Sri Brungi Srinivasulu

1 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL

COURTS AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY THE 27 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

PRESENT: SRI B.SRINIVASULU,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

Between:

C.Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Manik Reddy, Aged about 51 Years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No. 16­2­751/C/13/B/3 F­1, Om Sri Niliyam Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad – T.S

...Plaintiff

AND

Bandari Manoj Kumar, S/o. Late B. Ramesh Kumar, Aged about: 32 years, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No. 13­2­282, Jali Hanuman, Raheempura, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

...Defendant

This suit coming before me for final disposal in the presence of

Sri A.G. Deshmukh, Learned Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri E.

Poornachander Rao, Learned Counsel for Defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1.The suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction by the sole plaintiff.

2.The brief avernments of the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner and in physical possession of the property bearing M.No.19-1-699 admeasuring 190.00 Square yards, situated at Maharaj Gunj, Doodh

Bowli, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1294 / 2014 dated 5th June 2014 from Smt., A

Santoshamma and others for consideration.

2 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

Herein called Suit Schedule property. On the date of Sale Deed vendors delivered vacant physical possession and since date of purchase plaintiff is in physical possession over the Suit Schedule property.

3. Originally A. satyanarayan Reddy was in physical possession and enjoyment of the property bearing H.No.19-1-698 and 699 admeasuring in all 388 Sq.Yards situated at Maharajgunj, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad, much prior to 1972 and since 1972 he was doing business of Tobacco after obtaining the required Excise license from the concerned department and also occupying the said premises for residential purpose and was paying Electricity bill, Water cess, Property Tax and also telephone Bill to the concerned department till his death.

4.Defendant who is nothing to do with Suit Schedule property and also not acquainted with the plaintiff nor with plaintiff’s vendors and coming to Suit Schedule property at odd hours and creating nuisance and harassing the family members of plaintiff, Plaintiff went to PS

Kamatipura to lodge complaint against the defendant and his supporters, and police refused to entertain the complaint as defendant purchased open land adjacent to Suit Schedule property and the police is under pressure of defendant. Plaintiff lodged caveats before Honorable Chief

Judge,Senior Civil Judge, and Junior Civil Judge courts and registered

post returned no such person in the given address.

5. Defendant filed private compliant before the Hon’ble Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of premises bearing no. 19-1-698 and 699 admeasuring 388 square yards and same was referred PS Kamatipura for enquiry and ACP Charminar was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the matter, then only plaintiff came to know about the defendant. Plaintiff and his vendors appeared before ACP

Charminar for enquiry.

3 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

6.Police registered the case vide Crime No.44/2015 on the compliant of defendant. From the contents of the compliant plaintiff came to know that defendant along with vendors approached the plaintiff and his family members and introduced that defendant has purchased premises No. 19-1- 698 and 699 from Smt. K. Amaravathi and others under agreement of sale cum GPA and also registered sale deed and he requested the plaintiff and his family members to vacate the premises and handover the physical possession. But no point of time defendant and his vendors approached plaintiff and his family members nor requested for vacating the premises and no promise made by the plaintiff to give some time so that they will locate another house for shifting.

7.Taking advantage of FIR by the plaintiff and with police help regularly coming to Suit Schedule property and pressurizing the plaintiff and his family members to vacate the premises and handover.

Accordingly on 18-12-2015 and 20-12-2015 and tried to dispossess the plaintiff and his family members from Suit Schedule property, Hence the suit for Perpetual Injunction.

8.Written statement filed by the defendant by denying the contents of the plaint. Mainly pleads that suit is peculate and lacks from several infirmities and bonafides. Plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. Suit is filed by the plaintiff on the invented cause of action basing on the created, bogus, and nominal documents. Plaintiff is not entitle for the equatable relief of injunction.

9. Originally Sri kokkonda Buchaiah and Smt. Ankepalli laxmamma were the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal No. 19-1-698 to 702 at Old maharajgunj, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad having an area of 453

Sq. Yrds. Having purchased the same from its original owners by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.542 of 1959, Book-I vol-II,

Page 335, dated 30-07-1959 with SRO Doodhbowli, Hyderabad. After 4 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 death of Sri kokkonda Buchaiah and Smt. Ankepalli laxmamma their respective legal heirs namely (1) Mr.K.Nikleshwar, (2) K.Amaravathi, (3)

K.Lavanya, (4) E.Madhavi, (5) B.Jwala Deepa, (6) A.Swathi, (7)

Chandrashekar and (1) Mrs. Anantha Laxmi, (2) A.Ranga Reddy, (3)

A.Praveen Reddy, (4) Y.Madhavi, (5) Soma Shobha (6) Chama Usha, (7)

Krishna Reddy have succeeded to several properties left over their elder including the above said property.

On 01-03-2014 defendant entered into agreement of sale and there after they executed registered sale deed as under :

(i) Registered sale deed bearing document No. 1619/2014, Dated 17-07- 2014 registered at Joint Sub Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad.

(ii) Registered Irrevocable Agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document

No. 2960/2015, dated 02-12-2015 registered at Joint Sub Registrar,

Doodhbowli, Hyderabad.

(iii) Registered Irrevocable Agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No. 1420/2014, dated 16-06-2014 registered at Joint Sub

Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad and

(iv) Ratification deed bearing document No. 2256/2015, dated 14-09- 2015 registered at Joint Sub Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad.

10.At the time of entering into agreement vendors of defendant have informed that one late Satyanarayan Reddy was working with their forefathers to do watch and ward duties in the above said property to take care and safe guard the property from illegal encroachers and they permitted him to stay in part of the property sold to defendant. Infact, forefathers/elders of the defendant’s vendors were into tobacco business and in that process, they have only obtained a license in the name of late

A.Satyanarayana Reddy who is doing watch and ward duties and Late

A.Satyanarayana Reddy never did any tobacco business. After death

A.Satyanarayana Reddy his family members i.e., wife and his son’s are residing in part of the property sold to defendant in the same capacity. On the same day defendant’s vendors have introduced him with the family 5 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 members of late A.Satyanarayana Reddy and also informed that the property is being sold to defendant, as such they have to vacate the said premises upon which family members of late. A.Satyanarayana Reddy requested to give some time so that they will locate another house for shifting. Considering their words the defendant and vendors have granted some time. That the rest of the property covered under the two alleged documents was delivered immediately to the defendant by the defendant’s vendors.

Thereafter the defendant and the vendors’ of the defendants are repeatedly reminding the family members of late. A.Satyanarayana Reddy to vacate the premises.

While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff has sent caveats and thereafter, the defendant obtained copies of sale deeds referred by the plaintiff. Plaintiff and family members of late A.Satyanarayana Reddy in collusion with each other transfered the part of property purchased by this defendants into their names without any right of title or interest over the said properties by creating Sham, Bogus sale deeds. As such the two sale deeds are sham, bogus, created, false documents and vendors and vendee are non other then son-in-laws, Wife, Sons, and daughters of late

A.Satyanarayana Reddy. The defendant have filed a private compliant

before the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad

which was referred PS Kamatipura for investigation and same was registered Crime No.44 of 2015. plaintiffs approached Hon’ble High

Court by filing CRP and same was dismissed on 19-11-2015. Plaintiffs are legal heir of late A.Satyanarayana Defendant is absolute owner in respect of suit property and vendors of the Defendant also delivered part of the above said property to the Defendant and defendant is enjoying as 6 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 absolute owner. Cause of action invented one. Sale deeds is bogus and created one. Since to create a cloud on the title of the property sale deeds are brought into existence and plaintiffs having knowledge that the legal heirs of Buchaiah and Laxmamma executed sale deeds in favour of

Defendant. Plaintiff at any point of time is in physical possession of the property. Late A.Satyanarayana possession was permissive possession and accordingly his legal heirs are in permissive possession by the

Defendant vendors.

The possession claimed by the Plaintiff basing on sale deed executed by his mother-in-law, brother-in-law, his wife and sister-in-law and therefore, plaintiff has to prove genuinity of the sale deed and no consideration under the said registered sale deed. Plaintiff has to prove his possession under the sale deed and no document filed by the plaintiff to show that he is in possession over the property. All the documents are created and fabricated one. No link document filed. Plaintiff cannot claim right and title and cannot claim possession over the said property by virtue of sale deed. There is no pleading that late Satyanarayana Reddy and his LR’s are owners of the property and they have right to alienate.

Suit is filed on fictious cause of action. Plaintiff is not having Prima facie, Balance of convenience and irreparable loss plaintiff not approached the court with clean hands. There is no equality in favour of plaintiff. Granting of injunction is equitable relief. Plaintiff is guilty of suppression of facts and inequitable conduct cannot claim for injunction.

If injunction is granted severe prejudice granted to defendant which 7 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 cannot be compensated in terms of money.

Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed.

Issue 1 whether the plaintiff is in position over the suit schedule property

Issue 2 whether plaintiff is entitle to obtain permanent injunction as prayed for to what relief ?

On behalf of the plaintiff himself as examined as PW1 and in his chief in examination reiterated the contents of the plaint. The following documents are marked in the evidence of PW1. Ex.A1 :Certified Copy of

Sale deed dated 05-06-2014. Ex.A2 :EC from 01-10-1987 to 27-07-2016.

Ex.A3 :Electricity Bill dated 03-01-1997.Ex.A4 :Electricity Bill dated 03- 03-1997. Ex.A5 :Electricity Bill dated 01-07-1997. Ex.A6 :Electricity

Bill dated 04-01-2002. Ex.A7 :Electricity Bill dated 04-02-2002.Ex.A8 :

Electricity Bill dated 06-03-2003. Ex.A9 :Electricity Bill dated 11-06- 2012. Ex.A10 : Electricity Bill dated 09-08-2012. Ex.A11 : Electricity

Bill dated 13-01-2014. Ex.A12 : Electricity Bill dated 12-02-2014.

Ex.A13 : Electricity Bill dated 13-03-2014. Ex.A14 : Electricity Bill dated 13-04-2014. Ex.A15 :Electricity Bill dated 09-01-2015. Ex.A16 :

Electricity Bill dated 16-05-2015.Ex.A17 :Electricity Bill dated 13-08- 2015. Ex.A18 :Electricity Bill dated 09-09-2015. Ex.A19 : Electricity

Bill dated 08-10-2015. Ex.A20 : Electricity Bill dated 06-11-2015.

Ex.A21:Electricity Bill dated 08-12-2015. Ex.A22 : Demand Notice of

Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 27-10-1992. Ex.A23 :

Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 28- 01-2013. Ex.A24 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage 8 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 issued by GHMC on 17-05-2013. Ex.A25 : Demand Notice of Water

Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 21-09-2013. Ex.A26 :

Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 16- 09-1999. Ex.A27 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 03-11-1999. Ex.A28 : Demand Notice of Water

Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 19-02-2003. Ex.A29 :

Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 13- 04-2003. Ex.A30 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 17-06-2003. Ex.A31 : Demand Notice of Water

Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 07-06-2011. Ex.A32 :

Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 01- 05-2005. Ex.A33 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 01-06-2012. Ex.A33 : Demand Notice of Water

Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 07-12-2014. Ex.A34 :

Receipt dated 14-05-2015. Ex.A35 : Receipt dated 10-06-2015.Ex.A36 :

Receipt dated. Ex.A37 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 04-10-2015. Ex.A38 : Tax Receipts dated 16-08- 1999. Ex.A39 : Tax Receipts dated 07-05-2001. Ex.A40 : Tax Receipts

dated 31-03-2005. Ex.A41 : Tax Receipts dated 11-06-2014.Ex.A42 :

Market Value Certificate.

Pw2 is supporting witness and son of Satyanarayana Reddy and he deposed mainly that late Satyanarayana Reddy is in possession of

Municipal premises No 19-1-698 and 699 admeasuring 398 square yards., and occupying the property as a owner by adverse possession more than 9 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 70 years and was doing tobacco business in the premises occupied by him to till his death after obtaining license from exercise department.

Satyanarayana Reddy died in the year 2010 and after his death he along with mother and sister occupying the premises without any interference and paid water, electricity and municipal taxes in respect of said two houses. Late Satyanarayana Reddy enjoying the position in respect of said two houses as a owner. He along with mother Smt., A.Santoshamma and sister executed sale deed 1294/2014 dated 05-06-2014 in respect of house property H.No. 19-1-699 admeasuring 190.00 square yards in favour of PW1 by receiving valuable sale consideration and delivered physical possession and also delivered Water, Electricity, Municipal tax receipt to PW1 on 05-06-2014 and since then PW1 is in physical possession and PW1 is paying Electricity consumption charges since June 2014 to till date.

Defendant never contacted PW2 or his family members and defendant is third party. Defendant has filed false compliant and police kamatipura registered crime no. 44 of 2015 and ACP charminar appointed as a enquiry officer which is pending. At any point of time PW2 and his mother promised to the defendant to vacate the suit property. PW1 filed the suit for perceptual injunction against the defendant as defendant and his men try to dispossess PW1. Defendant brought in existence of the documents alleged title subsequent to register of sale deed in favour of

PW1. PW3 is supporting witness by name A.Ramulu advocate he mainly deposed late Satyanarayana Reddy residing in the House No. 19-1-698 10 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 since more than 50 years as absolute owner now plaintiff is residing after purchase. PW1 informed that defendant try to dispossess. PW4 A.E

Ramesh Babu he also deposed like PW3 in his evidence.

On behalf of the defendants, defendant himself examined as DW1 and in his chief in examination reiterated the contents of the written statement. The following documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

Ex. B1:Original registered Sale deed 27­07­1959 along with sketch.Ex.

B2: Certified Copy of Sale deed dated 17­07­2014. Ex.B3:Certified

Copy of irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA dated 02­12­2015.

Ex. B4 : Certified Copy of irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA dated 16­06­2014. Ex. B5 : Certified Copy of rectification deed dated 14­08­ 15 to the rectification of Doc. No.1420/2014.

Dw2 is advocate by profession he is the grand son Kokkonda

Buchaiah as konkkonda Buchaiah is father of Smt Ananthamma. The said

Ananthamma mother of Dw2. He deposed mainly execution of sale deeds in favour of Dw1 under exhibit B2 to B5 and also deposed under exhibit

B1 purchased suit property by Konkkonda Buchaiah and A laxmamma.

The legal heirs of Buchaiah and laxmamma sold suit property in favour of

Dw1. And further deposed family members of Satyanarayana Reddy in collusion with each other executed sale deeds in favour of plaintiff for

House bearing No. 19-1-698 and 699. Under sale deed delivered symbolic possession of H.No 698 and 699 and physical and vacant possession of H.No 700 to 702 delivered to defendant. Further deposed register of crime 40 of 2016 against LR’s Satyanarayana Reddy.

11 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

Issue 1 :

Heard both. The learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that plaintiff is in possession over the suit property, and the same is also admitted by the defendant. Plaintiff being purchaser of suit property is in possession, having the title that is under exhibit A1 sale deed.

plaintiff is in possession. The long standing possession of late

Satyanarayana Reddy is also admitted one. The vendors of PW1 is in possession over suit property. Physical possession delivered to the PW1 as on the date of sale deed. After obtaining the sale deed under Exhibit

A1, Pw1 paying municipal tax and water bill. Plaintiff is his possession over the suit schedule property. Under exhibit A41 plaintiff paid municipal tax. Plaintiff also having position of municipal tax receipts and bunch of water bills and also electricity bills which shows his possession and also his vendors possession.

Per contra the learned counsel for defendant has vehemently argued late Satyanarayana Reddy possession is only as a watch man and his LR’s position also same. Their possession cannot be treated as actual possession. Plaintiff is claiming possession under Exhibit A1 title deed which is sham and defective one. As such plaintiff possession cannot be considered further in the cross examination of PW1 his evidence impeached.

After hearing both at length onus is on plaintiff to prove the possession over the suit schedule property. On perusing A1 to A41 documents late Satyanarayana Reddy was in possession. And A3 to A41 12 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 are not in the name of plaintiff and no document filed by the plaintiff to show that he is in possession of property from Exhibit A1 to till today. At present PW1 is residing H.No.16-2-751/C/13/B/3 F-1. It is true that as on date of filing of the present suit I am residing the House No.16-2- 751/C/13/B/3 F-1. Dw1 admitted Satyanarayana Reddy possession over the suit schedule property at the time of agreement property was occupied by Santhoshamma and Sridhar Reddy. Dw1 admitted under Exhibit. B2 to B4 physical possession of 700 to 702 delivered. Written statement filed by the defendant admitted that the physical possession of the

Satyanarayana Reddy over suit property and after his death his legal heirs. But now plaintiff is claiming possession over the suit property as on date of filing of suit. Burden is on the plaintiff to prove the possession over the suit property. Plaintiff pleads his possession over suit property under exhibit A1 sale deed on perusing cross examination of PW1 he categorical admitted that no documents to show his possession over the suit property from the date of Ex. A1 to till so for. Exhibit. A3 to A41 not in the name of PW1 and Exhibit A41 shows tax receipt Satyanarayana

Reddy paid on behalf of Madan Lal. Further in the cross examination

PW1 admitted as on date of filing of present suit is residing in house bearing House No.16-2-751/C/13/B/3 F-1 and also presently residing in the same house. Plaintiff is claiming possession under exhibit. A1 sale deed and no whisper in the pleadings about the relationship of vendors and no documents to connect Ex A1. Plaintiff has to discharge his onus he cannot depend on the weakness of the defendant. Further the Hon’ble 13 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

Apex court and land mark judgment of AIR 2012 Supreme court 1727 between Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors V. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs has categorically held a care taker acquires no title irrespective of his long standing possession.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized in para no 70 of its judgment.

The following paragraph 70

(a) Who is or are the owner or owners of the property ;

(b) Title of the property ;

(c) Who is in possession of the title documents

(d) Identity of the claimant or claimants to possession ;

(e) The date of entry into possession ;

(f) How he came into possession – whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method ;

(g) In case he purchased the property, what is the consideration ; if he has taken it on rent,how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount ;

(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease – then insist on rent deed, license deed or lease deed; (I) Who are th persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity ; as family members, friends or servants etc.,;

(j) Subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and

(k) Basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.

when plaintiff vendors are family members of Satyanarayana

Reddy and PW1 is son-in-law of Satyanarayana Reddy and long standing possession of Satyanarayana Reddy as only permissive possession as a care taker as such claiming of PW1 possession under exhibit A1 is by

PW1 is against the law. More over PW1 failed to prove his possession over suit property as on date of filing of suit and same is elicited in his cross examination. Accordingly the issue is answered against the 14 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015 plaintiff.

Issue No.2 :

Heard both. Perused the record Admittedly granting of injunction is an equitable relief. Plaintiff has to approach the Court with clean hands. Plaintiff not disclosed his relationship with vendors in the plaint which is nothing but suppression of material facts. Section 38 of the specific relief 1963 deals with grating of perpetual injunction. To grant perceptual injunction there must be invation or threat to dispossess. To grant Perpetual Injunction and Mandatory Injunction the Specific

Relief Act, 1963 will deals, as per Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, “Perpetual Injunction to be granted when there is breach of an obligation existing in favour of the Plaintiff whether expressly or by implication or when the Defendant invades or threatens to invade the

Plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the Court may grant a

Perpetual Injunction in the following cases, namely:­­ (a) Where the defendant is trustee of the property for the Plaintiff. (b) Where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion. (c) Where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief. (d) Where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings”.

The evidence of PW1 impeached in cross examination. Under

Exhibit B1 Kokkonda Buchaiah and Laxmamma are absolute owner of

Munciopal bearing no 19-1-698 to 702 proeprty. The legal heirs of said

Buchaih and laxmamaa executed sale deed in favour of Dw1, Under Ex 15 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

B2 to B5 sale deed and GPA documents. Injunction against true owner cannot be maintainable. It is true that injunction simplifier is maintable even against true owner. But in this case PW1 is claiming title and possession under Ex.A1. As there is no title document in favour of

Satyanarayana Reddy as such his L.Rs that is vendors of PW1 also not having any title to execute Ex.A1. If L.Rs of Satyanarayana Reddy filed suit for injunction without prayer of title it can be maintainable but PW1 claiming title and possession under ex.A1 and same is questioned by the defendant basing on the B1 to B5 documents. As such there is a cloud on the title of the PW1 and without prayer for declaration of title under

Ex.A1 against the defendant and his vendors simple suit for injunction is not maintainable the same is held by the Honble Apex court in AIR 2008

Supreme Court 2033 between Anathula Sudhakar v P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs and Ors. In this case suit for perpetual injunction without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable on the facts of this pecular case in the result plaintiff is not entitle for perpetual injunction. Accordingly the issue in answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.3 :

To what relief,

In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of August

2018. 

Sd/­

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURTS:HYDERABAD.

16 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: C. Srinivas ReddyDW1: Bandari Manoj Kumar PW2: A. Sridhar ReddyDW2: C.Srinivas Reddy PW3: S. Sri Ramulu PW4: K.E. Ramesh Babu 

DOCUMENT MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1 : Certified Copy of Sale deed dated 05-06-2014 Ex.A2 : EC from 01-10-1987 to 27-07-2016 Ex.A3 : Electricity Bill dated 03-01-1997 Ex.A4 : Electricity Bill dated 03-03-1997 Ex.A5 : Electricity Bill dated 01-07-1997 Ex.A6 : Electricity Bill dated 04-01-2002 Ex.A7 : Electricity Bill dated 04-02-2002 Ex.A8 : Electricity Bill dated 06-03-2003 Ex.A9 : Electricity Bill dated 11-06-2012 Ex.A10 : Electricity Bill dated 09-08-2012 Ex.A11 : Electricity Bill dated 13-01-2014 Ex.A12 : Electricity Bill dated 12-02-2014 Ex.A13 : Electricity Bill dated 13-03-2014 Ex.A14 : Electricity Bill dated 13-04-2014 Ex.A15 : Electricity Bill dated 09-01-2015 Ex.A16 : Electricity Bill dated 16-05-2015 Ex.A17 : Electricity Bill dated 13-08-2015 Ex.A18 : Electricity Bill dated 09-09-2015 Ex.A19 : Electricity Bill dated 08-10-2015 Ex.A20 : Electricity Bill dated 06-11-2015 Ex.A21 : Electricity Bill dated 08-12-2015 Ex.A22 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 27-10-1992. Ex.A23 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 28-01-2013. Ex.A24 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 17-05-2013. Ex.A25 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 21-09-2013. Ex.A26 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 16-09-1999. Ex.A27 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 03-11-1999. Ex.A28 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by 17 O.S.No.3187 OF 2015

GHMC on 19-02-2003. Ex.A29 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 13-04-2003. Ex.A30 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 17-06-2003 Ex.A31 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 07-06-2011. Ex.A32 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 01-05-2005. Ex.A33 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 01-06-2012. Ex.A33 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 07-12-2014. Ex.A34 : Receipt dated 14-05-2015. Ex.A35 : Receipt dated 10-06-2015. Ex.A36 : Receipt dated Ex.A37 : Demand Notice of Water Supplies and Sewarage issued by GHMC on 04-10-2015. Ex.A38 : Tax Receipts dated 16-08-1999 Ex.A39 : Tax Receipts dated 07-05-2001 Ex.A40 : Tax Receipts dated 31-03-2005 Ex.A41 : Tax Receipts dated 11-06-2014 Ex.A42 : Market Value Certificate

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex. B1 : Original registered Sale deed 27­07­1959 along with sketch. Ex. B2 : Certified Copy of Sale deed dated 17­07­2014. Ex. B3 : Certified Copy of irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA dated 02­12­2015. Ex. B4 : Certified Copy of irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA dated 16­06­2014. Ex. B5 : Certified Copy of rectification deed dated 14­08­15 to the rectification of Doc. No.1420/2014.

Sd/­

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURTS:HYDERABAD.

1 O.S.No.3186 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURTS AT

HYDERABAD

MONDAY THE 27 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

PRESENT: SRI B.SRINIVASULU,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

O.S.No.3186 OF 2015

Between:

S.Chandra Shekar Reddy, S/o. S.Keshav Reddy, Aged about 48 Years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No. 19­1­693/1, Maharajgunj, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad – T.S

...Plaintiff

AND

Bandari Manoj Kumar, S/o. Late B. Ramesh Kumar, Aged about: 32 years, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No. 13­2­282, Jali Hanuman, Raheempura, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

...Defendant

This suit coming before me for final disposal in the presence of

Sri A.G. Deshmukh, Learned Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri E.

Poornachander Rao, Learned Counsel for Defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1.The suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction by the sole plaintiff.

2.The brief avernments of the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner and in physical possession of the property bearing M.No.19-1-698, admeasuring 198.00 Square yards, situated at Maharaj Gunj, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under 2 O.S.No.3186 of 2015 registered sale deed bearing document No. 1293 / 2014 dated 5th June 2014 from Smt., A

Santoshamma and others for consideration.

Herein called Suit Schedule property. On the date of Sale Deed vendors delivered vacant physical possession and since date of purchase plaintiff is in physical possession over the Suit Schedule property.

3. Originally A. satyanarayan Reddy was in physical possession and enjoyment of the property bearing H.No.19-1-698 and 699 admeasuring in all 388 Sq.Yards situated at

Maharajgunj, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad, much prior to 1972 and since 1972 he was doing business of Tobacco after obtaining the required Excise license from the concerned department and also occupying the said premises for residential purpose and was paying Electricity bill, Water cess, Property Tax and also telephone Bill to the concerned department till his death.

4.Defendant who is nothing to do with Suit Schedule property and also not acquainted with the plaintiff nor with plaintiff’s vendors and coming to Suit Schedule property at odd hours and creating nuisance and harassing the family members of plaintiff, Plaintiff went to PS Kamatipura to lodge complaint against the defendant and his supporters, and police refused to entertain the complaint as defendant purchased open land adjacent to Suit Schedule property and the police is under pressure of defendant. Plaintiff lodged caveats before Honorable Chief Judge,Senior Civil Judge, and Junior Civil Judge Courts and registered post returned no such person in the given address.

5. Defendant filed private compliant before the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad in respect of premises bearing no. 19-1-698 and 699

admeasuring 388 square yards and same was referred PS Kamatipura for enquiry and

ACP Charminar was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the matter, then only plaintiff came to know about the defendant. Plaintiff and his vendors appeared before ACP Charminar for enquiry.

6.Police registered the case vide Crime No.44/2015 on the compliant of defendant.

From the contents of the compliant plaintiff came to know that defendant along with vendors approached the plaintiff and his family members and introduced that defendant has purchased premises No. 19-1-698 and 699 from Smt. K. Amaravathi and others 3 O.S.No.3186 of 2015 under agreement of sale cum GPA and also registered sale deed and he requested the plaintiff and his family members to vacate the premises and handover the physical possession. But no point of time defendant and his vendors approached plaintiff and his family members nor requested for vacating the premises and no promise made by the plaintiff to give some time so that they will locate another house for shifting.

7.Taking advantage of FIR by the plaintiff and with police help regularly coming to

Suit Schedule property and pressurizing the plaintiff and his family members to vacate the premises and handover. Accordingly on 18-12-2015 and 20-12-2015 and tried to dispossess the plaintiff and his family members from Suit Schedule property, Hence the suit for Perpetual Injunction.

8.Written statement filed by the defendant by denying the contents of the plaint.

Mainly pleads that suit is speculative and lacks from several infirmities and bonafides.

Plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts.

Suit is filed by the plaintiff on the invented cause of action basing on the created, bogus, and nominal documents. Plaintiff is not entitle for the equatable relief of injunction.

9. Originally Sri kokkonda Buchaiah and Smt. Ankepalli laxmamma were the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal No. 19-1-698 to 702 at Old maharajgunj, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad having an area of 453 Sq. Yrds. Having purchased the same from its original owners by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.542 of 1959, Book-I vol-II, Page 335, dated 30-07-1959 with SRO

Doodhbowli, Hyderabad. After death of Sri kokkonda Buchaiah and Smt. Ankepalli laxmamma their respective legal heirs namely (1) Mr.K.Nikleshwar, (2) K.Amaravathi, (3) K.Lavanya, (4) E.Madhavi, (5) B.Jwala Deepa, (6) A.Swathi, (7) Chandrashekar and (1) Mrs. Anantha Laxmi, (2) A.Ranga Reddy, (3) A.Praveen Reddy, (4) Y.Madhavi, (5)

Soma Shobha (6) Chama Usha, (7) Krishna Reddy have succeeded to several properties left over their elder including the above said property.

On 01-03-2014 defendant entered into agreement of sale and there after they executed registered sale deed as under :

(i) Registered sale deed bearing document No. 1619/2014, Dated 17-07-2014 registered at Joint Sub Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad.

(ii) Registered Irrevocable Agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No.

2960/2015, dated 02-12-2015 registered at Joint Sub Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad.

4 O.S.No.3186 of 2015

(iii) Registered Irrevocable Agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No.

1420/2014, dated 16-06-2014 registered at Joint Sub Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad

and

(iv) Ratification deed bearing document No. 2256/2015, dated 14-09-2015 registered at

Joint Sub Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad.

10.At the time of entering into agreement vendors of defendant have informed that one late Satyanarayan Reddy was working with their forefathers to do watch and ward duties in the above said property to take care and safe guard the property from illegal encroachers and they permitted him to stay in part of the property sold to defendant.

Infact, forefathers/elders of the defendant’s vendors were into tobacco business and in that process, they have only obtained a license in the name of late A.Satyanarayana

Reddy who is doing watch and ward duties and Late A.Satyanarayana Reddy never did any tobacco business. After death A.Satyanarayana Reddy his family members i.e., wife and his son’s are residing in part of the property sold to defendant in the same capacity. On the same day defendant’s vendors have introduced him with the family members of late A.Satyanarayana Reddy and also informed that the property is being sold to defendant, as such they have to vacate the said premises upon which family members of late. A.Satyanarayana Reddy requested to give some time so that they will locate another house for shifting. Considering their words the defendant and vendors have granted some time. That the rest of the property covered under the two alleged documents was delivered immediately to the defendant by the defendant’s vendors.

11.Thereafter the defendant and the vendors’ of the defendants are repeatedly reminding the family members of late. A.Satyanarayana Reddy to vacate the premises.

12.While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff has sent caveats and thereafter, the defendant obtained copies of sale deeds referred by the plaintiff. Plaintiff and family members of late A.Satyanarayana Reddy in collusion with each other transfered the part of property purchased by this defendants into their names without any right of title or interest over the said properties by creating Sham, Bogus sale deeds. As such the two sale deeds are sham, bogus, created, false documents and vendors and vendee are non other then son-in-laws, Wife, Sons, and daughters of late A.Satyanarayana Reddy. The 5 O.S.No.3186 of 2015 defendant have filed a private compliant before the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad which was referred PS Kamatipura for investigation

and same was registered Crime No.44 of 2015. plaintiffs approached Hon’ble High

Court by filing CRP and same was dismissed on 19-11-2015. Plaintiffs are legal heir of late A.Satyanarayana Defendant is absolute owner in respect of suit property and vendors of the Defendant also delivered part of the above said property to the Defendant and defendant is enjoying as absolute owner. Cause of action invented one. Sale deeds is bogus and created one. Since to create a cloud on the title of the property sale deeds are brought into existence and plaintiffs having knowledge that the legal heirs of

Buchaiah and Laxmamma executed sale deeds in favour of Defendant. Plaintiff at any point of time is in physical possession of the property. Late A.Satyanarayana possession was permissive possession and accordingly his legal heirs are in permissive possession by the Defendant vendors.

13.The possession claimed by the Plaintiff basing on sale deed executed by his mother-in-law, brother-in-law, his wife and sister-in-law and therefore, plaintiff has to prove genuinity of the sale deed and no consideration under the said registered sale deed. Plaintiff has to prove his possession under the sale deed and no document filed by the plaintiff to show that he is in possession over the property. All the documents are created and fabricated one. No link document filed. Plaintiff cannot claim right and title and cannot claim possession over the said property by virtue of sale deed. There is no pleading that late Satyanarayana Reddy and his LR’s are owners of the property and they have right to alienate. Suit is filed on fictious cause of action. Plaintiff is not having

Prima facie, Balance of convenience and irreparable loss plaintiff not approached the court with clean hands. There is no equality in favour of plaintiff. Granting of injunction is equitable relief. Plaintiff is guilty of suppression of facts and inequitable 6 O.S.No.3186 of 2015 conduct cannot claim for injunction. If injunction is granted severe prejudice granted to defendant which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed.

Issue 1 whether the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property

Issue 2 whether plaintiff is entitle to obtain permanent injunction as prayed for ?

Issue 3 To what relief ?

14.On behalf of the plaintiff himself as examined as PW1 and in his chief in examination reiterated the contents of the plaint. The following documents are marked in the evidence of PW1. Ex.A1 :Certified Copy of Sale deed dated 05-06-2014.

Ex.A2 :EC from 01-01-1987 to 27-07-2016. Ex.A3 :Electricity Bill dated 09-06- 2006.Ex.A4 :Electricity Bill dated 06-07-2006. Ex.A5 :Electricity Bill dated 08-08- 2006. Ex.A6 :Electricity Bill dated 08-01-2010. Ex.A7 :Electricity Bill dated 06-02- 2010.Ex.A8 : Electricity Bill dated 09-03-2010. Ex.A9 :Electricity Bill dated 13-02- 2014. Ex.A10 : Electricity Bill dated 13-04-2014. Ex.A11 : Electricity Bill dated 14-05- 2014. Ex.A12 : Electricity Bill dated 16-04-2014. Ex.A13 : Electricity Bill dated 07-09- 2015. Ex.A14 : Electricity Bill dated 06-11-2015. Ex.A15 :Electricity Bill dated 06-12- 2015. Ex.A16 : Electricity Bill dated 09-06-2007 .Ex.A17 :Electricity Bill dated 06-07- 2007. Ex.A18 :Electricity Bill dated 07-09-2007. Ex.A19 : Electricity Bill dated 08-01- 2010. Ex.A20 : Electricity Bill dated 06-02-2010. Ex.A21:Electricity Bill dated 09-06- 2010. Ex.A22 : Electricity Bill dated 11-09-2014 Ex.A23 : Electricity Bill dated 15-10- 2014. Ex.A24 : Electricity Bill dated 10-11-2015. Ex.A25 : Electricity Bill dated 07-09- 2015 Ex.A26 : Electricity Bill dated 06-11-2015 Ex.A27 : Electricity Bill dated 06-12- 2015 Ex.A28 : Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 16-09-1999 Ex.A29 : Muncipal Tax Receipt

dated 07-05-2001 Ex.A30 : Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 31-03-2005. Ex.A31 :

Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 26-12-2005. Ex.A32 : Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 11-06- 2014. Ex.A33 : Market Value Certificate. Ex.A34 :Certified Copy of FIR vide

Cr.No.44/2015, dated 26-05-2015 along with complaint.

7 O.S.No.3186 of 2015

15.Pw2 is supporting witness and son of Satyanarayana Reddy and he deposed mainly that late Satyanarayana Reddy is in possession of Municipal premises No 19-1- 698 and 699 admeasuring 398 square yards., and occupying the property as a owner by adverse possession more than 70 years and was doing tobacco business in the premises occupied by him to till his death after obtaining license from exercise department.

Satyanarayana Reddy died in the year 2010 and after his death he along with mother and sister occupying the premises without any interference and paid water, electricity and municipal taxes in respect of said two houses. Late Satyanarayana Reddy enjoying the position in respect of said two houses as a owner. He along with mother Smt.,

A.Santoshamma and sister executed sale deed 1294/2014 dated 05-06-2014 in respect of house property H.No. 19-1-699 admeasuring 190.00 square yards in favour of PW1 by receiving valuable sale consideration and delivered physical possession and also delivered Water, Electricity, Municipal tax receipt to PW1 on 05-06-2014 and since then

PW1 is in physical possession and PW1 is paying Electricity consumption charges since

June 2014 to till date.

16.Defendant never contacted PW2 or his family members and defendant is third party. Defendant has filed false compliant and police kamatipura registered crime no. 44 of 2015 and ACP charminar appointed as a enquiry officer which is pending. At any point of time PW2 and his mother promised to the defendant to vacate the suit property.

PW1 filed the suit for perceptual injunction against the defendant as defendant and his men try to dispossess PW1. Defendant brought in existence of the documents alleged title subsequent to register of sale deed in favour of PW1. PW3 is supporting witness by name A.Ramulu advocate he mainly deposed late Satyanarayana Reddy residing in the

House No. 19-1-698 since more than 50 years as absolute owner now plaintiff is 8 O.S.No.3186 of 2015 residing after purchase. PW1 informed that defendant try to dispossess. PW4 A.E

Ramesh Babu he also deposed like PW3 in his evidence.

17.On behalf of the defendants, defendant himself examined as DW1 and in his chief in examination reiterated the contents of the written statement. The following documents are marked on behalf of defendant. Ex. B1:Original registered Sale deed

dated 27­07­1959 along with sketch. Ex. B2: Certified Copy of Sale deed dated 17­

07­2014. Ex.B3:Certified Copy of irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA dated 02­ 12­2015. Ex. B4 : Certified Copy of irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA dated 16­ 06­2014. Ex. B5 : Certified Copy of rectification deed dated 14­09­15 to the rectification of Doc. No.1420/2014.

18.Dw2 is advocate by profession he is the grand son Kokkonda Buchaiah as konkkonda Buchaiah is father of Smt Ananthamma. The said Ananthamma mother of

Dw2. He deposed mainly execution of sale deeds in favour of Dw1 under exhibit B2 to

B5 and also deposed under exhibit B1 purchased suit property by Konkkonda Buchaiah and A laxmamma. The legal heirs of Buchaiah and laxmamma sold suit property in favour of Dw1. And further deposed family members of Satyanarayana Reddy in collusion with each other executed sale deeds in favour of plaintiff for House bearing

No. 19-1-698 and 699. Under sale deed delivered symbolic possession of H.No 698 and 699 and physical and vacant possession of H.No 700 to 702 delivered to defendant.

Further deposed register of crime 40 of 2016 against LR’s Satyanarayana Reddy.

Issue 1 :

19.Heard both. The learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that plaintiff is in possession over the suit property, and the same is also admitted by the defendant.

Plaintiff being purchaser of suit property is in possession, having the title that is under exhibit A1 sale deed.

9 O.S.No.3186 of 2015

20.plaintiff is in possession. The long standing possession of late Satyanarayana

Reddy is also admitted one. The vendors of PW1 is in possession over suit property.

Physical possession delivered to the PW1 as on the date of sale deed. After obtaining the sale deed under Exhibit A1, Pw1 paying municipal tax and water bill. Plaintiff is having possession over the suit schedule property. Under exhibit A32 plaintiff paid municipal tax. Plaintiff also having position of municipal tax receipts and bunch of water bills and also electricity bills which shows his possession and also his vendors possession.

21.Per contra the learned counsel for defendant has vehemently argued late

Satyanarayana Reddy possession is only as a watch man and his LR’s position also same. Their possession cannot be treated as actual possession. Plaintiff is claiming possession under Exhibit A1 title deed which is sham and defective one. As such plaintiff possession cannot be considered further in the cross examination of PW1 his evidence impeached.

22.After hearing both at length onus is on plaintiff to prove the possession over the suit schedule property. On perusing A1 to A34 documents late Satyanarayana Reddy was in possession. And A3 to A30 are not in the name of plaintiff and no document filed by the plaintiff to show that he is in possession of property from Exhibit A1 to till today.

At present PW1 is residing H.No.16-2-751/C/13/B/3 F-1admitted in O.S.No 3187/2015 cross examination. It is true that as on date of filing of the present suit I am residing the

House No.16-2-751/C/13/B/3 F-1 (Admitted in O.S.No.3187/2015) . Dw1 admitted

Satyanarayana Reddy possession over the suit schedule property at the time of agreement property was occupied by Santhoshamma and Sridhar Reddy. Dw1 admitted under Exhibit. B2 to B4 physical possession of 700 to 702 delivered. Written statement filed by the defendant admitted that the physical possession of the Satyanarayana Reddy over suit property and after his death his legal heirs. But now plaintiff is claiming 10 O.S.No.3186 of 2015 possession over the suit property as on date of filing of suit. Burden is on the plaintiff to prove the possession over the suit property. Plaintiff pleads his possession over suit property under exhibit A1 sale deed on perusing cross examination of PW1 he categorical admitted that no documents to show his possession over the suit property from the date of Ex. A1 to till to day. Exhibit. A3 to A27 not stands in his name. Ex A29 and A32 shows name of one Madhu Lal, shows tax receipt Satyanarayana Reddy paid on behalf of Madan Lal. Further in the cross examination PW1 admitted as on date of filing of present suit is residing in house bearing House No.16-2-751/C/13/B/3 F-1 and also presently residing in the same housen. (admitted the same in O.S.No.3187/2015).

Plaintiff is claiming possession under exhibit. A1 sale deed and no whisper in the pleadings about the relationship of vendors and no documents to connect Ex A1.

Plaintiff has to discharge his onus he cannot depend on the weakness of the defendant.

Further the Hon’ble Apex court and land mark judgment of AIR 2012 Supreme court 1727 between Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors V. Erasmo Jack de

Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs has categorically held a care taker acquires no title irrespective of his long standing possession.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized in para no 70 of its judgment.

The following paragraph 70

(a) Who is or are the owner or owners of the property ;

(b) Title of the property ;

(c) Who is in possession of the title documents

(d) Identity of the claimant or claimants to possession ;

(e) The date of entry into possession ;

(f) How he came into possession – whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method ;

(g) In case he purchased the property, what is the consideration ; if he has taken it on rent,how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount ;

(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease – then insist on rent deed, license deed or lease deed; (I) Who are th persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity ; as family members, friends or servants etc.,; 11 O.S.No.3186 of 2015

(j) Subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and

(k) Basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.

23.when plaintiff vendors are family members of Satyanarayana Reddy and PW1 is son-in-law of Satyanarayana Reddy and long standing possession of Satyanarayana

Reddy as only permissive possession as a care taker as such claiming of PW1 possession under exhibit A1 is by PW1 is against the law. More over PW1 failed to prove his possession over suit property as on date of filing of suit and same is elicited in his cross examination. Accordingly the issue is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.2 :

24.Heard both. Perused the record Admittedly granting of injunction is an equitable relief. Plaintiff has to approach the Court with clean hands. Plaintiff not disclosed his relationship with vendors in the plaint which is nothing but suppression of material facts.

Section 38 of the specific relief 1963 deals with grating of perpetual injunction. To grant perceptual injunction there must be invasion or threat to dispossess. To grant

Perpetual Injunction and Mandatory Injunction the Specific Relief Act, 1963 will deals, as per Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, “Perpetual

Injunction to be granted when there is breach of an obligation existing in favour of the Plaintiff whether expressly or by implication or when the

Defendant invades or threatens to invade the Plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the Court may grant a Perpetual Injunction in the following cases, namely:­­ (a) Where the defendant is trustee of the property for the Plaintiff. (b) Where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion. (c) Where the invasion is such that compensation in money 12 O.S.No.3186 of 2015 would not afford adequate relief. (d) Where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings”.

25.The evidence of PW1 impeached in cross examination. Under Exhibit B1

Kokkonda Buchaiah and Laxmamma are absolute owner of Muncipal bearing no 19-1- 698 to 702 proeprty. The legal heirs of said Buchaiah and laxmamma executed sale deed in favour of Dw1, Under Ex B2 to B5 sale deed and GPA documents. Injunction against true owner cannot be maintainable. It is true that injunction simplifier is maintable even against true owner. But in this case PW1 is claiming title and possession under Ex.A1.

As there is no title document in favour of Satyanarayana Reddy as such his L.Rs that is vendors of PW1 also not having any title to execute Ex.A1. If L.Rs of Satyanarayana

Reddy filed suit for injunction without prayer of title it can be maintainable but PW1 claiming title and possession under ex.A1 and same is questioned by the defendant basing on the B1 to B5 documents. As such there is a cloud on the title of the PW1 and without prayer for declaration of title under Ex.A1 suit against the defendant and his vendors simple suit for injunction is not maintainable the same is held by the Honble

Apex court in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 between Anathula Sudhakar v P.Buchi

Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs and Ors. In this case suit for perpetual injunction without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable on the facts of this pecular case in the result plaintiff is not entitle for perpetual injunction. Accordingly the issue in answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.3 :

To what relief,

In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of August 2018. 

Sd/­

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURTS:HYDERABAD. 

13 O.S.No.3186 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: S.Chandrasekhar DW1: Bandari Manoj Kumar PW2: A. Sridhar ReddyDW2: S.Chandrasekhar PW3: S. Sri Ramulu PW4: K.E. Ramesh Babu 

DOCUMENT MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 :Certified Copy of Sale deed dated 05­06­2014.

Ex.A2 :EC from 01­01­1987 to 27­07­2016.

Ex.A3 :Electricity Bill dated 09­06­2006.

Ex.A4 :Electricity Bill dated 06­07­2006.

Ex.A5 :Electricity Bill dated 08­08­2006.

Ex.A6 :Electricity Bill dated 08­01­2010. 

Ex.A7 :Electricity Bill dated 06­02­2010.

Ex.A8 : Electricity Bill dated 09­03­2010. 

Ex.A9 :Electricity Bill dated13­02­2014. 

Ex.A10 : Electricity Bill dated 13­04­2014. 

Ex.A11 : Electricity Bill dated 14­05­2014. 

Ex.A12 : Electricity Bill dated 16­04­2014. 

Ex.A13 : Electricity Bill dated 07­09­2015. 

Ex.A14 : Electricity Bill dated 06­11­2015. 

Ex.A15 :Electricity Bill dated 06­12­2015. 

Ex.A16 : Electricity Bill dated 09­06­2007.

Ex.A17 :Electricity Bill dated 06­07­2007.

Ex.A18 :Electricity Bill dated 07­09­2007. 

Ex.A19 : Electricity Bill dated 08­01­2010.

Ex.A20 : Electricity Bill dated 06­02­2010.

Ex.A21:Electricity Bill dated 09­06­2010. 

Ex.A22 : Electricity Bill dated 11­09­2014.

14 O.S.No.3186 of 2015

Ex.A23 : Electricity Bill dated 15­10­2014. 

Ex.A24 : Electricity Bill dated 10­11­2015. 

Ex.A25 : Electricity Bill dated 07­09­2015

Ex.A26 : Electricity Bill dated 06­11­2015 

Ex.A27 : Electricity Bill dated 06­12­2015 

Ex.A28 : Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 16­09­1999 

Ex.A29 : Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 07­05­2001 

Ex.A30 : Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 31­03­2005.

Ex.A31 : Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 26­12­2005. 

Ex.A32 : Muncipal Tax Receipt dated 11­06­2014. 

Ex.A33 : Market Value Certificate.

Ex.A34 :Certified Copy of FIR vide Cr.No.44/2015, dated 26­05­2015 along with complaint. 

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex. B1:Original registered Sale deed dated 27­07­1959 along with sketch. 

Ex. B2: Certified Copy of Sale deed dated 17­07­2014. 

Ex.B3: Certified Copy of irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA dated 02­12­2015. 

Ex. B4 : Certified Copy of irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA dated 16­06­2014. 

Ex. B5 : Certified Copy of rectification deed dated 14­09­15 to the rectification of

Doc. No.1420/2014.

Sd/­

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURTS:HYDERABAD. 

CC 618 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

NAMPALLY CRIMINAL COURTS: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SRI. B. SRINIVASULU,

FAC CMM., Hyderabad.

(Dated on this the 04th day of February, 2021)

C.C.No. 618 of 2011

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ….Complainant

A N D

Kuppa. Vasanth Kumar, S/o. Late K. Govind Setty, Age: 47 years, Occ: Pvt. Typist at Ranga Reddy District, R/o. H.No.3-9-502/A, Plot No.91 & 92 Madhura Nagar, Mansurabad, G.S.I Post,, Hyderabad, N/o. Adoni, Kurnool District. .…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on dt.28.01.2021 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Prosecution, Sri. H. Sudhakar Rao, Advocate on behalf of Accused, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the entire material on record and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. ACP, Charminar has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 70 of 2010 for the offence under section 420, 468, 469, 471, 500, 505(2)

IPC.

2. The case of prosecution in brief that PW1 the then Principal Private

Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh has presented complaint on 17-03-2010 with a request to beef up the security to the

1 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

Hon’ble Chief Justice by enclosing affidavit which containing the

threatening to the Hon’ble Chief Justice. The said affidavit was in the name of the PW6/Jaganmohan Naidu who is Advocate Notary.

Investigation done by the Police of Charminar revealed that accused belongings to Andra region and who is working as a Typist in Ranga

Reddy Court premises. Accused used to give job work to Rajendra

Prasad Advocate by neglecting the PW6. During the Telangana agitation accused also physically assaulted by the Advocates includes PW6. In order to take revenge accused has prepared threatening affidavit by the forging signature of PW6 and sent the same to Hon’ble Chief Justice in the name of the PW6. The said threatening letter which was typed one by the alleging that PW6 is a maoist and warning to the Hon’ble Chief

Justice. As Chief Justice warned against Telangana State Advocates. In the said affidavit also warned the Chief Justice that he will not live in

Hyderabad and also threatened to kill with supporters maoists and threatened with dire consequences. During investigation done by the police that accused forged the signature of PW6 and sent to the same

Hon’ble Chief Justice in order to defame and also in order to take

revenge on PW6. Accused also purchased the stamped papers for preparing affidavit from PW5. After obtaining FSL report laid charge sheet against the accused for the above offences

3. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

4. The Accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. A separate Charge for the offence under Section 420, 468, 469, 471, 500, 505(2) IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the Accused, for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

5. To bring home the guilt of the Accused, the Prosecution has examined

PWs.1 and 12, exhibited Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.10 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 are marked.

6. After closure of Prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined on the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of

PWs as envisaged under section 313(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure and he denied the accusation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. This Court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE

PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED

FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 468, 469, 471, 500,

505(2) IPC BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?

8. Heard the learned senior APP and Counsel for the accused. Counsel for the accused filed written arguments.

9. PW1 is the defacto complainant he stated that Ex.P1 is covering letter,

Ex.P2 is affidavit, Ex.P3 is envelope cover to that affidavit Chief Justice received the threatening letter with affidavit and same was given to the

Police Charminar. PW2 evidence is also like PW1 and he opened the cover and placed before the Chief Justice.

10.PW3 is the Typist he also used to work private job. Accused also used to type work out side of Ranga Reddy District. In the year 2010.

Police came to the work place and found hard disk of accused in system and also took some blank non judicial stamp papers given by PW6. for typing. During Telangana agitation, the advocates asked all the typists and other business people, who were outside the court to close their business. The accused from Andhra. He came to know that accused

3 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

wrote a letter to Judge of High Court. PW6 is also friendship with accused.

11.PW4 evidence that he approached the accused for the preparing affidavit to the gas connection. The accused had prepared an affidavit for gas connection for which he paid Rs.80/-

12.PW5 is the star witness of the prosecution who is stamp vendor he is registered stamp vendor at Ranga Reddy District Court premises.

He know the accused. Accused is running job work in Maruthi Omni

Van and he prepared affidavits in the van itself. On 04-03-2010 accused purchased 30 non judicial stamp papers each worth of Rs.10/- bearing serial no.762555 to 762584 in series no. 27 AA for which he made entry in the register. His assistant Lakshman filled columns in the stamp papers.

13.PW6 who is Advocate Notary he deposed that in the year 2010 somebody has sent an affidavit to the Hon’ble Chief Justice in his name by forging signature. Then The Private Secretary of Chief Justice of

Hon’ble High Court filed a case before Charminar Police for

investigation. The affidavit in question is containing a warning given by the Maoists. Police examined him and shown Ex.P2 affidavit to him. He disowned the signature in Ex.P2. Police collected specimen signatures for comparison.

14.PW7 is the Gas Agency Manager his evidence that one Kanthi

Kiran brought two customers to his office and they submitted two affidavits alongwith application from on Rs.10/- non judicial stamps for the purpose of getting gas connections from his agency. Police collected the above said affidavits from his office.

15.PW8 is the assistant with PW5. He deposed that he know the accused and PW6. Accused used to typed affidavits and petitions for his

4 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

clients in respect of Gas connections and Revenue matters. Accused used to purchase stamp papers from them regularly. On 04-03-2010 accused purchased 30 non judicial stamp papers of Rs.10/- vide series

Nos. 762555 to 762584. PW5 made entries in the Register and he filed up the blanks in the stamp papers. During the Telangana agitation disputes arose between accused and PW6 on regional feelings.

16.PW9 deposed that he is working as Senior Assistant in Town

Planing section, Cricle – XI, Rejendra Nagar Circle, GHMC,

Hyderabad. On 22-03-2010 at about 10.30 AM on the request of the

ACP Charminar himself and LW10/Satish Kumar went to PS Charminar to act as a panchas. On enquiry accused confessed that he is working as a private Typist. Accused further confessed that he wrote a letter to the

Hon’ble Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh in the name of the PW.6 to

blame and also PW6 caused inconvenience to accused as he used to ask him to change place of the Maruti Van as the accused used to type work in said Maruti van. Accused further confessed he secured the seal and stamp of PW6 when he went to do attestation on a notary. After attesting the notary the accused without the knowledge of PW6 also put seal and stamp on the blank stamp papers and used the said stamped papers to draft the letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Basing on the confession of the accused himself LW10/Satish Kumar and Police went to the house of the accused situated at Mansurabad, LB nagar from the house of the accused police seized Omini Van, Computer Monitor,

CPU, UPS and Printer in their presence. M.O.1 is computer monitor,

M.O.2 is CPU, M.O.3 is Ups, M.O.4 is Printer, M.O.5 is Stamp pad police also seized the original letter prepared by the accused in the name of PW6. Ex.P4 is a Maruthi Omni van colour photo graph, Ex.P5 is relevant confession portion of confession of the accused, Ex.P6 is seizure report, Ex.P7 is the affidavit seized under cover of seizure report.

5 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

17.PW10 is the ACP, who issued FIR deposed that on 17-03-2010 at 18 hours he received a letter from PW1 basing of the complaint he registered a case in Cr. No.70 of 2010 for the offences U/Sec.189, 505(2) IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P8 is FIR issued by him and examined

PW1 and PW2. Further investigation done by the LW17. LW17 the then

ACP Charminar deposed that on 18-03-2010 he took up the investigation from PW10 and recorded statements of PW5, PW8 in the station. PW5 hand over the register for sale of non judicial stamp papers. On 19-03-2010 he secured in the presence of PW3 and recorded his statement on 20-03-2010 he secured presence of PW7 and PW4 and recorded their detailed statements. PW7 purchased four Rs.10/- non judicial stamp papers vide nos. 762576, 762565, 762577 and 762566.

On 22-03-2010 accused was apprehended at Ranga Reddy District and produced before him and he secured in presence of PW9 and LW10 as per the confession of the accused alongwith mediators are proceeded to the house of accused and seized Marui Omni van bearing no. AP 9 G 2853, fitted with table, Monitor, UPS, CPU and Faber Stamp pad,

Green ball pen and draft affidavit seized under seizure report singed by the mediators on the panch slips. On 23-03-2010 send the accused to the judicial remand. On 12-04-2010 filed a requisition for obtain the sample signatures and hand writings of the accused in order to sent the same for

FSL and also filed petition of 164 Cr.P.C of the Kaparthi Ramulu,

Kaparthi Laxman and B. Jagan Mohan Naidu and transferred hand over

CD file to Lw18 for further investigation Ex.P9 is specimen signatures of the accused. PW12 deposed that he received CD file from PW11 after Ex.P10 FSL report he laid charge sheet.

18.The learned senior APP vehemently argued that prosecution evidence is consisting further argued that motive also established by the prosecution that the accused bore grudge against the PW6. PW5 and

PW8 categorically stated in their evidence that accused has purchased stamps from them. The original stamp bearing no. 27 AA 762571

6 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

marked as Ex.P2. As stated in his evidence that accused as purchased thirty Indian stamps with series nos. 762555 to 762584. Ex.P2 series no.

27 AA 762571.

19.As such evidence of PW5 clearly shows that accused has purchased stamp papers from PW5. Further Pw8 also deposed that accused purchased thirty stamp papers of Rs.10/- denomination. Ex.P2 is corroborated with the evidence of PW5, 8 who sold the stamp papers.

Evidence Pw5, 8, Ex.P2 that accused purchased Ex.p2 from Pw5 and typed the letter. Further argued that police also seized draft letter from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama. Mediator ie.,

PW9 also deposed that police seized draft affidavit ie., Ex.P7. Ex.P7 is corroborated with Ex.P10 FSL report. Nothing elicit in the cross examination of the prosecution to dis prove their testimony. In the cross examination also elicit that accused and PW6 having animosity. In order to take revenge from PW6 accused sent the threatening affidavit to the

Hon’ble Chief Justice under Ex.P2. It is also proved by prosecution that

accused is Job Typist at Ranga Reddy Court complex.

20.Per contra the learned defence counsel mainly argued that hard disk of the computer not tested by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Hard disk not forwarded to the FSL for comparison with

Ex.P2. FSL report is not conclusive evidence. Certainly no evidence except the testimony of PW8 and PW5. Stamp register not produced by the prosecution. Pw5 and PW8 also supporting PW6, as accused hails from Rayalasima region these witnesses belongings to Telangana and falsely implicated him. Further argued that the draft letter has taken by the police are seized by the police is inadmissible in evidence. When it is the draft letter seized by the police and comparison with writings obtained in the court will definitely show the same. As such FSL report opinioned that the person who write the red enclosed writings marked as S1 to S10 also wrote the red enclosed writings marked as Q1 and Q2.

7 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

Further signature marked in Ex.P2 as Q.3 there is no definite opinion of

Q.3. As such accused put signature in Ex.P2 also not proved by the prosecution. It is also admitted that fact by the prosecution that there is disputes between PW6 and accused it is also admitted fact accused belongs to another region at that time there was Telangana agitation, advocates are active role in Ranga Reddy District Court. It is duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

21.After rival submissions the charge against the accused under section 420, 468, 471, 500, 505 (2) IPC. PW6 is the victim as per prosecution in Ex.P2 addressed the affidavit to the Hon’ble Chief

Justice. PW6 deposed that in his name Ex.P2 addressed. PW2 not stated in his evidence there is dishonestly delivery of any property. To prove charge under section 420 IPC prosecution has to prove delivery of any property by inducing or cheating. PW6 not stated that accused induced him for delivery of any property. PW6 simply stated police examined him and shown Ex.P2 affidavit to him further stated that somebody send an affidavit by forging his signature. In the cross examination of Pw6 he stated that he cannot say who put signature of Ex.P2. PW6 not stated accused induced him for taking of notary stamps. As there is no delivery of any property in favour of the accused neither by inducement nor cheating hence the charge under section 420 IPC is not maintainable.

The another charge against the accused is under section 468 IPC forged for the purpose of cheating 468 IPC defines forgery ie., making of false documents to support any name or title with an intention to commit fraud who commits the forgery. Admittedly Ex.P10 FSL report clearly shows that no opinion on the signature portion of Ex.P2 the prosecution has to prove that disputed document is purchased under register by the accused, and forged the dispute document. No evidence that the accused has forged the document for the purpose of cheating. Admittedly there is no scientific evidence that Ex.P2 prepared by the accused by using

8 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

his computer ie, hard disk not sent to the FSL and signature of Ex.Q3 is also not proved by the prosecution that it was put by the accused. Mere denying of signature by PW6 does not mean that the signature of Ex.P2 put by the accused. It is the case of prosecution that Ex.P2 is the typed by the accused. When there is ample evidence available in the system of accused certainly hard disk sent to the FSL report then it will be useful and prove that accused typed the document in the system.

22.Another lacuna in the case of prosecution that register ie,. Stamp papers register not produced by the prosecution. Admittedly there is no evidence accused used to M.O.1 to M.O.4 for preparing Ex.P2 document and also no evidence that contents in Ex.P2 typed by him.

Another charge against the accused under section 469 IPC. Forgery for the purpose of harming reputation prosecution has to prove subject document is forged document. Hence there is cogent evidence to link the accused with Ex.P.2, hence charge under section 469 is also fails.

Another charge against the accused is under section 471 IPC it says that using a genuine as a forgery documents. In order to prove the charge the prosecution as to prove that subject document that Ex.P2 is the forgery document that accused used the said document as genuine one subject the document is a forgery one as discussed earlier also admittedly there is no evidence of Ex.P2 is prepared by the accused in his system. S1 to S10 are the writings of the accused on the like affidavit of Ex.P2.

the same are compared by the hand writing experts with draft letter seized from the possession of the accused compared with Ex.P7. When accused is writing in Ex.P7 writings are similar since it is written by the accused. Whereas Ex.P2 is typed one no sane person will have draft copy of the threatening letter when he intends to threaten high dignitary ie., Hon’ble Chief Justice.

23.PW3 admitted in the cross examination it is true that himself and his brother were apprehended and taken to Task Force Office and where

9 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

we were beaten severe. PW6 is also arrested by the Task Force Police with regard to a threatening letter addressed to the Chief Justice.

Further PW3 stated police checked the hard disk of the accused system.

As such it is that accused was kept in the custody and taken the letters by the Task Force Police that Ex.P7 letter. The threatening letter is a typed one through system Ex.P10 is of no value further Ex.P10 also stated there is no opinion with regard to Ex.Q3 in Ex.P2. Hence the charge under section 471 IPC is also fails. Another charge against the accused is under section 500 IPC, that is defamation. When Ex.P2 not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt then charge under section 500 IPC is also fails. Another charge against the accused is under section 505 (2) IPC since Ex.P2 was not proved by the prosecution this charge also fails. Burden of prove is always on prosecution.

24.The accused rely on judgment reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 4581 = 2016 4 Crimes(SC) 77, It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of “may be true” but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of “must by true”. In a criminal prosecution, that the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where as reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.

10 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

25.There is also omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

PW3 admitted he do not stated to the police as police checked hard disk of the accused system and police found letter addressed to the High

Court Judge, was found in the hard disk of the accused. When there documentary evidence ie., register for selling of the stamps in favour of the accused non production of it fatal to the prosecution PW8 admitted in the cross he did not hand over the sale register to the police whereas police did not gave any acknowledgment for the received register.

26.As per the section 114(g) of Indian Evidence adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, for with holding the documentary evidence ie., stamps sale register and not sending hard disk of the computer used by the accused for comparison with the Ex.P2 affidavit.

Purchasing of stamps also not proves that Accused prepared the threatening affidavit addressed to the Chief Justice. It is duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts against the

Accused. In Hon’ble Appellant Court in Kailash Goud and Others Vs.

State of Assam dated 15-12-2011 in Criminal Appeal No.1068 of 2006

in Para No.28 of the judgment held that presumption of innocence is

a human right that every Accused is presumed his innocence unless

his guilt is proved. No efforts made by the I.O. to prepare the similar type of Ex.P2 affidavit from type writers from the system of the

Accused and also with another type writers belongs to third parties then sent to FSL. Simply I.O seized the draft threatening letter by stating that it was seized from the possession of the Accused. In FSL report also not gives confidence to the Court since writings obtained in the Court and draft has allegedly taken by the Task Force Police forcibly certainly will similar. Hence from the above discussion Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt accordingly he is acquitted.

27.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420, 468, 469, 471, 500, 500(2) IPC and he is

11 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

hereby acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bail bonds of Accused and his surety bonds shall stay in force for a period of six months. As Accused not claimed M.O.1 to M.O.5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of February, 2021.

FAC CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED-

(On behalf of Prosecution)

PW.1N. Subramanyam PW.2AM Sarfraz PW.3A. Sudhakar PW.4N. Kiran PW.5K. Ramulu PW.6Jaganmohan Naidu PW.7Karunakar Reddy PW.8K. Laxman PW.9Abdul Hai Khan PW.10G. Prasada Rao PW.11K. Babu Rao PW.12M. Ram Mohan Rao (On behalf of defence) -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED:- (On behalf of Prosecution)

Ex.P.1Letter dated 16-03-2010 Ex.P.2Affidavit

12 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC 618 of 2011

Ex.P.3 Envelope Cover Ex.P.4Photograph’s of Maruthi Omni van bearing No. AP 09 G 2853 Ex.P.5Relevant portion of confession statement of Accused Ex.P.6Seizure report Ex.P.7Affidavit seized under cover of seizure report Ex.P.8First Information Report Ex.P.9Requisition filed for obtaining the specimen signatures of Accused Ex.P.10FSL Report (On behalf of Defence):- -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- (On behalf of Prosecution)

M.O.1Computer Monitor M.O.2CPU (Zebranic Company) M.O.3UPS (Xenon Company) M.O.4Printer (HP Company) M.O.5Stamp Pad (On behalf of Defence):- -NIL-

FAC CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

13 of 13 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

1 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016

 IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL

COURT, HYDERABAD 

 MONDAY THE 22 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.

PRESENT: SRI B.SRINIVASULU,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

FAC X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

 I.A.No.534 OF 2018 

IN 

O.S.No.2713 OF 2016 

Between:

01. P.S. Sai Babu, S/o. Late P. Satyanarayana Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. Flat No.101, Street No.8, Habsiguda, Hy­ derabad.

02. P. Usha Rani, D/o. P. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Advocate, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

...Petitioners/Defendants

A n d 

Ms.N. Annapurna, S/o. N. Narsing Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. 3­4­306/9, Opp: S.V. Basanth Apartments, Lingampally, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Plaintiff

This Petition coming before me in the presence of Sri

Kishore, Advocate for Petitioners and that of Respondent Smt. Anna­ purna, party in person and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

 ORDER

This petition is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.

2 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016

02.Notice given to other side. Counter filed. Heard both sides and perused the record.

03.The sum and substance of the petitioner affidavit that pe­ titioner is defendant no.1 in the main suit. Respondent has filed suit for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property. Respon­ dent pleads that she worked as junior advocate in the petitioner office from July, 2017 to August, 2009 and respondent got love and affection with Late A. Vimala Devi. Further A. Vimala Devi treated respondent as daughter in showing love and affection. In the plaint alleged that petitioner instructed the respondent not to talk with A. Vimala Devi. A.

Vimala Devi expressed with respondent that she want to cancel the will executed in favour of petitioner.

04. Further pleads that A. Vimala Devi wants to execute the gift Deed in favour of the respondent. A. Vimala Devi was neglected by the family members and the same was told by the respondent then on­ wards she was subjected to harassment. Respondent further pleaded after demise of A. Vimala Devi, respondent came to know that suit schedule property has been alloted to the respondent and some other property alloted to the petitioner i.e., Municipal House bearing no.3­4­ 512/37/A and House bearing no.3­4­512/37/1 on the first floor of garage to Smt. Vijayalakshmi and the said fact known to re­ spondent along with others.

05.Respondent has filed a document styled as a

Memorandum of Understanding alleges that Late A. Vimala Devi expressed Oral gift in her favour (respondent) in respect of suit 3 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016 schedule property which does not contain the petitioner signature or the date or the signatures of the witnesses except the signature of the respondent.

06.Para no.2 of the plaint respondent admitted that petitioner is absolute owner of the property. In para no.15 of the plaint respondent has stated that she came to know that suit schedule property alloted to her and so far there is no document to that effect is filed. But in the MOU respondent has stated that will executed in favour of the petitioner is cancelled and orally gist the suit schedule property in her favour in respect of 650 sft. But where as in the plaint there is no mention about the oral gift. It is settled law that oral gift is not a valid gift under the provisions of the TP Act. In the alleged MOU which is prepared by herself claiming 650 sft., but suit schedule property is 111 square yards. Respondent has not filed any document to show that suit schedule property is following to her share by cancelling the will which is in favour of the petitioner.

07.There is also not mentioned in the plaint after leaving the office of the petitioner when she came back to the suit schedule property and started staying there. There is no documentary evidence to establish respondent alleged possession over the suit schedule property. The averments in the plaint and contents of memorandum of understanding which is prepared by respondent herself are entirely different and contrary. Suit is filed without any cause of action. The documents on which cause of action is based not produce before the

Court. Present suit is bogus and irresponsible litigation and vexations and frivolous. Suit is filed by respondent to extract money.

4 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016

08.As per the plaint, the cause of action to filed the present suit arose in the month of July, 2007 and on 17.04.2011, when FIR

No.67/2011 registered against petitioner and also on 26.05.2011, when we entered into a memorandum of understanding and also on 20.12.2011, the police registered FIR No.215 of 2012 against the petitioner and giving a complaint, dt:08.02.2013 by the respondent against petitioner to the Hon’ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad and also on 13.03.2013, when the Hon’ble Chief Judge had addressed a letter to the Bar Association, City Civil Court and also on 18.04.2013, 31.02.2014, 14.10.2016, 19.10.2016 and 21.10.2016.

09.The said complaints do not pertain to the suit schedule property and the address of the respondent was shown as H.No.3­4­ 306/9, opposite to S.V.Basanth Apartments, Lingampally, Hyderabad, but not the address of the suit schedule property. There is no mention of about alleged oral gift or execution of any document in respect of the suit schedule property by petitioner sister in favour of the respondent and there is no mention about the particulars, when respondent came into possession of the property. Hence there is no cause of action at all to file the present suit.

10.The suit is filed on 31.10.2016 as if respondent is in possession of the suit schedule property as on that date by showing the address of the suit schedule property as her residential address.

The respondent has filed a petition under Section 35 of Advocates Act on 18.10.2016 before Bar Council of AP., just 13 days prior to filing the suit, in which respondent mentioned that she is staying at H.No.3­ 4­306/9, opposite to S.V. Basanth Apartments, Lingampally, 5 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016

Hyderabad, but not in the suit schedule property. Respondent also lodged a complaint before Mirchowk P.S. against the petitioner and the petitioner no.2 on 21.10.2016 just 10 days before filing of the suit on the ground of alleged harassment and her residential address is shown as H.No.3­4­306/9, opposite to S.V. Basanth Apartments,

Lingampally, Hyderabad, but not the address of the schedule property.

11.The said two documents clearly disprove her allegation that she is in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time.

Petitioner submit that respondent is lodging complaints one after the other showing her addresses at Lingampally, Hyderabad. The postal cover filed by her shows the address as 3­4­512/37/1, which is not the suit schedule property. All most all the documents filed by respondent along with plaint show that she is staying at Lingampally,

Hyderabad, but not in the suit schedule property. Hence it is evident that there is no any documentary evidence to establish her alleged title and alleged possession over the suit schedule property. Petitioner submit that without having any documentary proof, just she filed the presence suit with a sole intention of extracting money by illegal methods.

12.Respondent pleadings are illusory in nature. The suit is manifestly vexations and merit­less in the sense of not disclosing right to sue. The petitioner shamelessly resorting to false hood and unethical means for achieving her goal. To achieve personal gain, she doesn’t agitate to take shelter of false hood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts before this Hon’ble Court. It is a settled law that who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure 6 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016 fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

 13.The pleadings of the respondent clearly shows that she does not have any respect for truth and the same certainly amounts to abuse of process of law and as such she is not entitled to claim any relief from this Hon’ble Court. It is a settled law that the real object of

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to keep out of courts irresponsible suits.

As the respondent has not made out any rights to sue, the plaint is liable to be rejected. There is no cause of action at all to file the present suit by the respondent. Hence the petition.

14.Counter affidavit filed by the respondent/ Plaintiff by denying the contents of the petitioner affidavit. Mainly pleads that will is in the custody of the petitioner and he is not to choose to file before the Hon’ble Court. Petitioner himself admitted respondent boundaries and all the documents with the petitioner only and it is triable issues.

Respondent filed IA 280/2017 and the lispendency of the case the petitioner demolish the part of suit schedule property by stating that permission taken from GHMC but so far no documents has filed by the petitioner. There is a specific cause of action in the suit from July, 2017 to continuation in FIR 67 of 2011 filed against the petitioner by the respondent. There is no date of demanding of extent of money neither in averments and no demand the statement is defamatory statement.

15.It is submitted that as enrollment in Bar Council of AP and present address was mentioned as House no.3­4­306/9 as per respondent ID enrollment, it does not meant for the office address, 7 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016 petitioner failed to file any prove before the court conveying of property in his name. Suit is coming for trial and it is filed in the year 2016 and at this stage rejection of plaint petition is not maintainable. It is settled law that plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or application for the rejection of the plaint. The court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does then the plaint cannot rejected by the court exercising the powers under Order 11 Rule 1(a) of the code. 

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as prayed by the petitioner ?

Heard both. The learned counsel for petitioner argued the contents of the petition and learned counsel for respondent argued the counter affidavit contents.

17.The law is well settled that for rejection of the plaint under

Order 7 Rule 11 only averments of the plaint and not contents of the written statement or petitioner affidavit contents. The learned counsel

for respondent has relied LAWS (DLH) 2013 7 366, High Court of

Delhi, Hon’ble Justice Sri. Jayant Nath J., dt:17.07.2013 is

between Sameena Abidin versus Zubair Ul Abidin. 

18.On perusing the above citations the Hon’ble high Court also held for rejection of the plaint only the averments of the plaint.

The learned counsel for petitioner has relied following citations: AIR

1977 Supreme Court 2421 between T. Arivandandam Petitioner

vs. T.V. Satyapal and another respondents. In which the Hon’ble 8 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016

Apex Court has held plaint is liable for rejection if there is no cause of action. For the same proposition also relied 2015 (3) ALD 508,

Between P. Pushpamala Reddy, vs. Janga Raghava Reddy . 

19.After perusing the above citations relied by the both counsels that for rejection of the plaint only averments of the plaint can be looked and it can be read as a whole. Further vexatious or frivolous suits can be rejected at threshold.As such only averments of the plaint can be looked for the rejection of the plaint. As per Order 7

Rule 11 CPC, the following grounds for rejection of the plaint: ((a).

where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b). where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the

Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c). where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d). where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e).

where it is not filed in duplicate; (f). where the plaintiff fails comply with the provisions of Rule9)).

20.On perusing the averments of the plaint in brief: plaintiff worked as a junior advocate with D1/ petitioner since from July, 2007, to August, 2009. Smt. Vimala Devi sister of D1 and wife of

Senior Advocate and freedom fighter Late A Satyanarayana. Vimala

Devi treated the plaintiff as a daughter. Plaintiff got personal acquaintance with her and Vimala Devi used to show love and 9 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016 affection. D1 staying in the house of Vimala Devi till his marriage and

D1 got marriage in the year 1989. D1 Living separately and attending office of Satyanarayana. Late A Satyanrayana executed a will in favour of Vimala Devi for southern side portion and for D1 northern side portion in respect of suit schedule property in the year 1997. A.

Satyanarayana died in the year 1999. Vimala Devi executed a will in favour of D1 for southern side portion of suit schedule property that

D1 look after her love and affection. D1 came to know that Vimala

Devi showing love and affection towards the plaintiff and even sharing personal things before the D1.

21. D1 stated to plaintiff not to talk with Vimala Devi since then plaintiff came to the office as usual and Vimala Devi expressed that she want to cancel the will executed in favour of D1 and want to execute will deed in favour of D1. Plaintiff stated to D1 that D1 and his family members not caring of Vimala Devi old aged person then D1 started harassing the plaintiff and created quarrels and removed the plaintiff from the office with the help of D2. Further alleged in the plaint about outrage of modesty of the plaintiff on 16.06.2009 and also pleads other things which are not relevant for this IA purpose.

22.Also pleaded D1 requested and promised the plaintiff to marry by managing his wife and lived together happily for some period but same could not be materialized due to the suit schedule property is belonging to plaintiff to grab the suit schedule property.

23.Also pleaded in the plaint plaintiff left the D1 office due to

D1 misdeeds and lustful actions against the plaintiff. Also pleaded in para 6 of the plaint Smt. A. Vimala Devi requested the plaintiff after 10 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016 her demise plaintiff should in continue possession in the said house with her movable and immovable properties and which is last day wish of Vimala Devi. Plaintiff has filed the present suit only to fulfill

Smt. A Vimala Devi wish. Vimala Devi died on 16.03.2016 at Kamala

Hospital at Dilshuknagar. Para no.8 and 9 of the plaint with regard to

FIR 67 of 2011 and 365/2012 and crime 215/2012. Para no.9 of the plaint D1 filed counter case vide CC 125/2013 and renumbered CC 1/2014.

24.Para no.10 complaint given by the plaintiff to Chief

Judge,City Civil Court, against D1 and Chief Judge appointed 3 panel

advocates and the matter is still pending. Para no.11 of the plaint D1 asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit property immediately and threatened the plaintiff. Para no.13 cause of action mentioned that on 15.10.2016 at 1.00 pm and on 26.10.2016 at 3.00 pm defendants came along with social elements and try to evict the plaintiff from suit schedule property and also on 28.10.2016 and plaintiff has approached PS Kachiguda to lodged complaint. Hence the suit for perpetual injunction.

25.On through perusal of the pleadings of the plaint plaintiff herself mentioned that she worked in the office of D1 July, 2007 to august 2009. Also pleads that Late Vimala Devi who was wife of

Senior advocate Satyanarayana and said Satyanrayana executed a will in favour of Vimala Devi for southern side portion and for D1 northern side portion in respect of suit schedule property in the year 1997.

Vimala Devi executed a will in favour of D1 for southern side portion.

11 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016

As such D1 is absolute owner of the suit properly as per the plaint pleadings.

26.No where in the plaint mentioned how plaintiff got posses­ sion and title over the suit property but stated in para 3 of the plaint

Vimala Devi wants to cancel the will in favour of D1 and want to exe­ cute gift deed in favour of plaintiff. Para no.5 of the plaint the plaintiff mentioned that she left the office of D1 due to misdeeds and lustful actions against the plaintiff. On which date plaintiff again got posses­ sion over the suit property also not mentioned. In para 6 of the plaint mentioned suit is filed by the plaintiff only to fulfill last day wish of

Smt Vimala Devi. In para 6 it is mentioned Vimala Devi requested the plaintiff after her death plaintiff should be in continue possession in the said house with movable and immediately properties of Vimala

Devi.

27.Vimala Devi died on 16.03.2016. the cause of actions mentioned in the plaint on 15.10.2016 and 26.10.2016 when defen­ dants tried to dispossess her from suit property. In a suit for perpet­ ual injunction possession has to be looked. Admittedly as per the plaint pleadings she joined office of Satyanrayana as a junior advocate and D1 is adoptive son of Satyanaryana and Vimala Devi. Admit­ ted fact that as per the plaint for suit property will stands in the name of D1. There is no whisper in the pleadings of the plaint how plaintiff got possession over the suit property under which document. Plaintiff herself pleads late Vimala Devi executed a will in favour of D1.

12 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016

28.On one hand plaintiff pleads she left the office and no pleading when she again got possession of the suit property. However clever drafting of the plaint but there is no cause of action as plaintiff herself she left the office. On keen perusal of the plaint there is a bit­ ter enmity between the plaintiff and D1 and also criminal complaints prior to cause of action dates i.e., 15.10.2016 and 26.10.2016 as men­ tioned by the plaintiff. The pleadings of the plaint contradictory with regard to the possession and title. Plaintiff one hand claims to fulfill last wish of Vimala Devi she filed the suit and on the other hand she is in possession and defendants tried to evict.

29.After perusing the plaint averments plaintiff claiming title from Vimala Devi as orally and calming possession of suit property and also pleads she left the office. All these contradiction pleadings shows that plaint is drafted without any cause of action. When plain­ tiff pleads she herself left the office and no mention again when she got possession. From the above discussion there is no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants. Accordingly plaint is liable for rejection. In the result, petition is allowed. However without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of January,

2019.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD. 

13 I.A.No.534 of 18 IN O.S.No.2713 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

NONE NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER: 

­NIL­

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:

­NIL­

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD.

1 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL

COURT, HYDERABAD 

 THURSDAY THE 31 st DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

PRESENT: SRI B.SRINIVASULU,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

 I.A.No.138 OF 2018 

IN 

O.S.No.1122 OF 2018 

Between:

01. Mrs. Najmunnisa Begum, W/o. Late Syed Siddique Hussain, Aged:59 years, Occ: Household.

02. Mr. Syed Salman Hussain, S/o. Syed Siddiq Hussain, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Business,

Both are residing at H.No.17­9­318, Karmguda, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. (T.S.) Both are represented by their General Power of Attorney.

03. Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin, S/o. Late Mohd. Fariduddin, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10­2­318/A/C/22, RBI Colony, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad, Vide resgistered document No.84/BokIV/2018, dt:14­ 05­2018.

...Petitioners/Plaintiffs

A n d 

01. Smt. R. Bhujatha W/o. R. Srinivas, Reddy, aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1­7­272/1, Musheerabad, Bakaram, Hyderabad, (T.S.)

02. Smt. R. Vijay Lakshmi, W/o. D. Sanjeeva Reddy, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1­7­272/1, Musheerabad, Bakaram, Hyderabad.

03. R. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Not known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1­7­272/1, Musheerabad, Bakaram, Hyderabad, (T.S.).

 ...Respondents/Defendants

This Petition coming before me in the presence of Sri

Ayub Mohiuddin Ansari, Advocate for Petitioners and Sri B. Thirmal

Reddy, Advocate for Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018

 ORDER

This Petition is filed Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to grant an exparte ad­interim Injunction order restraining the defendants, his agents, henchmen, servants or anybody claiming through them may kindly be restrained from interfering in the plaintiffs possession and their peaceful enjoyment in schedule property bearing Plot No.7 and 8, in Sy.No.35/179, total admeasuring 500 square yards, under ward no.1 (3) T.S. No.35 CA 15/69, situated at Risala, Zamistannpur,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 

2.The brief averments of the petition are that, the petitioner is the

General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiffs and the suit is filed for perpetual injunction. Petitioners / plaintiffs are the absolute owners and peaceful possessor of the property bearing Plot No. 7 and 8, in Sy.No.35/179, total admeasuring 500 square yards, under ward no.1 (3) T.S. No.35 CA 15/69, situated at Risala, Zamistannpur,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad Telangana State herein after suit referred as schedule property.

3.Originally late Syed Siddique Hussain S/o.Syed Yaqoob Hussain purchased the property, land bearing Sy.No.35/179 under ward no.1

TS No.35, CA 15/69 situated at Zamistanpur, Risala, Musheerabad,

Hyderabad admeasuring 3872 square yards through registered sale deed vide document no.644/1971, dt:11­03­1971, the certified copy of the said document is filed in main case. After purchasing the land it was made in subdivision and layout was sanctioned by Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation, the certified copy of the said plan is filed as document no.2. The suit schedule property is apart of this plan shown as Plot no.7 and 8 in this plan. During his life time he enjoyed 3 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018 the said property as its owner and peaceful possessor till his death.

He died on 05­05­1995. Plaintiff no.1 is a wife and plaintiff no.2 is a son of deceased late Syed Siddique Hussain, After his death plaintiff no.1 and 2 succeeded the said property as his legal heirs and having lawful title and physical possession over the schedule property.

4.Petitioners/ plaintiffs constructed boundary wall and two rooms in the suit schedule property. The petitioners/ plaintiffs are peacefully enjoying the said property since the date of purchase of the property.

The respondent having no right and interest started interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioners since 2014. In the month of

September, 2014 the representative of petitioners/ plaintiffs Mohd.

Gayas Quershi went to the schedule property to clean the debris, mud and bushes, in the said process the respondents and their henchmen came to the said property and tried to trespass into the said property and when he along with wife have objected and questioned about their illegal acts, then they threatened them with dire consequences and warned to leave from the said property. 

5.Complaint was lodged on 13.09.2014 and also on 09.10.2014

before PS Musheerabad, Hyderabad and the police did not taken any

action. A complaint was lodged on which FIR 40 of 2015 was registered. On 15.05.2018 respondents also tried to dispossess. Hence the suit for Permanent Injunction and this application for Temporary

Injunction.

6. In the counter affidavit specifically denied the allegations of the petition affidavit. Admitted that Syed Siddiq Hussain was absolute owner and possessor of land covered in Sy.No.35/179, situated at

Zamistanpur, Risala, Musheerabad, Hyderabad admeasuring 3872 4 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018 square yards through registered sale deed vide document no.644/1971, dt:15­03­1971, registered in the office of Joint Sub­

Registrar, Hyderabad, purchased from his previous vendor.

Thereafter, he divided the said land into plots and constructed house there on and one of them, being the suit schedule property.

7.Syed Siddiq Hussain alienated the part of the said property i.e., all that house bearing Municipal No.1­7­138/7, admeasuring 277.00 square yards or 231.57 square meters, situated at Musheerabad,

Zamistanpur, Risala, Hyderabad, in favour of one V. SubbaRao, S/o.

Basavaiah under a registered sale deed bearing document

No.2766/1978, dt:21.06.1978 for valuable sale consideration. And the said V. SubbaRao, thereafter, out of the 277.00 square yards, sold an extent of 230.00 square yards or 192.28 square meters, situated at

Risala, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad in favour of (1) Sri. D.

Krishna Reddy, S/o. D. Rami Reddy and (2) Smt. D. Vinoda, W/o. Sri.

D. Mohan Reddy under a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document

No.2225/1987, dt:10.11.1987, which was pending and later on registered as Document No.2115/1988 for valuable sale consideration.

And thereafter, the above said D. Krishna Reddy, S/o. D. Rami Reddy and Smt. D. Vinoda, W/o. D. Mohan Reddy, sold the above said property i.e., all that the house bearing Municipal No.1­7­138/7, admeasuring 230.00 square yards or 192.28 square meters, situated at Musheerabad, Zamistanpur, Risala, Hyderabad in favour of (1) Smt.

R. Bujatha, W/o. R. Srinivas Reddy and (2) Smt. R. Vijaya Lakshmi,

W/o. D. Sanjeeva Reddy under a registered sale deed document bearing no.36/1996, dt:04.01.1996 for valuable sale consideration, who are the respondents/defendants no.1 and 2 herein.

5 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018

8.The said Syed Siddiq Hussain out of his total property as stated above, alienated another part of the said property i.e., all that house bearing Municipal No.1­7­138/8, admeasuring 230.00 square yards or 192.28 sqare meters , situated at Musheerabad, Zamistanpur, Risala,

Hyderabad, in favour of one K. Rupender Reddy, S/o. K. Narayan

Reddy under a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document

No.2530/1978, dt:19.05.1978 for valuable sale consideration.

Thereafter, the said K. Rupender Reddy alienated the said property i.e., all that house bearing Municipal No.1­7­138/8, admeasuring 230.00 square yards or 192.28 square meters, situated at

Musheerabad, Zamistanpur, Risala, Hyderabad in favour of (1) D.

Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. D. Sanjeeva Reddy and (2) R. Bujatha, W/o. R.

Srinivas Reddy, under a Registered Sale deed bearing Document

No.2114/1988, who are respondents/ defendants no.1 and 2 herein.

9.Thus, the respondents/ defendants no.1 and 2 by virtue of the above said two registered sale deeds bearing document no.s 36/1996,

dt:04.01.1996 and 2114/1988, became the absolute owners and

possessors of the house bearing nos. 1­7­138/7 and 1­7­138/8, totally admeasuring 460 square yards, situated at Risala, Zamistanpur,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad, totally bounded by North: House bearing

No.1­7­138/6, South: House bearing No.1­7­138/9, East: Road, West:

Lane. 

10.Respondents are exclusive possessors and enjoyment of the absolute owners thereof without anybody’s interference till today which is being covered by a compound wall and a room, which was constructed by the original owner of the land i.e., Syed Siddiq

Hussain. One Md. Gayas Qureshi got issued false legal notice 6 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018

dt:10.10.2014 to the respondents alleging that he is the authority

holder of the title holder and agreement holder for a house bearing no.1­7­138/7 and 1­7­138/8, totally admeasuring 500 square yards, forming part of Sy.No.35/179, under ward no.1 (3) T.S.No.35 CA 15/69, situated at Risala, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

The said notice alleged that respondent are trespassing by demolishing the compound wall on the eastern side and the room inside.

11. Then reply notice issued through Sri. T. Sudhakar Reddy on 10.10.2014 by denying the contents of legal notice and also right and interest over the suit property. No rejoinder has been filed to the reply notice. Hence the present suit barred by limitation. By virtue of registered sale deeds document nos. 36/1996 and 2114/1988 respondents are absolute owners and possessors of the house property bearing no.1­7­138/7 and 1­7­138/8 admeasuring 460 sq yards, situated at Risala, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad totally bounded by North: House bearing no.1­7­138/6, South: House bearing No.1­7­138/9, East: Road, West: Lane. Hence suit against respondents are not maintainable as respondents are true owners of the suit schedule property.

12.During life time of Syed Siddique Hussain alienated the suit property in favour of vendors of respondents herein as such claim of petitioners is bogus and illegal. Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

13.During enquiry on behalf of the petitioner Exs.P1 to P6 documents are marked. Ex.P1 is the Registered Sale Deed, dt.11­03­ 1971. Ex.P2 is the Approved layout plan of schedule property showing the part land as plot nos. 7 and 8, dt.27­11­1982.

7 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018

Ex.P3 is the FIR under Cr.No.40 of 2015, dt.16­02­2015. Ex.P4 is the

GPA vide document No.84/ Book IV/ 2018, Dated:14.05.2018. Ex.P5 is the Photographs. Ex.P6 is the Complaint to SHO, dated:25.05.2018.

14.On behalf of Respondent Exs.R1 to R10 documents are marked.

Ex.R1 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.644/1971,

dt:11.03.1971, Ex.R2 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed

Doc.No.2766/1978, dt:17.07.1978, Ex.R3 is the Certified Copy of Sale

Deed Doc.No.2115/1988, dt:10.11.1987, Ex.R4 is the Certified Copy of

Sale Deed Doc.No.36/1996, dt:04.01.1996, Ex.R5 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.2530/1978, dt:06.07.1978, Ex.R6 is the Certified

Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.2114/1988, dt:10.11.1987, Ex.R7 is the

Office Copy of Legal Notice issued by P. Sharan Kumar, dt:10.10.2014,

Ex.R8 is the Reply Notice to P. Sharan Kumar, dt:16.10.2014,

Ex.R9 is the Xerox Copy of FIR, dt:16.02.2015, Ex.R10 is the

Photographs and C.D’s.

15.Heard both. 

Now the Point for consideration whether petitioners are

entitled for Temporary injunction to till disposal of the main

suit?

16.Heard the both counsels and pursed the record. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that there is no dispute about the title and possession of the Syed Siddiqi Hussain. Plaintiff

No.1 is wife and Plaintiff no.2 son of deceased Syed Siddique Hussain.

Being LRS they succeeded the suit property. A police complaint also lodged for illegal interference. Ex.P2 also discloses that the suit property was made into plots. Ex.P1 to P6 documents clearly proves title and possession of the petitioners. Due to illegal interference of 8 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018 the respondents suit is filed. The admitted facts need not be proved.

Title of the Syed Siddqiue Hussain undisputed one. Petitioners being

LRS having title and possession and entitled for temporary injunction.

Police also registered a case under Ex.P3.

17.Per contra the learned counsel for respondent has vehemently argued during life time of Syed Siddqiue Hussain he alienated the property in favour of the vendors of respondent. P1 to P6 does not disclose title and possession of the petitioners. Respondents and their vendors purchased long back. Since the 460 square yards of land, respondents kept vacant to grab it this false suit is filed. There is no cause of action and police has filed final report. Ex.P2 does not stands in the name of Syed Siddiqi Hussain. Petitioners are not approached the court with clean hands and there is no whisper about the alienations made by the Syed Siddiqi Hussain during his life time petitioners are not having any prima facie balance of convenience irreparable loss in their favour. The suit is speculative one and false one to grab the property of the respondents.

18.After hearing both at length to grant temporary injunction petition has to prove prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. Besides all the above the conduct of the petitioners also to be looked to grant injunction as it is equitable relief.

Who seeks injunction must come to the court with clean hands. Their is no dispute with regard to the Ex.P1 document that Syed Siddqiue

Hussain is the original owner and possessor of the house property in land bearing Sy.No.35/179 admeasuring 3872 square yards. Late

Syed Siddique Hussain has purchased the 3872 sq yards under Ex.P1 long back in the year 1971. Thus now the suit schedule property is 9 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018 bearing plot no.7 and 8 in Sy.No.35/179 total admeasuring 500 sq.

yards. Onus is on the petitioners/ plaintiffs at first prove that after alienations the suit schedule property is balanced available land left by the deceased Syed Siddiqi Hussain.

19.Admittedly there is no pleading about the alienations made by the Syed Siddiqi Hussain. Respondents pleads their vendors purchased from Syed Siddiqi Hussain. Under Ex.R2 i.e., 21.06.1978,

Syed Siddiqi Hussain alienated 277 square yards in favour of V. Subba

Rao. The said Subba Rao executed Sale deed though GPA holder D.

Krishna Reddy and D. Vinoda in the year 1998 ie., under Ex.R3. The purchasers under Ex.R3 executed sale deed in favour of the R.

Bhujatha, R.Vijayalakshmi i.e., R1 and R2 under Ex.R4 in the year 1996, under Ex.R5 Syed Siddiqi Hussain has sold 272 square yards in the year,1978, in favour of K. Rupender Reddy, under Ex.R6 the

Rupender Reddy through his GPA holder sold the same in favour of R.

Vijayalakshmi, W/o. D. Sanjeeva Reddy and R. Bhujatha, W/o. R.

Srinivas Reddy ie., R2 and R1. Hence R1 to R3 vendors originally purchased from Syed Siddiqi Hussain. During life time of Syed Siddiqi

Hussain he alienated the house plots. Even perusing Ex.P2 it stands name of one Narsingh Rao, not in the name of deceased Siddiqi

Hussain.

20.On perusing the Ex.R7 notice which was issued by the Gayas

Qureshi by stating as agreement holder. Reply notice also given under

Ex.R8. And Ex.R10 photos are inside of the property whereas photos filed by the petitioner are outside of the property. None of the documents filed by the petitioners to show their prima facie possessions and balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their 10 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018 favour. Granting of injunction is equitable relief. Petitioners not approached the court with clean hands. Mearly Ex.P1 stands on the name of the deceased Syed Siddiqi Hussain, they want to grab the property of the respondents who purchased under registered sale deed and respondents vendor originally purchased from Syed Siddiqi

Hussain. Petitioners who are claiming legal heirs of Syed Sddiqi

Hussain are estoped to deny the alienations in favour of respondents vendors.

21. Moreover petitioners absolutely failed to explain how the balance land available to them and said available land interfered by the respondents. Case of respondents substantiated with sale deeds.

And Ex.R1 to R10 clearly proves title and possessions of the respondents for 460 square yards as pleaded in the counter. If any injunction is granted in favour of the petitioners they will dispossess the respondents. No rejoinder also filed to deny the contents of counter affidavit. Hence from the above discussion petitioners are not entitled for injunction. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with costs.

22.In the result, this Petition is dismissed. However with costs.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of January,

2019.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD. 

11 I.A.No.138 of 18 IN O.S.No.1122 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

NONE NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER: 

Ex.P1 is the Registered Sale Deed, dt.11­03­1971.

Ex.P2 is the Approved layout plan of schedule property showing the part land as plot nos. 7 and 8, dt.27­11­1982. 

Ex.P3 is the FIR under Cr.No.40 of 2015, dt.16­02­2015.

Ex.P4 is the GPA vide document No.84/ Book IV/ 2018,

Dated:14.05.2018.

Ex.P5 is the Photographs.

Ex.P6 is the Complaint to SHO, dated:25.05.2018.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:

Ex.R1 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.644/1971,

dt:11.03.1971, 

Ex.R2 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.2766/1978,

dt:17.07.1978, 

Ex.R3 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.2115/1988,

dt:10.11.1987, 

Ex.R4 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.36/1996,

dt:04.01.1996, 

Ex.R5 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.2530/1978,

dt:06.07.1978, 

Ex.R6 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.2114/1988,

dt:10.11.1987, 

Ex.R7 is the Office Copy of Legal Notice issued by P. Sharan Kumar,

dt:10.10.2014,

Ex.R8 is the Reply Notice to P. Sharan Kumar, dt:16.10.2014,

Ex.R9 is the Xerox Copy of FIR, dt:16.02.2015, 

Ex.R10 is the Photographs and C.D’s

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD.