the case is that the defendants have interfered with the possession of plaintiff on the given dates, as such this suit is filed. It is the contention of the plaintiff that initially the defendants interfered with her possession over the suit property on 4.10.2005, but interestingly in her cross examination, she stated that she cannot say where she was on 4.10.2005 which is totally contradictory to her contention in her plaint as preliminary cause of action from the contents of plaint itself is shown on 4.10.2005. Having shown the arose of cause of action for filing this suit

as 4.10.2005, the plaintiff was not expected to say that she do not know

where she was on 4.10.2005 and the very such contention of PW.1 regarding ignorance of the place of presence on the said date is also creating adverse presumption regarding the alleged cause of action shown in the plaint. It is further seen that though the plaintiff alleged that a crime is registered against the defendants before police, Miyapur but she did not file any FIR copy and she did not state as to what is the 9 result of the said complaint. In these circumstances, for the above held reasons, it is held that as the plaintiff has failed to establish her actual possession over the suit property as on date of filing the suit and as the plaintiff also failed to establish the alleged interference by the defendants and failed to establish the cause of action for filing this suit, as such in these circumstances, it cannot be held that the plaintiff is entitled for any relief of perpetual injunction. The issue No.1 is decided accordingly.

11. Issue No.2: To what relief?

12.In view of the findings given while deciding issue No.1, it is held that the present suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The issue

No.2 is decided accordingly.

13.In the result, the present suit of the plaintiff be and the same do be hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 31st day of December, 2014.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: Smt.B.SathammaDW.1: B.Gowtham DW.2: Neela Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Ex.A1agreement of sale dated 24.1.1987Ex.B1registered sale deed of 1967 Ex.A2certified copy of GPA vide document Ex.B2set of photographs No.92/1987 Ex.A3encumbrancecertificatefrom 1.1.1983 to 25.11.2005

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District 10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : SRI B.SRINIVAS RAO

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

WEDNESDAY, THE 31 st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

O.S.No.385 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

Dungaram, S/o.Danna Ram, Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-215/1, Rajiv Nagar, Nacharam village, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District.

... Plaintiff

A N D

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle, Ranga Reddy District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Madhusudan Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.R.Satyanarayana, advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e., plot No.9 admeasuring 150 sq.yards in Sy.No.166, 167, 171, 172 & 173 at Block No.7, Raghavendranagar Colony, Nacharam village, Uppal

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.The contents of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 9.3.2002 from Smt.Sukya 2

Devi and another. The plaintiff made an application to the defendant for the sanction of building permission and got permission through proceedings dated 19.3.2012 for construction of residential building and accordingly started construction as per sanction plan by demolishing old house. Subsequently, the defendants were instigated by some unconcerned persons and the defendant officials without any notice tried to demolish the structure over the suit property on 14.8.2012 but the plaintiff resisted with the help of neighbours. The plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 16.8.2012 to direct his supporters not to interfere with his possession. Since the attitude of defendant is causing fear to the plaintiff, as such he filed this suit for perpetual injunction and prayed that suit may be decreed as prayed for.

3.The defendant filed written statement by denying all the allegations and stated that the suit is not maintainable for not issuing prior notice under Section 685 of HMC Act and stated that defendant is not aware regarding ownership of plaintiff over the suit property. He stated that defendant granted permission for construction of an individual residential house consisting ground + first floor and plaintiff started construction without commencement notice under Section 440 of HMC Act in the required fashion and the plaintiff did not dismantle ground floor structures as shown in the building plan and also laid RCC slab for second and part of third floor. The defendants denied that he interfered with the possession of plaintiff at any time and stated that plaintiff is using ground floor structure for commercial purpose against the rules and the defendant as a statutory authority is vested with powers to remove illegal constructions. The defendant is about to initiate action against the plaintiff for unauthorized construction in deviation to sanction plan, this suit is filed and stated that this suit is 3 bad for not issuing prior notice under Section 685 of HMC Act. The defendant stated that there is no cause of action to file this suit and this suit is not valued and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property as on date of filing the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant municipality?

3) To what relief?

5.Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property as on date of filing the suit?

6.It is seen that the suit is filed against the defendant authority stating that they are interfering with the construction activity but it is seen that the defendant is not denying or disputing the possession of plaintiff over the suit property. The dispute is only with regarding to deviation in plan of construction but not with regarding to possession, as such there is no necessity to probe much into this issue regarding possession of plaintiff. It is seen that the defendant did not deny or dispute the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and not claiming any adverse title over the suit property. Since the possession of plaintiff is not denied or disputed over the suit property, as such there is no necessity to put much probe into this issue. The issue No.1 is decided accordingly.

7.Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief

of perpetual injunction against the defendant municipality?

8.The preliminary burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish his case against the defendant. The plaintiff got examined himself as 4

PW.1 by filing examination in chief in the form of affidavit repeating the contents of plaint in a nutshell and marked Ex.A1 to A4 which are as follows: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.2138/2002, Original proceedings in file No.BA/G2/9371/2011-12, office copy of legal notice and original postal receipt. In the course of cross examination, PW.1 stated that he is residing in suit property which is purchased in the year 2002 where it was old house and he know the contents of plaint and chief affidavit and further stated that the old house is dismantled and constructed a new house and he got permission for ground + first floor.

He further stated that he cannot tell the names of alleged antisocial elements who demanded money or interfered with his possession and stated that he took permission in the month of March 2012 and the construction is started in August 2012. He stated that he gave notice to the defendant before starting the construction under Section 442 of

HMC Act and do not know whether office copy is filed or not. He stated that he filed sanctioned plan before the court and did not file photographs and admitted that he received notice from the municipality for dismantling illegal construction and at this juncture, the plaintiff counsel interfered and cautioned the witness on which witness added that he did not receive the notice. He further stated that he cannot tell the date of filing this suit and admitted that legal notice is issued and immediately suit is filed. He denied that he illegally raised two more floors without permission and did not leave set back and denied that structure of 3 feet on road side of old house is remaining still and denied that he did not give statutory notice to defendant

before filing the suit under Section 685 of HMC Act. He stated that he

filed the sanctioned plan before the court but did not file photographs.

He denied that he violated terms and conditions of sanctioned plan and 5 raised illegal construction and denied that he filed a false sit and deposing falsely.

9.Subsequently, the Assistant City Planner by name M.Shekar

Reddy is examined as DW.1 who filed his examination in chief in the form of affidavit repeating the contents of written statement in nutshell. Subsequently when the case was posted for cross examination, the DW.1 did not turn up inspite of giving sufficient chances, as such the evidence of DW.1 was eschewed. Subsequently the defendant did not take any steps to recall the said orders and recall

DW.1 for cross examination.

10.From the above discussed evidence, it is seen that this suit is filed for perpetual injunction alleging that the defendant is interfering with his possession over the construction work of schedule property and he stated that defendant tried to demolish his structures without any notice. On the other hand, the defendant contended that suit is bad for not issuing notice under Section 685 of HMC Act and further stated that the plaintiff has commenced construction without notice under Section 440 of HMC Act and he also violated the sanction plan and did not leave the setbacks. It is seen that the plaintiff alone got examined himself as

PW.1 and he marked his registered sale deed under Ex.A1 and construction permission proceedings under Ex.A2, office copy of legal notice under Ex.A3 and original postal receipt under Ex.A4. In the course of cross of PW.1, he admitted that he got permission for ground + one floor and he took permission in March 2012 and started construction in August 2012. Though he stated that he gave notice to defendant before starting construction under Section 442 of HMC Act, he do not know whether office copy is filed before the court or not. It is seen that though the PW.1 at one juncture admitted that he received 6 notice from municipality for dismantling the illegal construction, at that time on interference and cautioning by his counsel the witness again added that he did not receive the notice. He again admitted at another juncture that suit is filed immediately after filing of notice. It is seen that the legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 16.8.2012 and the suit is immediately filed on 17.8.2012 on the very next date. The plaintiff counsel argued that DW.1 did not enter into witness box for facing cross examination, as such his evidence was eschewed and subsequently he did not take any steps to recall himself and face the cross examination. He argued that since the DW.1 failed to enter into witness box, as such an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him. In support to his contention, he relied on a ruling laid down in the case of Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441, wherein it was held that when the party do not enter into witness box by taking oath and do not present for cross examination, an adverse presumption can be drawn that the case set up by him is not correct. Undoubtedly, the preposition of law laid by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court forms a precedent and a binding source of law which is not in dispute, but it has to be seen that whether the case facts under which the said ruling has been emerged out and the facts in the present dispute are coinciding with each other or not. It is seen that in the ruling relied upon by the plaintiff that was a case wherein the defendant was claiming specific interest in the subject matter. But here in the present case, the defendant is not raising any specific title or claim over the suit property and here the defendant is a statutory authority whose contention is that plaintiff is deviating from the original plan and violating the terms of construction, as such the defendant was required to interfere into the said matter. Admittedly, the defendant is 7 none other than GHMC who is a statutory authority and who is coupled with a duty to have a check and monitoring over the illegal and unauthorized constructions that are been carried out within its jurisdiction. It is also not in dispute that it is the domain of GHMC to grant permission to various individuals for raising constructions after verifying the applications and the GHMC also will have a duty to verify the constructions to see whether the construction is been carried out as per sanctioned plan or whether there occurred any deviations. In case if it is found that any construction is illegal or unauthorized and if it is found that if any construction is raised by deviating from the original sanctioned plan or without leaving set backs or raising excess floors than the sanctioned strength, in such case the GHMC is coupled with an authority to give a notice to such landowner asking show cause as to why the illegal or unauthorized construction should not be demolished.

It is also not in dispute that under GHMC Act, the GHMC is even empowered with quazi judicial powers to note the unauthorized construction and issue a show cause notice and also thereby cause demolition of such unauthorized illegal constructions also for which no fault can be found against the authorities. Here in the present case, admittedly the defendant being the GHMC and statutory authority has no business to interfere with the construction or possession of plaintiff over the suit land with the help of any antisocial elements and PW.1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that he cannot tell the names of alleged antisocial elements who demanded money or interfered with his possession. It is seen that though the defendant did not enter into the witness box for cross examination and though his evidence is eschewed but that alone does not make the case of the plaintiff strong automatically and when it is alleged that plaintiff has violated the 8 sanctioned plan, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that his construction is as per sanctioned plan. It is seen that in any case the plaintiff cannot be permitted to win over his case on the weakness of the defendant and the plaintiff in any case is required to establish his own case beyond the reasonable doubt without depending upon the lacunas of defendant. It is pertinent to see that as already discussed,

PW.1 clearly admitted that he received notice from the municipality for dismantling the illegal construction and he has surpassed from his contention only upon the cautioning made by plaintiff counsel. Since the PW.1 contradicted the admission on interfering by his counsel, as such the said contradiction cannot be given weightage and the very admission of PW.1 about receiving notice from municipality for dismantling illegal construction itself is causing a presumption that

PW.1 has violated and deviated from the original sanction permission, as such municipality issued a notice to him. Be that as it may be, it is further contention of defendant that plaintiff did not issue notice under

Section 685 of HMC Act prior to filing the suit which is mandatory, as such this suit is also not maintainable for not issuing statutory notice under Section 685 of HMC Act. Admittedly the plaintiff did not issue any such mandatory notice under Section 685 of HMC Act which is a lacuna on their part and also a material defect and the plaintiff has not given any proper answer regarding non issue of mandatory notice before filing the suit under Section 685 of HMC Act. Since the plaintiff failed to issue prior notice to the defendant under Section 685 of HMC Act

before filing the suit, the present suit against the defendant is not

maintainable. Even otherwise, since the plaintiff has failed to establish his case against the defendant even for the said reason also this suit is not maintainable, as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of 9 perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of suit property in the present circumstances. The issue No.1 is decided accordingly.

11. Issue No.3: To what relief?

12.In view of the findings given while deciding issue No.2, it is held that the present suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The issue

No.3 is decided accordingly.

13.In the result, the present suit of the plaintiff be and the same do be hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, transcribed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 31st day of December, 2014.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: DungaramDW.1: M.Sekhar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Ex.A1Certified copy of registered sale deed NIL No.2138/2002 Ex.A2Originalproceedingsinfile No.BA/G2/9371/2011-12 Ex.A3Office copy of legal notice Ex.A4Original postal receipt

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : SRI B.SRINIVAS RAO

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

WEDNESDAY, THE 31 st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

O.S.No.267 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

D.Anand Goud, S/o.D.Mallesh Goud, Age: 43 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.11-2-91 (old H.No.2-59), Near Ram Mandir, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

... Plaintiff

A N D

1.The Commissioner, L.B.Nagar, Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad.

2.The Deputy Commissioner, L.B.Nagar, Circle No.III, GHMC, Hyderabad.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Srinivasa Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri.P.Narsimha Reddy, advocate for defendant No.2 and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants No.1 & 2 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e., house No.11-2-91/A admeasuring 75 sq.yards near Ram Mandir, Saroornagar village and mandal, Ranga

Reddy District.

2.The contents of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute 2 owner and possessor of suit schedule property having succeeded the same from his grandfather and father of plaintiff executed registered gift deed dated 10.2.2000 in the name of plaintiff and since then he is in possession. He further stated that there was 60 years old house and plaintiff and his brother got the same through gift deed and they demolished the old house. The defendant No.2 issued notice of demand to pay property tax of suit property on 20.12.2011 and plaintiff paid tax on 31.3.2012. When the plaintiff started construction in February 2012 and laid basement and made arrangement to lay RCC roof and as per

G.O.Ms.No.423 dated 31.7.1998 no prior sanction of building application is necessary to construct residential building of ground + two floors with stilt up to 100 sq.yards. The plaintiff stated that defendant No.2 and supports came to the suit property and gave notice on 4.5.2012 to stop construction and submit documents and appear

before defendant No.2 on 11.5.2012 and plaintiff gave a reply on

5.5.2012 and inspite of that defendants demanded to stop construction. The plaintiff stated that suit property is only 75 sq.yards and no necessity of any prior permission and defendants came to suit property on 7.5.2012 and interfered with the possession, as such this suit is filed for perpetual injunction and prayed that suit may be decreed as prayed for.

3.The defendant No.2 filed written statement by denying all the allegations and stated that suit is not maintainable as it is filed without prior notice under Section 685 of HMC Act 1955. The defendant stated that he is not aware regarding ownership of plaintiff and payment of tax do not transform illegal construction into lawful. He stated that

G.O.Ms.423/1998 dated 31.7.1998 is not in force as the said G.O was superseded by G.O.Ms.86/2006 amended vide G.O.Ms.171/2006 and 3

G.O.Ms.623/2006 after revised building rules 2012 come into force

G.O.Ms.168/2012 is in force for which prior permission is necessary even to the area below 100 sq.yards. The defendant stated that plaintiff has no cause of action and the officials of defendants act as per provisions of HMC Act and they initiated action after noticing unauthorized construction and issued show cause notice under Section 452 (1) and 461 (1) of HMC Act. They stated that plaintiff without any explanation filed this suit without prior notice. The defendant stated that plaintiff has no cause of action and he undervalued the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants, local authorities?

2) To what relief?

5.Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief

of perpetual injunction against the defendants, local

authorities?

6.The preliminary burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish his case against the defendant. The plaintiff got examined himself as

PW.1 by filing examination in chief in the form of affidavit repeating the contents of plaint in a nutshell and marked Ex.A1 to A11 which are as follows: certified copy of gift settlement deed, encumbrance certificate from 1.5.1995 to 4.5.2012, original demand notice, original property tax receipt, original notice, original reply given by plaintiff, copy of

G.O.Ms.423, property tax receipt, property tax bill, property tax receipt and property tax bill. In the course of cross examination, PW.1 admitted that except gift deed he did not file any other document to show his 4 ownership and did not file any link document of his father and admitted that the construction is made in total 150 sq.yards and again added that himself and his brother raised separate construction. He further stated that he did not issue any statutory notice to GHMC under 685 of

HMC Act and he do not know if G.O.423/1998 is superseded in the year 2006. He admitted that as per present law the permission and sanction from GHMC is necessary even for construction below 100 sq.yards and admitted that he received a notice from GHMC that he is raising unauthorized construction under Section 452 (1) and 461 (1) of the said

Act for which he gave a reply and filed office copy before the court. On seeing the document he stated that he did not file such document and did not state about the notice issued by GHMC or reply in the plaint and stated that he constructed only ground floor. He admitted that in the plaint it is mentioned that defendant interfered while raising basement and he do not have any permission as on today. He denied that he filed a suit to protect the illegal construction and denied that defendant never tried to demolish the structure and he filed the suit only to protect the unauthorized construction and denied that he is deposing falsely.

7.Subsequently one Mansoor who is working as TPBO of Circle III in defendant No.2 office is examined as DW.1 who filed his examination in chief in the form of affidavit repeating the contents of written statement in nutshell. In the course of cross examination, DW.1 stated that municipality do not claim any title over the suit property and he made spot inspection in the year 2012 and do not know date and month and did not file G.O.168/2012. He stated that suit property might be admeasuring 100 sq.yards and cannot say if it is only 75 sq.yards and stated that plaintiff is paying property tax and admitted that 5 plaintiff gave a reply to their show cause notice under Ex.A6. He stated that he gave only one notice for stopping unauthorized construction and subsequent to reply notice, they did not give any other notice and under Ex.A5 they did not state the reference of G.O.168/2012 and stated that by the time of his inspection the plaintiff raised pillars and admitted that G.O.168/2012 is only prospective effect and admitted that construction is started by plaintiff before issuing the GO. He admitted that at the time of G.O under Ex.A7 was in force according to which no permission is necessary for property below 100 sq.yards and admitted that property tax is paid by the plaintiff only after assessment. He denied that suit is filed for injunction not to interfere with possession of property, as such notice under Section 685 of HMC

Act is not essential and denied that suit property is not covered under the purview of G.O.168/2012 and denied that he is deposing falsely.

8.From the above discussed evidence, it is seen that the suit is filed for injunction against the GHMC stating that they are interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the construction activity. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the plaintiffs are carrying out construction activity illegally without prior sanction and the defendant as a statutory authority is under obligation to check the unauthorized construction and the defendant is acting as per law. It is the contention of the plaintiff that as the suit property is below 100 sq.yards as such they need not take prior permission as per G.O.423/1998. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the said G.O.423/1998 is superseded by subsequent G.O in the year 2006 and present

G.O.168/2012 is in subsistence as per which prior sanction is necessary for the extent which is less than 100 sq.yards. It is seen that the defendant is not denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule 6 property and also not putting forth any adverse claim over the suit property. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is raising construction over the schedule property and admittedly, the plaintiff did not obtain any prior sanction for raising construction seeking shelter under

G.O.423/1998 which is disputed by the defendant. Ex.A1 is certified copy of gift settlement deed of plaintiff, Ex.A2 is encumbrance certificate, Ex.A3 is notice of demand to plaintiff for property tax, Ex.A4 is receipt for payment of property tax, Ex.A5 is notice under Section 452 and 461 (1) of HMC Act dated 4.5.2012 to the plaintiff, Ex.A6 is office copy of reply issued to defendant No.1, Ex.A7 is copy of

G.O.423/1998, Ex.A8 is property tax bill, Ex.A9 is receipt, Ex.A10 is notice of property tax and Ex.A11 is property tax bill. It is not in dispute that the notice is issued asking show cause against the said construction of plaintiff as per Ex.A5. Now it is important to see the cross of PW.1 at certain junctures. Though the plaintiff contended in the plaint that construction is made for only 75 sq.yards but in the cross he admitted that construction is made in total 150 sq.yards and again added that himself and his brother have raised separate construction but as per plaint his brother already raised construction. He further stated that he do not know whether G.O.423/1998 is superseded in the year 2006 and admitted that he received notice for unauthorized construction for which he gave a reply notice. He further stated that he did not state about notice issued by GHMC in the plaint or reply and he admitted that he do not have permission even as on today. The plaintiff counsel argued that G.O.168/2012 is with prospective effect and before that G.O, the G.O.438/1998 was in force. He further stressed that the

DW.1 in his cross admitted that construction is started by the plaintiff

before issuing of the said G.O i.e., G.O.168/2012. The plaintiff counsel

7 argued that G.O.168/2012 was issued on 7.4.2012 and whereas this suit is filed on 8.5.2012 in the vacation as the defendant was interfering. He further stated that the plaintiff started construction of house in February 2012 i.e., prior to the period of G.O.168/2012, as such the acts of the plaintiff is not falling within the purview of

G.O.168/2012. Admittedly, the plaintiff is said to have started construction in February 2012 and the said G.O.168/2012 was issued in

April 2012 and the DW.1 himself admitted that as on date of starting construction by the plaintiff G.O.423/1998 was applicable. In view of the above held discussion, it cannot be held that the construction of plaintiff is illegal or does not fall within the ambit of G.O.423/1998.

Since the construction by plaintiff was started before issuing of

G.O.168/2012 and as G.O.168/2012 is only with prospective effect, as such rules of said G.O are not applicable to the construction of plaintiff which is commenced before the period of affecting the said

G.O.168/2012. Now it has to be seen whether this suit is maintainable or not. It is the contention of the defendant that since the defendant is a statutory authority, as such a prior notice under Section 685 of HMC

Act is mandatory and plaintiff did not issue any such notice, as such this suit is hit by provisions of Section 685 of HMC Act and not maintainable. On the other hand, the plaintiff counsel argued that since suit is filed as the defendant was interfering with the construction work of plaintiff, as such no notice is necessary under Section 685 of HMC

Act. It is important to see that PW.1 in his cross examination itself clearly admitted that he did not issue any statutory notice to GHMC under Section 685 of HMC Act and no reasons are shown by him as to why he did not issue such notice. It is seen that Section 685 of HMC Act mandates a prior notice before filing a suit against it and any suit filed 8 against the GHMC without issuing prior notice under Section 685 of

HMC Act makes it a void suit. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 685 of HMC Act is not directorial but the same is mandatory and the plaintiff did not even seek the leave of the court before filing the suit to dispense with the necessity of issuing prior notice under Section 685 of

HMC Act. In view of the above held discussion, it is held that as mandatory notice under Section 685 of HMC Act is not issued to the defendant before filing the suit which is a material and procedural lacuna, as such this suit is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed for not issuing prior notice to defendant under Section 685 of

HMC Act. In view of the above held discussion, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants for not issuing prior notice under Section 685 of HMC Act to the defendant. The issue No.1 is decided accordingly.

9. Issue No.2: To what relief?

10.In view of the findings given while deciding issue No.1, it is held that the present suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The issue

No.2 is decided accordingly.

11.In the result, the present suit of the plaintiff be and the same do be hereby dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, transcribed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 31st day of December, 2014.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: D.Anand GoudDW.1: Mansoor

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Ex.A1certified copy of gift settlement deed NIL Ex.A2encumbrance certificate from 1.5.1995 to 4.5.2012 Ex.A3original demand notice Ex.A4original property tax receipt Ex.A5original notice Ex.A6original reply given by plaintiff Ex.A7copy of G.O.Ms.423 Ex.A8property tax receipt Ex.A9property tax bill Ex.A10property tax receipt Ex.A11property tax bill

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : SRI B.SRINIVAS RAO

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

WEDNESDAY, THE 31 st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

O.S.No.9 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

M/s.Vijay Bhargavi Chit Fund (P) Ltd., Chaitanyapuri Branch, Rep. By its Managing Director K.Basava Rao, S/o.K.Satyanarayana.

... Plaintiff

A N D

1.Vanama Yobu, S/o.V.Nagabhushanam, Age: 38 years, Occ: Programmer, SCDE, JNTU, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.3-2-82/1, Bagh Ameer, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2.Peddi Nirmala Devi, W/o.SVDV.Prasada Rao, Age: 54 years, Occ: Assistant Registrar, SCDE, JNTU, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.4-180/179, SBO Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.

3.Chatripally Bharatender Rao, S/o.C.Rama Chander Rao, Age: 49 years, Occ: Assistant Professor, SCDE, JNTU, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.18-7-699/9, Upperguda, Hyderabad.

4.Godavarthy Malathi, W/o.A.V.Prasad, Age: 44 years, Occ: Jr.Assistant, JNTU, Kukatpally Campus, Hyderabad. R/o.F.No.31, St.No.8/8, Crescent Villa Apartments, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.Kantachary, advocate for the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 were set exparte and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants No.1 to 4 seeking the relief of recovery of amount of Rs.69,475/- along with future interest of 12% p.a from the date of filing suit till the date of realization.

2.The contents of the plaint are that the plaintiff is a company registered under Indian Company's Act for doing chit fund business. On 11.10.2007 the defendant No.1 joined as a member in chit fund company and was allotted ticket No.MT09LC-31 for Rs.1,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m for 40 months and signed agreement of chit on 8.11.2007. On 23.3.2008 auction was conducted in which defendant

No.1 was successful bidder and accepted to forego Rs.35,000/- which was confirmed by plaintiff company and after deducting company's commission from the foregone amount, the balance was distributed among the members. The defendant No.1 paid only Rs.15,000/- till the date and future liability was Rs.85,000/- and he furnished defendant

No.2 to 4 as guarantors who executed agreement of guarantee on 24.6.2008 and they all became liable for future liability of defendant

No.1 jointly and severally and they all executed pronote for

Rs.85,000/-. The defendant No.1 was paid Rs.58,975/- on 24.6.2008 through cheque and Rs.6,025/- through cash total Rs.65,000/-. The defendant No.1 paid 15 installments and committed default from 16.1.2009 and plaintiff finally issued legal notice to all the defendants for Rs.61,750/- and though they were under obligation, they did not pay anything, as such this suit is filed and prayed that suit may be decreed as prayed for.

3.The defendant No.1, 2 & 4 did not appear after receiving notice, as such they were set exparte and notice of defendant No.3 was issued 3 through substituted service, inspite of which he did not turn up, as such he was also set exparte. The defendants did not take any steps to set aside the exparte orders and file any written statement to contest the suit.

4.The Assistant Manager of plaintiff company got examined himself as PW.1 by filing examination in chief in the form of affidavit repeating the contents of plaint in nutshell and marked Ex.A1 to A17.

5.Heard the plaintiff counsel.

6.Now the issue to be determined is “whether the plaintiff is

entitled for recovery of the suit amount from defendant No.1 to

4 in these circumstances”?

7.Issue: It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 joined as member in the chit for Rs.1,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m for 40 months and participated in the auction and became successful bidder on agreeing to forego Rs.35,000/-. He was paid prize amount after furnishing defendant No.2 to 4 as guarantors. The defendant No.1 subsequently committed default after paying 15 installments and did not respond inspite of issuing legal notice, as such this suit is filed. It is seen that the plaintiff has filed Ex.A1 to A17 which are as follows: authorization letter dated 20.12.2014, copy of certificate of incorporation, certified copy of memorandum and articles of association, bye-laws of plaintiff company, agreement of chit, agreement of guarantee, promissory note, cash voucher, office copy of legal notice, unserved legal notices of defendants No.1 to 4, statement of account, bid authorization letter, chit application and receipt of B.P adjustment letter. It is seen that on perusal of Ex.A1 to A4, it is not in dispute that plaintiff is a joint stock company which is doing business of chits. On perusal of Ex.A5 to A16 it is not in dispute that defendant 4

No.1 was a member of plaintiff company and he was allotted a chit and participated in auction and became successful bidder by executing agreement of guarantee and also furnished guarantors. It is not in dispute that legal notices were addressed to defendant No.1 to 4 which were returned. It is also seen that defendant No.1 was paid chit prize amount. Since the defendants are set exparte and as they did not contest by filing written statement, as such evidence adduced by plaintiff remained unrebutted. Even otherwise, on a thorough verification of documents filed by the plaintiff, no reasons are found to disbelieve its veracity and no grounds are found to ignore the documents. Since it is established that defendant No.1 has committed default in paying installments and as the defendants did not contest the suit and did not cross examine PW.1 and as there is no rebutal of evidence, as such it is held that the case of the plaintiff is established and defendant No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. The issue is decided accordingly.

8.In the result, the present suit of the plaintiff be and the same do be hereby decreed in exparte and the defendant No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to repay the suit amount of Rs.69,475/- along with interest of 12% p.a from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree. The defendant No.1 to 4 are further directed jointly and severally to pay an additional interest of 6% p.a on the matured amount from the date of decree till the date of realization along with costs of the suit.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, transcribed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 31st day of December, 2014.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: P.Rahul NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Ex.A1authorization letter dated 20.12.2014NIL Ex.A2copy of certificate of incorporation Ex.A3certified copy of memorandum and articles of association Ex.A4bye-laws of plaintiff company Ex.A5agreement of chit Ex.A6agreement of guarantee Ex.A7promissory note Ex.A8cash voucher Ex.A9office copy of legal notice Ex.A10unserved legal notices of defendant No.1 Ex.A11unserved legal notices of defendant No.2 Ex.A12unserved legal notices of defendant No.3 Ex.A13unserved legal notices of defendant No.4 Ex.A14statement of account Ex.A15bid authorization letter Ex.A16chit application Ex.A17receipt of B.P adjustment letter

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : SRI B.SRINIVAS RAO

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

TUESDAY, THE 23 rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

O.S.No.226 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

K.Bheemarjun Reddy, S/o.Late K.Yadav Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

... Plaintiff

A N D

1.K.Balwanth Reddy, S/o.Late K.Venkat Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-194, Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.K.Janardhan Reddy, S/o.Late K.Om Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-191, Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.R.K.Gargeya, advocate for the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 were set exparte and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants No.1 & 2 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants No.1 & 2 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.141 admeasuring Ac.4-15 gts at

Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.The contents of the plaint are that the plaintiff is absolute owner 2 and possessor of suit schedule property and originally it was ancestral property of plaintiff. The Sy.No.141 was admeasuring Ac.17-17 gts owned and possessed by one K.Malla Reddy and K.Narsimha Reddy and

K.Narsimha Reddy succeeded extent of his share and subsequently the plaintiff succeeded through proceedings No.B/9701/2004 dated 5.3.2005. The plaintiff is also issued patta pass book and title deed and defendant who has no right or title over the suit property tried to interfere with the possession on 1.6.2014 which was resisted with great difficulty. Since the attitude of defendants is causing fear in the mind of plaintiff, as such he filed this suit for perpetual injunction and prayed that suit may be decreed as prayed for.

3.On receiving notice, the defendants No.1 & 2 made appearance through their counsel but as they did not file written statement inspite of giving several chances, as such they were been set exparte. The defendants No.1 & 2 subsequently did not take any steps to set aside the exparte orders and contest the suit by filing any written statement.

4.The plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 by filing examination in chief in the form of affidavit repeating the contents of plaint in nutshell and marked Ex.A1 to A3.

5.Heard the plaintiff counsel.

6.Now the issue to be determined is “whether the plaintiff is

entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the

defendants No.1 & 2 herein in respect of suit schedule

property in these circumstances”?

7.Issue: It is seen that the plaintiff contents that he is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property as a successor of ancestral property and also got title deeds and patta pass book. Since the defendants interfered with his possession over the suit property, as 3 such he filed this suit for perpetual injunction. It is seen that the plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.A1 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2012-13 and Ex.A3 is certified copy of ROR proceedings in file No.B/9701/2004.

On perusal of Ex.A1 & A2, it is seen that the name of plaintiff is shown as pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property and Ex.A3 also shows that the plaintiff is accorded patta for the suit property. Since the defendants No.1 & 2 did not choose to contest the suit by filing written statement and as they are set exparte, as such the evidence of plaintiff remained unrebutted. All the documents filed by the plaintiff under

Ex.A1 to A3 are clingingly establishing his title and possession over the suit schedule property. Even otherwise on keen observation of documents of plaintiff, no grounds are found to disbelieve its veracity and no reasons are found to ignore the said documents. Since the plaintiff has established his title and possession over the suit schedule property, as such he is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants No.1 & 2 in respect of suit schedule property.

The issue is decided accordingly.

8.In the result, the present suit of the plaintiff be and the same do be hereby decreed in exparte and the defendants No.1 & 2 are hereby perpetually restrained from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e.,

Sy.No.141 admeasuring Ac.4-15 gts at Balapur village, Saroornagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, transcribed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 23rd day of December, 2014.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: K.Bheemarjun ReddyNIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Ex.A1Certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05 NIL Ex.A2Certified copy of pahani for the year 2012-13 Ex.A3Certified copy of ROR proceedings

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District