OS No.76/2021 1Dt.23.04.2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM-VIII
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM
PRESENT:-Kum. B.SIRISHA
VIII ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM.
Wednesday, this the 23 rd day of APRIL, 2025
O.S.No.76 of 2021
Between:
Kolli Purushottama Chowday S/o late Venkateswara Rao, age 66 yrs, R/o Dr.No.3-3, Peyyeru, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District…Plaintiff AND 1.Pinamaneni Vara Prasada Rao S/o late Sitaramaiah, age 75 yrs R/o Ponukumadu village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District.
2.Garimella Radha Rani W/o G.Sekhar, age 55 yrs, R/o Ponukumadu village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District. …Defendants
This suit is come before me on 02.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Mohan Ram Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.M.Parameswara Rao, Advocate for D1, Sri.V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for D2, after perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
The above named plaintiff filed the present suit against the sole defendants1 and 2 for permanent injunction restraining them, their men, agents, servants, successors etc., from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and costs of the suit.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:
Originally the plaint schedule property is belongs to one Pinnamaneni
Nancharamma who is close relative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff looked after the welfare of the said Nacharamma during her life time. The said Nancharamma had purchased Item Nos 1 to 5 of plaint schedule properties under Registered Sale Deed vide doc.Nos 964/1995, dt.29.04.1987, doc.No.2653/1987, doc.No.2428/1987, doc.No. 2705/1987 on the file of SRO, Gannavaram. The item No.6 of plaint
OS No.76/2021 2Dt.23.04.2025
schedule property was bequathed by Nancharamma through her husband/P.Venkateswarfa Rao under Regd.Will dt.05.03.2014. Her husband P.
Venkateswara Rao died on 08.03.2016. Since then the said Nancharamma had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The said Nancharamma executed a Will and bequeathed her properties i.e.,. item Nos 1 to 6 of plaint schedule properties in favour of plaintiff on09.01.2020. There were no children to Nancharamma and P.Venkateswara Rao. Nancharamma died on 10.01.2020 as such the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties without being interrupted by any one. Due to Covid- 19 pandemic situation the mutation process though applied on 28.10.2020 has been delayed even though plaintiff had taken necessary steps before competent authorities.
3.He further submitted that during the life time of said Nanchayramma she proposed to sell away the item No.1 to 6 of the plaint schedule properties to plaintiff for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under agreement of Sale deed. Plaintiff paid
Rs.17,00,000/- towards advance amount at the time of Sale agreement dt.15.05.2016. He further submitted that Nancharamma had handover all the title deeds and pattadar passbooks to the plaintiff. Because of active connivance of her relatives Nancharamma failed to perform her part of contract i.e., properties were not registered in favour of plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff filed a Suit for specific performance against Nancharamma in OS No.75/2018. He further submitted that all the original documents of Item Nos 1 to 6 were filed by the plaintiff in the said suit, which is pending for trial before Hon’ble XIII Addl.District Judge’s Court at Vijayawada.
4. After death of Nancharamma plaintiff filed a memo on 03.03.2021 before
Hon’ble XIII Addl.District Judge’s Court at Vijayawada by stating that Nancharamma
executed a Will in favor of plaintiff pertaining to the plaint schedule properties as such he prayed the court to dismiss the suit and to return the original documents which are filed by him the said suit.
5.He further submitted that 1st defendant is younger brother-in-law (younger brother of husband of Nancharamma) of Nancharamma and the 2nd defendant is daughter of 1st defendant. Taking the advantage of relationship with Nancharamma
OS No.76/2021 3Dt.23.04.2025
the defendants who are very much professional in Real Estate Business they themselves represented that they have rights over the plaint schedule property. Just
before filing of this case plaintiff came to know that defendants already filed a Suit
against Nancharamma in OS No.5/2017 on the file of Hon’ble XI Addl.District
Judge’s Court, Gudiwada pertaining to the plaint schedule properties to harass the
Nancharamma and said suit is pending. He further submitted that he is ready to file a petition to imp-lead him as a party in the said suit proceedings.
6.On 10.04.2021 at about 9.00am, when the plaintiff is giving instructions to his agricultural coolies at plaint schedule properties, the defendants came to the schedule lands along with their hench man and tried to obstruct the cultivating activities. Neighboring agriculturists and coolies intervened and warned the defendants not to come again. By leaving the plaint schedule properties the defendants threatened the plaintiff that they will see the end of the plaintiff, if he failed to left the lands to them within a week. As the acts of the defendants and their men are illegal highhanded against law without having lawful rights to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties of the plaintiff,
Plaintiff tried to lodge complaint against the defendants and their hench man before
Unguturu Police station but police suggested to take steps before competent court as the dispute is in civil nature. Plaintiff constrained to file this suit.
7.After receipt of summons 1st defendant and 2nd defendant made their appearance through their counsel and contested the Suit by denying all the averments in the plaint in their respective written statements. The contents in both the written statements are one and the same. They contended that plaintiff is no way concerned with the plaint schedule properties and he has no right or possession over the plaint schedule properties. The 1st defendant is brother of Pinnamaneni
Venkateswara Rao who is husband of Nancharamma, died in the year 2016 and there were no children to Nancharamma and Venkateswara Rao. The plaintiff who is a distant relative of the said Nacharamma has approached her under the guise of extending help to her in her old age. The said Nancharamma had no knowledge about the antecedents, character of the plaintiff and believed the sweet coated words of plaintiff. They further contended that plaintiff fraudulently withdrawn the bank
OS No.76/2021 4Dt.23.04.2025
deposits of the Nancharamma. He stolen the gold ornaments, cash and original title deeds of Nancharamma’s properties and also obtained the signatures of
Nancharamma on some blank papers and non judicial stamp papers. Nancharamma came to know about the said fact and lodged a complaint before Unguturu Police in
Cr.No.1601/2018 on 07.02.2018. Then the plaintiff filed a Civil suit in OS No.75/2018 against the Nancharamma basing on some forged and fabricated documents on the file of Hon’ble VIII Addl.District Court, Vijayawada. Nancharamma filed her detailed written statement in the said OS No.75/2018 by disclosing all the facts and illegal acts of the plaintiff and his associates. They further contended that after the death of
Nancharamma plaintiff not taken any steps to implead for legal heirs in the said Suit.
This defendants further contended that they are not believing that the plaintiff filed a memo on 03.03.2021 seeking dismissal of suit for specific performance as stated in his plaint and in their knowledge the suit was not dismissed by the Hon’ble XIII Addl.
District Court, Vijayawada but it was adjourned to 09.12.2021.
8.They further submitted that plaintiff is a habitual litigant who creates sham and nominal agreements/documents and he use to file different suits at different places in order to grab the immovable properties of respective land lords and extracts money under the guise of litigation from them. The defendants further submitted that
Nancharamma lodged another complaint against the plaintiff before Penamaluru
Police station by narrating all the illegal acts of the plaintiff. For that the police assured Nancharamma that they will catch up the plaintiff and initiate appropriate legal action against the plaintiff and they will also assured that they will recover the stolen properties and handed over to Nancharamma. They further contended that
Nancharamma sent another representation on 05.01.2020 to the Police
Commissioner against the plaintiff by narrating about his illegal acts and threat. As such it is clistal clear that the alleged Will dt.09.01.2020 is nothing but a forged and fabricated one.
9.They further submitted that the said Nancharamma was died intestate on 10.01.2020 and her properties devolved upon her legal heirs and the 1st defendant is one of her legal heir. They further contended that after death of Nancharamma the plaint schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant and
OS No.76/2021 5Dt.23.04.2025
his sisters jointly with absolute rights as her legal heirs. The 1st defendant further submitted that in the 1st week of August 2020 he sent a representation to the
Tahsildar Unguturu through his counsel requesting him not to issue Pattdar Pass
Books or mutation of entries in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the properties of deceased Nancharamma. The 2nd defendant further contended that basing on the above said Will dt.09.01.2020, the plaintiff filed another suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and another, claiming another building property situated in
Kanuru, Penumuluru Mandal, Krishna District in OS 831/2021 on the file of V
Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada which is pending. The defendants prayed this court to dismiss the suit by awarding exemplary costs.
10.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by my learned predecessor in Office:-
1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
11.In support of his case the plaintiff K.Purushotham Chowdary was examined as
P.W.1, one of the attestors of Will was examined as P.W.2, the scribe is examined as P.W.3 and got exhibited Exs A1 to A20, Ex.A1 Original Registered Sale Deed
Document No.964/1998, dt.23.03.1995 executed by AVK Ramabrahmam in favour of
P.Nancharamma, Ex.A2 is Original Registered Sale Deed Document No.2653/1987, dt.29.04.1987 executed by P.Seshagiri Rao in favour of P.Nancharamma, Ex.A3.
Original Registered Sale Deed Document No.2428/1987, dt.29.04.1987 executed by
P.Seshagiri Rao in favour of P.Nancharamma, Ex.A4CC of Will document
No.30/2014, dt.05.03.2014 executed by P.Venkateswara Rao in favour of
P.Nancharamma (Wife), Ex.A5 Original Death Certificate of P.Venkateswara Rao, dt.08.03.2016, Ex.A6. CC of Memo of list of documents filed in OS 75/2018 on the file of Hon'ble XIII Addl Dist. Judge, Vijayawada, dt.16.03.2018,Ex.A7. Original Un- registered Will dt.09.01.2020 executed by P.Nancharamma in favour of Plaintiff.
OS No.76/2021 6Dt.23.04.2025
Ex.A8 is Death Certificate of P.Nancharamma dt.10.01.2020, Ex.A9 is Demand
Notice Dt.17.01.2020 issued by Secretary, Gannavaram Grampanchayat to the
Plaintiff for item No.6 of plaint Schedule property, Ex.A10 Original House Tax receipt
Dt.17.01.2020 for the year 2019-2020 for item No.6 of plaint schedule property,
Ex.A11. Original Water Tax Receipt dt.17.01.2020 for the year 2019-2020 for item
No.6 of plaint schedule property, Ex.A12. Original Receipt No.1497 issued dt.17.07.2020 issued by Secretary Gannavaram Grampanchayat to the plaintiff for item No.6 with Assessment No.2673 for Door No.9-76, Ex.A13 Original e-crop details in R.S No.127 in the name Rytu Bharosa dt. 02.12.2021, Ex.A14 Original e- crop details in RS No.130 in the name of Plaintiff issue dt.13.01.2022 by Rytu
Bharosa, Ex.A15. Original e-crop details in Rs.No.129/1 in the name of Plaintiff issued dt.18.12.2021 by Rytu Bharosa, Ex.A16. Original e-crop details in RS
No.128/1 in the name of Plaintiff issued dt.06.01.2022 by Rytu Bharosa, Ex.A17
Original e-crop details in R.S No.129/2 in the name of Plaintiff issued dt.13.01.2022 by Rytu Bharosa, Ex.A18. Certified copy of IA No.42/2022 in OS No.75/2018 on the file of XIII Addl.District Judge at Vijayawada. 14 pages bunch, Ex.A19. Certified copy of Plaint filed by defendants against P.Nancharamma along with others in OS
No.5/2017 on the file of Hon'ble XI Addl.District Judge, Gudiwada, Ex.A20. Certified copy of Written Statement filed by P.Nancharamma in O.S.5/2017 on the file of
Hon'ble XI Addl.District Judge, Gudiwada.
12.On the other hand, the 2nd defendant herself examined as DW1 and got marked Exs B2 to B20. Ex.B1 was marked in cross examination of P.W.2. Ex.B1:
Certified copy of deposition of P.W.2 in OS NO.831/2021, Ex.B.2: Copy of E-
Massage from Unguturu Police station dt.07.02.2018,Ex.B.3 : Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.75/2018 dt.15.03.2018, Ex.B.4 : Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.75/2018 on the file of XIII Addl.District Court, Vijayawada,Ex.B.5:
Certified copy of Public notice dt.30.07.2019 of Eenadu News paper.
dt.29.07.2019,Ex.B.6: Four photographs along with CD pertaining to agricultural land dt. 10.03.2020,Ex.B.7: Four photographs along with CD pertaining to house property,Ex.B.8: Copy of Adangal issued by me-sava, Ex.B.9:Copy of ROR issued by Me-Sava,Ex.B.10: 18 Electricity bills,Ex.B.11 is On-line case status in
OS No.76/2021 7Dt.23.04.2025
OS.No.116/2019, JCJ, Kaikaluru, Ex.B.12: Online case status in OS.No.146/2019,
JCJ, Kaikaluru, Ex.B.13: Online case status in OS.No.187/2019, JCJ, Kaikaluru,
Ex.B.14: Online case status in OS.No.198/2019, JCJ, Kaikaluru, Ex.B.15: Online case status in OS.No.19/2020, JCJ, Kaikaluru, Ex.B.16: Online case status in
OS.No.153/2020, JCJ, Kaikaluru, Ex.B.17: Online case status in CC.No.3219/2019 II
ACM,Vijayawada, Ex.B.18: Online case status in OS.No.831/2021, V
JCJ,Vijayawada, Ex.B.19: Certified Copy of complaint Pinnamaneni Nancharamma to
Police Commissioner, Vijayawada, Ex.B.20: Online Copy of rejection of plaintiff requisition for mutation of Title Deed cum Pattadar Passbook issued by
Revenue Authorities,
13.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
14. It is the case of P.W.1 that the entire plaint schedule properties were bequeathed to him through Ex.A7 an unregistered Will dt.09.01.2020 by
Pinnamaneni Nancharamma.
15.Though in a suit for injunction the title of the plaintiff was not decided by the
Court but in the case on hand P.W.1 claiming the plaint schedule properties under
Ex.A7 unregistered Will as such an incidental question was arised regard to execution of Ex.A7 by deceased Nancharamma, which inclined this court to frame an
additional issue. Hence, the following additional issue was farmed.
16. Issue No.4:
Whether the unregistered Will dt.09.01.2020 was executed by the
deceased Nancharamma in favour of P.W.1 or not?
For better appreciation the above issue No.4 will be discussed at first.
The plaintiff in his chief affidavit as P.W.1 re-iterated the contents of plaint that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to one Pinnamaneni Nancharamma who is close relative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff looked after the welfare of the said
Nacharamma during her life time. The said Nancharamma had purchased Item Nos 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property under Registered Sale Deed vide doc.Nos 964/1995, dt.29.04.1987, doc.No.2653/1987, doc.No.2428/1987, doc.No. 2705/1987 on the file of SRO, Gannavaram. The item No.6 of plaint schedule property was bequathed by
OS No.76/2021 8Dt.23.04.2025
Nancharamma through her husband/P.Venkateswara Rao under Regd.Will dt.05.03.2014. Her husband P. Venkateswara Rao died on 08.03.2016. Since then the said Nancharamma had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The said Nancharamma executed a Will and bequeathed her properties i.e.,. item Nos 1 to 6 of plaint schedule properties in favour of plaintiff on 09.01.2020. There were no children to Nancharamma and
P.Venkateswara Rao. Nancharamma died on 10.01.2020 as such the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties without being interrupted by any one. Due to Covid-19 pandemic situation the mutation process though applied on 28.10.2020 has been delayed even though plaintiff had taken necessary steps before competent authorities. It is further evidence of P.W.1 that during the life time of said Nancharamma she proposed to sell away the item
No.1 to 6 of the plaint schedule properties to plaintiff for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under agreement of Sale deed. Plaintiff paid Rs.17,00,000/- towards advance amount at the time of Sale agreement dt.15.05.2016. He further submitted that
Nancharamma had handedover all the title deeds and pattadar passbooks to the plaintiff. Because of active connivance of her relatives Nancharamma failed to perform her part of contract i.e., the properties were not registered in favour of plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff filed a Suit for Specific Performance against
Nancharamma in OS No.75/2018. He further submitted that all the original documents of Item Nos 1 to 6 were filed by the plaintiff in the said suit, which is pending for trial before Hon’ble XIII Addl.District Judge’s Court at Vijayawada. After death of Nancharamma plaintiff filed a memo on 03.03.2021 before Hon’ble XIII
Addl.District Judge’s Court at Vijayawada by stating that Nancharamma executed a
Will in favor of plaintiff pertaining to the plaint schedule properties as such he prayed the court to dismiss the suit and to return the original documents which are filed by him in the said suit. He further submitted that 1st defendant is younger brother-in-law (younger brother of husband of Nancharamma) of Nancharamma and the 2nd defendant is daughter of 1st defendant. Taking the advantage of relationship with
Nancharamma the defendants who are very much professional in Real Estate
Business they themselves represented that they have right over the plaint schedule
OS No.76/2021 9Dt.23.04.2025
property. Just before filing of this suit plaintiff came to know that defendants already filed a Suit against Nancharamma in OS No.5/2017 on the file of Hon’ble XI
Addl.District Judge’s Court, Gudiwada pertaining to the plaint schedule properties to harass the Nancharamma and said suit is pending. He further submitted that he is ready to file a petition to implead him as a party in the said suit proceedings. On 10.04.2021 at about 9.00am, when the plaintiff is giving his instructions to his agricultural coolies about cultivating affairs of the plaint schedule properties, the defendants came to the schedule lands along with their henchmen and tried to obstruct the cultivating activities. Neighboring agriculturists and coolies intervened and warned the defendants not to come again.
By leaving the plaint schedule properties the defendants threatened the plaintiff that they will see the end of the plaintiff, if he failed to left the lands to them within a week. As the acts of the defendants and their men are illegal highhanded against law without having lawful rights to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties of the plaintiff. He further deposed that by virtue of Will dt.09.01.2020 executed by P.Nancharamma in sound state of mind, he become absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and the said Will has came into force and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.
17.In support of his case P.W.1 examined Gangineni Vara Prasad who is resident
Mandavalli, Eluru District as P.W.2 who is the third party to the suit deposed that he know Pinnamaneni Nancharamma, she executed a Will on 09.01.2020 at
Gannavaram and bequeathed her property in favour of plaintiff. He attested the said
Will, he further stated one P.Madhu also attested along with him. He further deposed that P.W.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 examined one N.Murthy Chakrapani as P.W.3 who deposed that he know
Pinnamaneni Nancharamma and she executed a Will on 09.01.2020 in Gannavaram in favour of plaintiff. He is scribe of said Will. He deposed that Nancharamma instructed him to prepare a Will by bequeathing her properties in Vijayawada and
Gannavaram in favour of P.W.1 and accordingly he prepared it. She satisfyed with
OS No.76/2021 10Dt.23.04.2025
the contents of the Will. He deposed P.W.1 and one P.Madhu are attestors of the said Will.
18.During his cross examination, he admitted that he deposed as P.W.3 in OS
No.831/2021 on the file V Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court , Vijayawada. He further deposed that the contents of his chief affidavit is given by Kolli Puthshotham
Chowdary/P.W.1. Thus, when the contents in his affidavit are not known to P.W.3 his evidence is not helpful to P.W.1.
19.Thus, the remaining evidence on hand for proving Ex.A7 is the evidence of
P.W.2 who is one of the attestors admitted in his cross examination that the distance between Mandavalli and Gannavaram is 50-55 Kms. He further admitted that he came down to Gannavaram from Mandavalli only to act as attestor of Ex.A7/Will. He further admitted that by the time of his visit Ex.A7 was already prepared and
Nancharamma was already signed on it. He further admitted that he do not know the contents of Ex.A7/Will. He admitted that he do not know that there are criminal cases against P.W.1 in Penamaluru and Unguturu Police stations lodged by Pinnamaneni
Nancharamma. He further admitted that Nanchramma is neither his relative nor his friend.
20.Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 is not disclosing that Nancharamma called him to act as an attestor of Ex.A7/Will. He admitted that Nancharamma is neither relative nor friend of him. Moreover, his evidence is disclosing that Nancharamma not asked to him to attest on Ex.A7/Will by informing that she executed Ex.A7/Will in favour of
P.w.1. Then, how the attestation of P.W.2 is satisfying the requirements of valid attestation? As such his evidence also not inspiring confidence to rely on his evidence in order to execution of Ex.A7/Will by Nancharamma in favour of P.W.1.
As such Ex.A7 was not proved as per Sec.63 & 68 of Indian Evidence Act.
21. It is pertinent to note that as per admissions of P.W.1 and as per Ex.B19 report given by Nancharamma on 05.01.2020 to Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada disclosing that plaintiff obtained some signed and empty stamps papers, property documents cash and gold were stolen from her. She also mentioned in the said report that the on 07.02.2018 she reported against plaintiff in Unguturu Police station and Penamaluru PS, but police not taken any action on her report. Hence, she
OS No.76/2021 11Dt.23.04.2025
prayed in Ex.P19 report to take action against plaintiff as he had been harassing and threatening her for not to attend before courts in the civil cases otherwise he will see her end. This Ex.B19 is given just 4 days prior to her death. The date of Ex.A7/Will is 09.01.2020 just one day prior to her death. When she gave a report against plaintiff, 4 days prior to her death then how she can execute a Will one day prior to her death by bequeathing all her properties in favour of plaintiff. Which is creating a big cloud on the case of plaintiff. Thus, from the above, the circumstances discussed above are not supporting the case of plaintiff that Nancharamma executed an unregistered Will one day prior to her death even after Ex.P19 report against him under which circumstances she gave the report against the plaintiff. As such the execuiton of Ex.A7/Will by Nancharamma as stated by the plaintiff is creating a doubt regard to its execution basing on which plaintiff claiming ownership over the plaint schedule properties. Hence, the additional issue was answered against the plaintiff.
22. Moreover, it is the admitted fact by both parties that plaintiff filed a suit for
Specific Performance in OS No.75/2018 against Pinnameni Nancharamma. Wherein the plaint schedule properties were agreed to sell by the Nancharamma to the plaintiff under an agreement of sale for Rs.20,00,000/- and he paid Rs.17,00,000/- towards part of the sale consideration, the remaining Rs.3,00,000/- should be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration to Nancharamma. It is further contention in the said suit that Nanchramma is postponing the registration of the Sale deed on some pretext or other hence plaintiff filed the said suit.
23. It is pertinent to note that Nancharamma contested the said suit in 2018 by filing her written statement. Wherein she mentioned that the alleged agreement of
Sale is a fabricated one and there are over writings, corrections, interpolations and lines are written in clumsy manner and the text was spread over on the signature of the defendant which shows that the agreement was written on blank signed papers in a congested manner. It is further averment in the written statement that the non judicial stamp paper was dated 13.02.2013 and the alleged agreement of sale was executed on 15.05.2016 which infers that the sale agreement brought into existence illegally. Further, she mentioned in her written statement that the plaintiff under the
OS No.76/2021 12Dt.23.04.2025
guise of extending help to the Nancharamma and with his sweet words gained confidence and she could acted by believing the words of plaintiff and plaintiff made the defendant to sign on some blank white papers and stamp papers by stating that those are necessary to digitalize the documents of Nancharamma in Mandal
Revenue office. By that time of age of Nanchramma is 75 years. The plaintiff also obtained the xerox copies of title deeds of Nanchramma for the digitization work.
She further alleged that plaintiff fraudulently withdrawn the deposits and stolen gold ornaments, cash and original title deeds of her properties basing on which he filed the suit against her. She further mentioned that she gave report before Unguturu police on 07.02.2018 bearing complaint number 1601.
24. Thus, from the above one thing is discernible that since 2018 there were no cordial terms between plaintiff and deceased Nancharamma as plaintiff filed Civil suits against Nancharamma and Nancharamma reported against plaintiff regard to his cheating and fraudulent activities. Even from this also no ordinary prudent man can believe that Nancharamma executed an unregistered Will under Ex.A7 in favour of plaintiff one day prior to her death though there are disputes between
Nancharamma and plaintiff which led them to file Civil and Criminal cases against each other. Issue No.4 decided against the Plaintiff.
25. Issue No.1:-
Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the plaint schedule property
as on the date of filing of the suit?
The Grundnorm for of granting equitable relief of injunction is ‘Possession’ of the plaint schedule properties. In order to prove his possession the plaintiff filed
Exs.A1 to A4 and Exs.A9 to A11 which are establishing that the plaint schedule properties are in the name of Nancharamma. As such Ex.A1to A4 and A9 to A11 are not at all helpful to plaintiff in order to prove his possession as those are title deeds, tax and water receipts which are in the name of Nancharamma. Exs.A13,
A15, A16, A17 are issued by RBK (Raithu Barosa Kendram) under E- Crop confirmation certificates. Here, the learned cousnel for plaintiff vehemently argued that Ex.A13, A15 to A17 are establishing the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties (agricultural lands) as RBK issued those certificates in the name
OS No.76/2021 13Dt.23.04.2025
of plaintiff which establishing that plaintiff is under the possession of plaint schedule properties. The learned counsel for defendant contended that those are not pertaining to the date of filing of this suit those are certificates issued after filing of this suit. On perusal of Ex.A13,A15 to A17 though they are in the name of plaintiff as
Rithu but all are belongs to subsequent to the date of suit i.e. after filing of this suit pertaining to 2021 and 2022 only. As such the documents on which the plaintiff relied in order to prove his possession are not establishing that the plaintiff is in the possession of plaint schedule properties by the date of filing of this suit.
26. The learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently contended that the even the defendant not filed any documents to show their possession over the plaint schedule properties. As per Indian Evidence Act Sec.101 & Sec.102 plaintiff must prove his case basing on evidence and documents adduced by him, as plaintiff claiming relief from this court. For proving of his case he should not stood on the weakness of the defendant. Thus, from the above plaintiff is failed to establish that the he is in possession of plaint schedule properties by the date of filing of this suit.
27.As seen from the evidence of DW.1 and Exs.B2, B4, B11, B20 deceased
Nancharamma reported against plaintiff and vehemently contested the suit in OS
No.75/2018 filed by the plaintiff by denying his claim over plaint schedule properties.
When come to the Exs.P13 to 17 which are pertaining to the years 2021-22. The present suit is filed in the month of April 2021 whereas Ex.P13 to P17 are from
December 2021-2022. Thus, from the above discussion the defendants are vehemently denying the title of plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties. When there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff must file a declaration and injunction suit in order to secure her claim as held in the authority relied by the counsel for defendants in Anathual Sudhakar Vs
P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs and Ors on 25 th March 2008 and another the
Hon’ble High Court of A.P.,, Arushutunnisa and others Vs Mohammed Kasim
(died) and others in 2023(6) ALD 122 (AP). In para No.10 of the Judgment it was held that:
“10. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration in this appeal:
OS No.76/2021 14Dt.23.04.2025
(i) What is the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property?”
The above question was answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 11.3 and Para 12 of the Judgment as under:
“11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for
OS No.76/2021 15Dt.23.04.2025
declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title”.
It was further held that “But where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs”.
In para No.17 by summarizing various situations Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that:
“17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under” :
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue.
The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
OS No.76/2021 16Dt.23.04.2025
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar v.
Alagammal # 2005 (6) SCC202.(supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.”
28. From the above reading it is clear that prayer for declaration is necessary when the defendant denies the title of the plaintiff and raises a cloud on the title of the plaintiff. There is cloud on the claim of the plaintiff with regard to his title.
Therefore, it is the remedy available to the plaintiff that the cloud should be removed by taking action for declaration. Apart from that the evidence produced by plaintiffs is not sufficient to prove his possession over suit schedule property.
OS No.76/2021 17Dt.23.04.2025
29. As the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the plaint schedule property no question will arise with regard to legal possession of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule properties. Thus, Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
This is a suit for permanent injunction, initially the plaintiff has to establish his possession in the plaint schedule property and then only the interference of the defendants will come into a question. But in the present case on hand the plaintiff failed to establish his legal possession in respect of the plaint schedule properties.
30. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, P.W.2 is one of the attestors of
Ex.A7/Will. Thus, P.W.1 not adduced any evidence in support of his case to prove the cause of action which constrained the plaintiff to file this case. As per P.W.1 the incident was happened on 10.04.2021 at 9.00 am. As per P.W.1 when he is giving instructions to his coolies defendants came to schedule property and tried to obstruct the cultivating activities of P.W.1. The neighboring riots and coolies intervened and warned the defendants not to come again. While leaving the schedule lands defendants threatened P.W.1 that they will see his end, if he was not left the schedule properties.
31.Though P.W.1 deposed that defendants are warned by neighboring ryths but he had not examined any one of those persons in order to prove the very cause of action which led him to file this suit. Except the oral saying of P.W.1 there was no either documentary or oral evidence to prove the cause of action in this case. Hence, the question of interference by the defendants does not arise. Issue No.1 decided against the plaintiff.
32. ISSUE No.2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as
prayed for?
This is a suit for injunction under Sec.38 of Specific Relief Act, plaintiff must establish his possession over the plaint schedule properties, that possession must be legal possession, defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff have to be established by the plaintiff in order to get an injunction against the defendants to protect the possession of the plaintiff. But in the present case on hand
OS No.76/2021 18Dt.23.04.2025
as the plaintiff failed to establish his possession as such there is no interference of the defendants.
33.In the present case on hand the plaintiff claiming title and possession over the plaint schedule properties on the basis of unregistered Will alleged to be executed by deceased Nancharamma one day prior to her death though there were no cordial terms between plaintiff and deceased Nancharamma since 2018 and defendants are denying the unregistered Will as forged and fabricated by the plaintiff. In these circumstances this court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.
34.ISSUE No.3: To what relief?
In view of the above discussion and findings of the issues Nos.1,2 and issue
No.4, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of permanent injunction against the defendants.
35.In the result, the suit is Dismissed with no costs.
Directly typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.
Sd/-B.Sirisha,
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)
GANNAVARAM.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:
P.W.1:K.Purushothaam ChowdaryDW.1: G.Radhika Rani P.W.2:G.Vara Prasad P.W.3:N.Muruthi Chakrapani
Documents Marked For Plaintiff: Ex.A1.OriginalRegisteredSaleDeedDocumentNo.964/1998, dt.23.03.1995executedbyAVKRamabrahmaminfavourof P.Nancharamma. Ex.A2. Original Registered Sale Deed Document No.2653/1987, dt.29.04.1987 executed by P.Seshagiri Rao in favour of P.Nancharamma. Ex.A3. Original Registered Sale Deed Document No.2428/1987, dt.29.04.1987 executed by P.Seshagiri Rao in favour of P.Nancharamma.
OS No.76/2021 19Dt.23.04.2025
Ex.A4.CC of Will document No.30/2014, dt.05.03.2014 executed by P.Venkateswara Rao in favour of P.Nancharamma (Wife). Ex.A5. Original Death Certificate of P.Venkateswara Rao, dt.08.03.2016 Ex.A6. CC of Memo of list of documents filed in OS 75/2018 on the file of Hon'ble XIII Addl Dist. Judge, Vijayawada, dt.16.03.2018. Ex.A7.OriginalUn-registeredWilldt.09.01.2020executedby P.Nancharamma in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A8. Death Certificate of P.Nancharamma dt.10.01.2020 Ex.A9. Demand Notice Dt.17.01.2020 issued by Secretary, Gannavaram Grampanchayat to the Plaintiff for item No.6 of plaint Schedule property. Ex.A10. Original House Tax receipt Dt.17.01.2020 for the year 2019-2020 for item No.6 of plaint schedule property. Ex.A11. Original Water Tax Receipt dt.17.01.2020 for the year 2019-2020 for item No.6 of plaint schedule property. Ex.A12. Original Receipt No.1497 issued dt.17.07.2020 issued by Secretary Gannavaram Grampanchayat to the plaintiff for item No.6 with Assessment No.2673 for Door No.9-76. Ex.A13. Original e-crop details in R.S No.127 in the name Rytu Bharosa dt. 02.12.2021. Ex.A14. Original e-crop details in RS No.130 in the name of Plaintiff issue dt.13.01.2022 by Rytu Bharosa. Ex.A15. Original e-crop details in Rs.No.129/1 in the name of Plaintiff issued dt.18.12.2021 by Rytu Bharosa. Ex.A16. Original e-crop details in RS No.128/1 in the name of Plaintiff issued dt.06.01.2022 by Rytu Bharosa. Ex.A17. Original e-crop details in R.S No.129/2 in the name of Plaintiff issued dt.13.01.2022 by Rytu Bharosa. Ex.A18. Certified copy of IA No.42/2022 in OS No.75/2018 on the file of XIII Addl.District Judge at Vijayawada. 14 pages bunch. Ex.A19. Certified copy of Plaint filed by defendants against P.Nancharamma along with others in OS No.5/2017 on the file of Hon'ble XI Addl.District Judge, Gudiwada. Ex.A20. Certified copy of Written Statement filed by P.Nancharamma in O.S.5/2017 on the file of Hon'ble XI Addl.District Judge, Gudiwada. For Defendant: Ex.B1: Certified copy of deposition of witness in OS 831/2021
Ex.B.2: Copy of E-Massage from Unguturu Police station, dt.07.02.2018
Ex.B.3 : Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.75/2018 dt.15.03.2018.
Ex.B.4 : Certified Copy of Written Statement in OS.No.75/2018 on the file of XIII
Addl.District Court, Vijayawada.
Ex.B.5: Certified copy of Public notice dt.30.07.2019 of Eenadu News paper.
dt.29.07.2019.
OS No.76/2021 20Dt.23.04.2025
Ex.B.6: Four photographs along with CD pertaining to agricultural land dt.
10.03.2020.
Ex.B.7: Four photographs along with CD pertaining to house property.
Ex.B.8: Copy of Adangal issued by me-sava.
Ex.B.9:Copy of ROR issued by Me-Sava.
Ex.B.10: 18 Electricity bills.
Ex.B.11: Online case status in OS.No.116/2019, JCJ, Kaikaluru.
Ex.B.12: Online case status in OS.No.146/2019, JCJ, Kaikaluru.
Ex.B.13: Online case status in OS.No.187/2019, JCJ, Kaikaluru.
Ex.B.14: Online case status in OS.No.198/2019, JCJ, Kaikaluru.
Ex.B.15: Online case status in OS.No.19/2020, JCJ, Kaikaluru.
Ex.B.16: Online case status in OS.No.153/2020, JCJ, Kaikaluru.
Ex.B.17:Online case status in CC.No.3219/2019 II ACM,Vijayawada.
Ex.B.18: Online case status in OS.No.831/2021, V JCJ,Vijayawada.
Ex.B.19: Certified Copy of complaint Pinnamaneni Nancharamma to Police
Commissioner, Vijayawada.
Ex.B.20: Online Copy of rejection of plaintiff requisition for mutation of Title Deed cum Pattadar Passbook issued by Revenue Authorities.
Sd/-B.Sirisha,
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
GANNAVARAM.
OS No.76/2021 21Dt.23.04.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): AT
GANNAVARAM
Present: Kum. B.Sirisha,
Addl.Civil Judge(Junior Division), Gannavaram.
Wednesday this the 23rd day of April, 2025
O.S. No.76 of 2021
Between: Kolli Purushottama Chowday S/o late Venkateswara Rao, age 66 yrs, R/o Dr.No.3-3, Peyyeru, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District…Plaintiff AND 1.Pinamaneni Vara Prasada Rao S/o late Sitaramaiah, age 75 yrs R/o Ponukumadu village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District.
2.Garimella Radha Rani W/o G.Sekhar, age 55 yrs, R/o Ponukumadu village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District. …Defendants
The above named plaintiff filed the present suit against the sole defendants1 and 2 for permanent injunction restraining them, their men, agents, servants, successors etc., from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and costs of the suit. Plaint presented on 19.04.2021 Plaint numbered on 29.04.2021 Cause of Action:- the present suit arose on when P.Nancharamma purchasesd item Nos1 to 5 under registered sale deed dt.23.03.1995 vide doc.No.964/1995, dt.29.04.1987 when Item No.6 was bequeathed by her husband under regd.Will dt.05.03.2014, when Nancharamma executed a Will bequeathing plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff on 09.01.2020 and when plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without being interrupted by any one and when item Nos 1 to 5 on 28.10.2020 mutation was done in favour of plaintiff and item No.6 was done on 17.07.2020 when due to active connivance of her relatives said Nancharamma was not ready to perform her part of contract. Then, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for specific performance against said Nancharamma before XIII Addl.District Judge, Vijayawada and the plaintiff reliably came to know that the defendants had already filed a suit against said Nancharamma ie., for possession in OS 5/2017 on the file of XI Addl.District Judge, Gudiwada pertaining to plaint schedule properties and when the plaintiff is giving instructions to his agricultural coolies about cultivating affairs of plaint schedule property the defendants came to schedule lands along with their henchmen man and tried to obstruct the cultivating activities and when neighboring agriculturalists and coolies intervend and warned the defendants not to come again and when the defendants harled threats against plaintiff and threatened that they will see the end of the plaintiff if lands are not left to them within one week and when the virtue of
OS No.76/2021 22Dt.23.04.2025
Will dt.09.01.2020 executed by P.Nancharamma in favor of plaintiff on sound disposing state of mind and when the plaintiff has been constrained to file this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and plaint schedule lands are situated in Punukumadu village which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
Valuation and Court Fee:- Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction under Section 50(1) of APCF & S.V.ACT is Rs.3,00,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.5426/- is paid under Section 26 (c) of APCF & SV Act.
This suit is come before me on 02.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Mohan Ram Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.M.Parameswara Rao, Advocate for D1, Sri.V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for D2, after perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this Court doth order and decree:- (1) that the suit be and the same is hereby DISMISSED; Without costs
2) that the plaintiff do pay a sum of Rs.-Nil- to the defendants towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs of Rs.5428/-.(No memo of costs filed by both the parties) (Schedule copy attached) Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 23rd day April, 2025.
Sd/-B.Sirisha,
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),
GANNAVARAM.
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF
FOR DEFENDANTs
1.Vakalat2-00 2Plaint Fees Stamp duty5426-00 3Petition Stamp--
4.Process--- 5Publication charges--C.M. & F.C. not filed.
6.Advocate Fees (as claimed)-- 7Junior Advocate fee--
8.Type Charges--
9.Writing Charges-- Total = Rs.5428-00
ACJ,GVRM.
Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.