1
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: Smt.C.R.Sumalatha, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.
Wednesday, the 8th day of January, 2020.
O.S 2108/2014
Between:
Sri Bantupalli Suryanarayana, S/o. late Appala Swamy, aged 62 years, Resident of door No.950, Opposite Shivalayam, Old Adavivaram, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam28.
... Plaintiff
And:
1.Palla Venkata Ramana, S/o. Venkata Swamy, aged 62 years, Hindu, residing at Door No.29/44/41, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.
2.Smt. Vadlamuri Suryavathi, W/o. Viswanadharaju, aged 55 years, Hindu, Door No.15681, T.V. Towers Colony, Adivivaram village, Visakhapatnam.
3.Smt. Dendukuri Vijaya Bharati Sita, W/o. Somaraju, aged 60 years, Hindu, residing at Door No.1188, T.V. Towers colony, Adavivaram village, Visakhapatnam.
4.Smt. Logisa Jayalakshmi, W/o. Suri Babu, aged 45 years, Hindu, residing at 9208, Ghat Road, near Ganesh Temple, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam.
...Defendants
This suit coming on 18122019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Maheswara Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendants and the same having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking cancellation of sale deed bearing No.13745/84 dated 15111984 and for declaration that the sale deeds bearing Nos.3010/87 dated 27041987 as well as sale deeds
Nos.2228/07 and 2229/07 dated 23072007 are false, invalid, non est, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and to send a copy of the decree to the Sub
Registrar, Gopalapatnam to make a note of the same in the books of the office and for consequential relief of mandatory direction directing the 2nd defendant 2
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
to deliver vacant possession of plaint “B” schedule property to the plaintiff after removing illegal constructions made therein during the pendency of the suit and if the defendants failed to deliver the same, the plaintiff may be permitted to take possession of the plaint “B” schedule property after removing the same through the court of law and to recover costs from the defendants and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents whoever acting on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that:
The great grandfather of plaintiff late Bantupilli Appayya acquired Ac.4.53 cents of Zeroythi dry land in Survey No.39/1 of Adavivaram village,
Visakhapatnam through his ancestors and died intestate about a century back leaving behind him his two sons by names Bantupilli Yellayya and Bantupilli
Venkayya. Bantupilli Yellayya has one son by name Bantupilli Appalaswamy, the plaintiff is the only son of Bantupilli Appalaswamy. Bantupilli Venkayya had one son by name Bantupilli Mutyalu and daughter Nookalamma, she died issueless and her husband predeceased her. The said Bantupilli Mutyalu has four sons by names Suryanarayana, Apparao, Sanyasi Rao and Trinadh. About four decades back the property acquired by Appayya was orally partitioned among his sons Yellayya and Venkayya in two equal halves, the plaintiff being only son of Bantupalli Appalaswamy acquired Ac. 2.26 cents out of Ac.4.53 cents. The plaint schedule property is part and parcel of said Ac.2.26 cents acquired by the plaintiff in oral partition and the name of the plaintiff was also entered in revenue records and plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same for the last several decades. The plaintiff further submits that in view of hike of land prices and in view of threat the plaintiff has displayed a notice board in order to protect the property from unlawful encroachers indicating that the schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and encroachers 3
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
will be prosecuted. On 09022014 the plaintiff learnt that some unscrupulous elements removed the notice board from the schedule property high handedly without any manner of right, title or interest over suit schedule property and on that the plaintiff presented the report before Station House Officer,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam and same is registered as case in Cr.No.39/14 for the offences under Sections 379 and 447 of Indian Penal Code. On the next day Police conducted inquiry, but due to involvement of highly influential political person Police started acting detrimental to his interest on that, on 1109 2014 he made a representation to Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Visakhapatnam. After lapse of two months the Police served notice intimating that the case is referred as civil in nature. On the representation of plaintiff
dated 21112014 under Right to Information Act Police served copy of final
report along with copy of sale deed bearing No.13745/1984 dated 15111984 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff surprised that the 1st defendant has fabricated false document to grab plaint schedule property and there is no such person by name Appala Narasamma in the family of Bantupilli people and the said document does not create any right, title or interest over suit schedule property and same is created with an ulterior motive to grab plaint schedule property and to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The said impugned sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff and the same is fabricated nominally in a collusive conspiracy to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. If the said document left outstanding it may cause serious injury and affect the plaintiff’s legal remedies and plaintiff has no other option except seeking cancellation of sale deed. The plaintiff further submits that taking advantage of the Police inaction the defendant hatched an evil idea to grab plaint schedule property from the possession of the plaintiff and to materialize their evil design on 20122014 at about 3 PM 1st defendant accompanied by other defendants along with some unscrupulous elements came to suit schedule property and attempted to trespass into plaint schedule property without any right, title or interest over the 4
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
plaint schedule property which is resisted by the plaintiff informing that he is taking steps for cancellation of false and fabricated sale deed. On that the defendants proclaimed that 1st defendant already created multifarious documents in the name of other defendants to create multiplicity of litigations.
Even if the documents were created by the 1st defendant to harass the plaintiff it will not confer any valid right or title since the document which is sought for cancellation in this suit is the source document which is being sought for cancellation and it is the settled law that nobody can convey better title than what he has. The plaintiff is in very reasonable apprehension of repetition of attempt of interference by the defendants with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit seeking cancellation of document as well as the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.
3.Subsequent to filing of written statements by the defendants the plaintiff filed neat copy of plaintiff as per orders in I.A 578/2018 dated 22112018 stating that the defendants 1 to 4 were not related to each other in any way, the 1st defendant in his written statement introduced a new plea that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of property acquired by means of document bearing No.3010/1987 said to have been executed by one Kollu Satyarao alleged General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff. Under the said document 1st defendant acquired 227 sq.yards of vacant site and later he sold an extent of 200 sq.yards to 4th defendant under an unregistered sale deed
dated 15072005 and delivered possession to him and 4th defendant is in
possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of plaintiff that apart 1st defendant averred that 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property right from the beginning when he acquired the same under unregistered sale deed dated 15111984 and he did not part the said property to anybody much less to defendants 2 and 3. The defendants were never in 5
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property at any point of time and entire version put forth by the defendants are all untrue and false and invented to grab suit schedule property from the possession of plaintiff. Since the document introduced by the defendant contains the recital that suit schedule property forms part and parcel of layout in PR No.99 dated 08011971, the plaintiff made a representation to the Commissioner, GVMC, Visakhapatnam to ascertain the bonafidies of the claim made by the defendant and to secure copies of layout particulars under Right to Information Act, in response to his representation the officials of the Corporation issued reply dated 18032015 intimating that layout particulars will only be available at the Office of
Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and thereafter the plaintiff approached the officials of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority who in turn advised to approach the Corporation vide its letter in RC 5041/2015/L$
dated 27082015. On that the plaintiff submitted another representation under
Section 6 of Right to Information Act to the Corporation, as the Corporation officials failed to respond within stipulated time he preferred statutory appeal to
State Commission, Andhra Pradesh who issued show cause notice to the
Corporation as well as the officials of VUDA and on that the officials of
Corporation and VUDA issued information intimating that neither the VUDA nor the Corporation has approved the said layout in PR No.99 dated 08011971 vide letter dated 06112015.
4.The plaintiff further submits that on 30082017 i.e., during pendency of suit the 2nd defendant along with her henchmen who is popularly known as Shadow
E0 by name D.V.S.R.Raju high handedly trespassed into plaint B schedule property by use of force and attempted to make illegal constructions without any manner of right, title or interest. Though the plaintiff made an attempt to curb their illegal acts the plaintiff could not resist their illegal and highhanded acts submitted a report to the Police, the Police instead of curbing illegal acts of the defendant they extended all the help for making illegal constructions in 6
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
plaint B schedule property. The 2nd defendant taking advantage of support of
Police occupied plaint B schedule property and raised asbestos sheet shed with two portions surrounded by compound wall. Later the plaintiff made representation to the Commissioner, GVMC to remove the illegal constructions, the Zonal Commissioner visited the suit schedule property to verify the construction, the said D.V.S.R.Raju produced sale deed bearing No.2229/07
dated 23032007 said to have executed by 1st defendant. Plaintiff further
submits that the plaint B schedule property is lying within the limits of Sri Varaha
Narasimha Swamy Devastanam and the dispute between the Endowment
Department and original land owners were not resolved till today and in view of subsisting dispute the Registration Department is neither entertaining any kind of registrations nor the officials of Endowments allowing any individual to make constructions in the entire area, nevertheless they have accommodated the defendants to raise illegal constructions as they were employees of
Devasthanam. The 1st defendant with the aid of spurious document of the year 1984 created two sale deeds bearing Document Nos.2229/07 and 2228/07
dated 23032007 in the names of defendants 2 to 4 respectively, those
documents establishes that there were lot of discrepancies with regard to measurements and boundaries comparatively with 1984 which itself suffice to infer that they are fabricated by virtue of suit document and those documents will not create any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and the executants of impugned documents implies that the defendants in collusive conspiracy fabricated documents to defeat the legitimate rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has reasonable apprehension that those documents if left outstanding may cause serious injury and affect his legal remedies. Hence the plaintiff has been seeking additional relief of declaration that the document
Nos. 3010/87 dated 27041987 or documents bearing No.2228/07 dated 2303 2007 are false, invalid and non est in the eye of law and not binding on the 7
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
plaintiff and for removal of illegal constructions made therein during pendency of the suit. Hence the suit.
5.Denying the averments made in the plaint Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the documents filed by the plaintiff do not give any right, title or interest over suit schedule property to the plaintiff and all those documents are between plaintiff and Police about which the defendants have no knowledge prior to filing of the suit. An entry in No.10 (1) Account which is undated will not give any right and title to the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property, the plaintiff managed to obtain the same from Revenue Department in order to serve the purpose of the plaintiff for his present suit. A copy of registered sale deed dated 15111984 in favour of 1st defendant was executed about 21 years back and same was true and valid document, the 1st defendant took delivery of the property on the same day and ever since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff who is resident of
Adavivaram has much knowledge about the document of the year 1984 i.e., about 21 years back and plaintiff brought forward the sale deed having obtained under R.T.I. Act to make the court believe that he came to know about the said document only after he received copy of sale deed from the
Police Department. The suit is liable to be rejected by applying provision under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC since the plaint allegations and the document filed along with plaint clinchingly proved that the suit is liable be rejected without proceeding further in the matter. The 1st defendant further contended that 1st defendant acquired vacant land of an extent of 227 sq.yards covered by Plot
No.91 of an approved layout of Adavivaram Panchayat in its PR No.99 dated 09011971 in Survey No.39/1 within the limits of Adivivaram Panchayat under registered sale deed dated 27041987 from the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff under the powers vested by the plaintiff over the GPA holder under the registered GPA bearing Document No.17/87 of Sub Registrar’s
Office, Visakhapatnam. The sale deed was registered by the GPA holder by 8
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
name Kollu Satya Rao vide Document bearing No.3010/1987 in favour of 1st defendant, in the sale deed the Southern boundary is shown as Plot No.92 of the purchaser i.e., 1st defendant, even it is clear by 1987 itself that the plaintiff knew that the Southern side owner of property under sale deed is none other than the 1st defendant himself and vendor of the plaintiff is none other than the plaintiff represented by his GPA holder. The 4th defendant acquired an extent of 200 sq.yards out of 227 sq.yards covered by Plot No.92 from 1st defendant who acquired 227 sq.yards from the plaintiff through his registered GPA holder. The 4th defendant acquired the said property under an unregistered sale deed
dated 15072005 from the 1st defendant, his wife and their 2 sons and they
delivered possession and enjoyment of the same to the 4th defendant and those transactions are within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as the plaintiff’s case is that it is an ancestral property succeeded by 5 or 6 generations and full details of original owner are not furnished because it is not a suit for permanent injunction and the same is a comprehensive suit. The property sold to 4th defendant by the 1st defendant is another property and not part of the property he acquired under the registered sale deed in the year 1984. The suit is barred by law of limitation as the suit is not filed within the period of limitation and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
6.The defendants 2 to 4 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement filed by 1st defendant.
7.Basing on the pleadings of plaint and written statement the following issues have been framed for trial:
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 15111984 bearing Document No.13745/1984 or not?
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
9
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
5.Whether the suit is barred by limitation or not?
6.To what relief?
8.During the course of trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and through him certified copy of 10 (1) Adangal issued by Village Revenue Officer,
Adavivaram for the year 1999 to 2000 is marked as Ex.A1, certified copy of the extract of survey and settlement register of Adavivaram obtained under RTI Act is marked as Ex.A2, Served copy of FIR in Crime No.39/14 of Gopalapatnam
Police Station is marked as Ex.A3, Original copy of letter issued by GVMC is marked as Ex.A4, certified copy of sale deed dated 23032007 stands in the name of Logisa Jayalakshmi is marked as Ex.A5, certified copy of sale deed stands in the name of Vadlamuri Suryavathi is marked as Ex.A6, certified copy of sale deed dated 27041987 stands in the name of Palla Venkata Ramana is marked as Ex.A7, letter issued by the Public Information Officer, VUDA vide RC
No.5041/2015/L4 dated 27082015 is marked as Ex.A8, letter issued by Assistant
Engineer, Gopalapatnam dated 17092017 to the plaintiff under RTI Act is marked as Ex.A9, Copy of report dated 11092014 addressed to the
Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam is marked as Ex.A10, acknowledgment
dated 15112014 issued by the Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam,
Visakhapatnam is marked as Ex.A11, Information given by Inspector of Police,
Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam to the plaintiff pertaining to Crime No.39/14 of
Gopalapatnam Police Station is marked as Ex.A12, certified copy of sale deed
dated 15111984 stands in the name of Venkata Ramana is marked as Ex.A13,
Endorsement given by the Zonal Commissioner, GVMC under RTI Act vide RTI
No.53/2015 dated 19032014 is marked as Ex.A14, copy of order passed by
Andhra Pradesh Information Commission in Complaint Case No.26876/SIC
CMR/2015 in Appeal Case No.22986/SICCMR/2015 dated 16092015 is marked 10
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
as Ex.A15, copy of complaint dated 30082017 given to Sub Inspector of Police,
Gopalapatnam is marked as Ex.A16.
On behalf of defendants, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.
9.Heard arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendants
10.ISSUES 1 TO 5:
To prove the case of plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A16 and deposed that his paternal great grandfather late
Bantupalli Appayya acquired an extent of Ac.4.53 cents in Survey No.39/1 of
Adivivaram village through his ancestors and died intestate leaving behind him his two sons by names Bantupalli Yellayya and Bantupalli Venkayya who orally partitioned the above Ac.4.53 cents into two equal halves about 4 decades back. He being only son of Bantupalli Appalaswamy who is only son to
Bantupalli Yellayya acquired an extent of Ac.2.26 cents and his name is entered in revenue records and he has been in possession and enjoyment of same for the last several decades. In order to protect his land from unlawful encroachers he displayed a notice board in the schedule property and on 09022014 he learnt that some unscrupulous elements removed the said board and on that he presented report Ex.A3 to the Station House Officer of Gopalapatnam,
Visakhapatnam. As Police started acting detrimental to his interest he approached higher authorities and presented representation on 11092014 to
ACP, Visakhapatnam. Two months later Police served notice to him intimating that Police referred the case as civil in nature thereafter he applied for copy of final report under Right to Information Act and received copy of final report along with copy of sale deed bearing No.13745/1984 dated 15111984 i.e.,
Ex.A13 and he was put into surprise that 1st defendant fabricated false document to grab plaint schedule property and there is no person by name
Appala Narasamma in the family of Bantupalli people and said impugned sale deed is not binding on him.
11
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
11.A perusal of recitals in Ex.A13 it is categorically disclosed that sale deed
dated 15111984 bearing Document No.13745/1984 is executed by one Appala
Narasamma, W/o. Bantupilli late Muthyalu in respect of Plot No.92 and 93 in an extent of 400 sq.yards from an approved panchayat layout vide PR No.99 dated 08011971 inherited by her towards her share from her husband with specific boundaries. The recitals of Ex.A13 further goes to show that vendor under Ex.A13 i.e., Bantupilli Appala Narasamma, W/o. Bantupilli late Muthyalu also obtained permission from ULC vide RC. No.26/1246/84A dated 30071984 to sell the property covered under Ex.A13 and she sold the same on receipt of total consideration of Rs.10,000/. The boundaries shown in Ex.A13 i.e., the land/site in an extent of 400 sq.yards in Survey No.39 covered by Plot No.92 and 93 are East 24 ft road. South24 ft road, WestPanchayat road and NorthPlot No.91 which the plaintiff is claiming as suit A schedule property. The evidence of PW.1 and contents of plaint are silent as to the name of wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu, S/o.
Bantupilli Venkayya who also acquired half share along with his brother Bantupilli
Yellayya during oral partition. Admittedly the paternal great grandfather of
PW.1 by name Bantupalli Yellayya had a brother by name Bantupalli Venkayya who got a son and a daughter by names Muthyalu and Nookalamma and said
Nookalamma died issueless and her husband predeceased her and Bantupilli
Muthyalu had four sons by names Suryanarayana, Apparao, Sanyasirao,
Trinadh. It is also admitted by PW.1 that the said Bantupilli Yellayya who is paternal grandfather of plaintiff and his brother Bantupilli Venkayya orally partitioned an extent of Ac.4.53 cents in Survey No.39/1 and each of them got an extent of Ac. 2.26 cents towards their share. When Bantupilli Venkayya also got Ac.2.26 cents in Survey No.39/1 of Adivivaram village naturally the only son of Bantupilli Venkayya by name Muthyalu will succeed said extent of Ac.2.26 cents which devolves on his wife and children on his death. The recitals in
Ex.A13 categorically goes to show that Appala Narasamma W/o. late Bantupilli
Muthyalu inherited the property covered under Ex.A13 through her husband 12
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
Muthyalu. The evidence of PW.1 and contents of plaint are silent as to the name of wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu and whether wife of Muthyalu is alive or she predeceased her husband except mentioning the names of sons of Bantupilli
Muthyalu. The plaintiff being close relative of Bantupilli Muthyalu will certainly knew the name of wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu but plaintiff intentionally suppressed the name of wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu for the reasons best known to PW.1. Even PW.1 did not choose to examine sons of Muthyalu or any person from their family to prove that there is no person by name Appala Narasamma in their family and no scrap of document is filed by plaintiff to prove that Appala
Narasammma is not the wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu. If at all wife of Muthyalu predeceased Bantupilli Muthyalu certainly PW.1 could have mentioned the same in his evidence affidavit and in the plaint pleadings and PW.1 would have filed Family Members Certificate or house hold card or any other document showing the real name of wife of Muthyalu and whether she is alive or predeceased her husband instead of vaguely mentioning that there is no person by name Appala Narasamma in the family of Bantupilli people. Further plaintiff did not choose to add sons of Bantupilli Muthyalu i.e., Suryanarayana,
Apparao, Sanyasirao, Trinadh as parties to the suit, as said Suryanarayana,
Apparao, Sanyasirao, Trinadh being sons of Bantupilli Muthyalu are the persons who will be affected by Ex.A13 if at all Appala Narasamma is not the wife of
Bantupilli Muthyalu who executed Ex.A13 by causing injury to their rights/affecting their rights over the extent that fell to the share of Bantupilli
Muthyalu and sons of Bantupilli Muthyalu are the right persons to seek cancellation of sale deed bearing No.13754/1984 dated 15111984 executed by a person representing her as the wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu and for declaration that sale deed’s bearing No.2228/2007 and 2229/2007 are invalid and non est in the eye of law and not binding on them. Further except filing
Ex.A1 i.e., certified copy of No.3 adangal for the year 19992000 pertaining to an extent of 4.53 cents in Survey No.39/1 and Ex.A2 copy of Survey and settlement 13
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
register of Adivivaram issued under Right to Information Act PW.1 did not choose to file any piece of evidence to prove that the property covered under Ex.A13 is allotted to his share and his name is entered in revenue records in respect of suit
A schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same since last several decades. And plaintiff did not even choose to examine any independent witness or the sons of Bantupilli Muthyalu to prove that plaint schedule property is allotted to the share of plaintiff and plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since several decades. Except the self interested testimony of PW.1 absolutely there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to prove that plaint A schedule property is part and part of an extent of Ac.2.26 cents that fell to the share of PW.1 and not part of an extent of Ac.2.26 cents that fell to the share of Venkayya succeeded by
Bantupilli Muthylau and his legal heirs and the executant of Ex.A13 by name
Appala Narasamma is not wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu and she never inherited/succeeded the property covered under Ex.A13 from Bantupilli
Muthyalu and she never been in possession and enjoyment of the same and
PW.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under Ex.A13 since several decades and his name is mentioned in revenue records in respect of plaint A schedule property.
12.PW.1 further deposed that 1st defendant in his written statement introduced a new plea that suit schedule property is part and parcel of property acquired by means of document bearing No.3010/1987 said to have executed by his General Power of Attorney holder Kollu Satyarao and through said sale deed 1st defendant acquired 227 sq.yards of vacant site and out of which 1st defendant sold 200 sq.yards to 4th defendant under an unregistered sale deed
dated 15072005 and delivered possession to 4th defendant. A perusal of
contents of written statement filed by 1st defendant categorically goes to show that 1st defendant acquired vacant land of an extent of 227 sq.yards covered by Plot No.91 of an approved layout of Adavivaram Panchayat in its PR No.99 14
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
dated 09011971 in Survey No.39/1 within the limits of Adivivaram Panchayat
under registered sale deed dated 27041987 from the General Power of
Attorney holder of the plaintiff under the powers vested by the plaintiff over the
GPA holder through the registered GPA bearing Document No.17/87 of Sub
Registrar’s Office, Visakhapatnam. In the sale deed registered by the GPA holder vide Document bearing No.3010/1987 in favour of 1st defendant the
Southern boundary is shown as Plot No.92 of the purchaser i.e., 1st defendant, even it is clear by 1987 itself that the plaintiff knew that the Southern side owner of property under sale deed is none other than the 1st defendant himself and vendor of the plaintiff is none other than the plaintiff represented by his GPA holder. Plaintiff got filed certified copy of sale deed dated 27041987 which is marked as Ex.A7. The recitals of Ex.A7 disclosed that one Kollu Satyarao appointed as General Power of Attorney agent of Suryanarayana through a registered GPA vide Document No.17/87 dated 06011987 executed sale deed in favour of Palla Venkata Ramana representing his principal i.e.,
Suryanarayana. The recitals in Ex.A7 further goes to show that permission was also accorded by ULC vide RC No.26/834/87A dated 04041987 to sell the schedule mentioned property i.e., an extent of 227 sq.yards covered by Plot
No.91 in Survey No.39/1 from an Panchayat approved layout vide PR No.99
dated 09011971 with the specific boundaries i.e., East24ft road, SouthPlot
No.92 belonging to vendee, WestPanchayat road, NorthPlot No.90. Except mentioning in the plaint pleadings and in chief affidavit of PW.1 that 1st defendant in his written statement introduced a new plea that suit schedule property is part and parcel of property acquired by means of document bearing No.3010/1987 said to have executed by General Power of Attorney holder Kollu Satyarao are all false. PW.1 did not specifically deny he executing registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Kollu Satyarao on 06011987 vide Document bearing No.17/87 appointing Kollu Satyarao as his recognized
General Power of Attorney agent and PW.1 did not even choose to obtain 15
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
certified copy of registered General Power of Attorney dated 06011987 bearing Document No.17/87 though he obtained certified copies of sale deeds
dated 15111984, 27041987, 23072007 respectively to prove that he never
executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Kollu Satyarao appointing him as his agent to deal with Plot No.91 and did not seek cancellation of said registered General Power of Attorney dated 06011987 bearing Document No.17/87 except seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 27041987 bearing Document No.3010/87, it is for the reasons best known to
PW.1. Unless document bearing No.17/87 is cancelled PW.1 is not entitled to seek for cancellation of sale deed dated 27041987 bearing document
No.3010/87.
13. To prove that no layout vide PR No.99 dated 09011971 is approved by
Panchayat plaintiff got filed Ex.A4 letter addressed to The Registrar, The Andhra
Pradesh Information Commission by The Assistant city planner/Deemed P10
Zone VI GVMC, Visakhapatnam to the effect that information pertaining to
Survey No.39/1 of Adivivaram Gram Panchayat in PR No.99 dated 08011971 is not available with this office as well as VUDA requesting the Registrar, The
Andhra Pradesh Information Commissioner not to initiate further proceedings,
Ex.A8 is letter issued by Vice Chairman, VUDA to The Assessment City
Planner/Deemed P10 Zone VI GVMC, Visakhapatnam to the effect that VUDA has not approved the layout in Survey No.39/1 of Adivivaram, Visakhapatnam as per VUDA records. As could be seen from recitals in Ex.A13 and Ex.A7 it is disclosed that Plot No.92 and 93 and Plot No.91 respectively are part of layout approved by Panchayat vide PR No.99 dated 09011971 and not either by
VUDA or GVMC, Visakhapatnam and Plot Nos.92 and 93, Plot No.91 respectively are pertaining to the layout approved Panchayat vide PR No.99 dated 0801 1971 and not approved layout of VUDA or GVMC. If really no layout is formed or approved by Gram Panchayat, Adivivaram during 1971 it is ununderstandable as to how plaintiff could give specific boundaries to an extent of 400 sq.yards in 16
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
Survey No.39 though he claims an extent of Ac.2.26 cents in Survey No.39/1 which equivalent to 10938.4 sq.yards in Survey No.39/1 and how plaintiff could claim 400 sq.yards in Survey No.39 of Adivivaram village though according to him, he acquired an extent of Ac.2.26 cents in Survey No.39/1 by inheritance and land covered under Survey No.39 is also sub divided long back, it is for the reasons best known to PW.1. Absolutely there is no substantial evidence on record to prove that plaint A schedule property and plaint B schedule property which is shown as part and parcel of plaint A schedule property are acquired by the plaintiff through his father Bantupilli Appalaswamy and plaint A schedule property is part and parcel of an extent of Ac.2.26 cents which fell to his share and he is the absolute owner of plaint A schedule property. Though the defendants have not adduced evidence on their behalf it is the burden of plaintiff who sought for cancellation of sale deed dated 15111984 and declaration that sale deeds bearing Document Nos. 3010/87 dated 27041987 as well as sale deeds Nos.2228/07 and 2229/07 dated 23072007 are false, invalid, non est, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff to prove that plaint A schedule property is part and parcel of an extent of Ac. 2.26 cents that fell to his share and plaint A schedule property is no way concerned with an extent of
Ac.2.26 cents that fell to the share of Bantupilli Venkayya father of Muthyalu and
Appala Narasamma who is executant of sale deed dated 15111984 bearing
No.13475/84 as the wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu is not wife of Muthyalu and wife of
Bantupilli Muthyalu never sold plaint A schedule property to 1st defendant under
Ex.A13 and Ex.A13 i.e., sale deed dated 15111984 stands in the name of
Venkata Ramana is void against him and he never executed registered General
Power of Attorney in favour of Kollu Satyarao vide registered General Power of
Attorney dated 06011987 bearing No.17/87 and he has reasonable apprehension of serious injury and he has some interest in the land affected by said documents and plaintiff should not stand on the weakness of defendants.
As already discussed above plaintiff has failed to establish that plaint A 17
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
schedule property is part and parcel of an extent of Ac. 2.26 cents that fell to his share and plaint A schedule property is no way concerned with an extent of
Ac.2.26 cents that fell to the share of Bantupilli Venkayya father of Muthyalu and
Appala Narasamma who is executant of sale deed dated 15111984 bearing
No.13475/84 as wife of Bantupilli Muthyalu is not wife of Muthyalu and wife of
Bantupilli Muthyalu never sold plaint A schedule property to 1st defendant under
Ex.A13 and Ex.A13 i.e., sale deed dated 15111984 stands in the name of
Venkata Ramana is void against him and he never executed registered General
Power of Attorney in favour of Kollu Satyarao vide registered General Power of
Attorney dated 06011987 bearing No.17/87 and Ex.A7 executed by Kollu
Satyarao in favour of 1st defendant as his agent representing him is void against him, the plaintiff is not entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 15111984 bearing Document No.13745/84 and for declaration of sale deed No.3010/87
dated 27041987 as well as sale deeds Nos.2228/07 and 2229/07 dated 2307
2007 are false, invalid, non est, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and for mandatory injunction of removal of constructions in plaint B schedule property which is part of plaint A schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession of the same and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents whoever acting on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, issues 1 to 5 are answered.
14.ISSUE No.6:
In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of January, 2020.
IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam 18
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff:For Defendants:
PW.1: Sri Bantupalli SuryanarayanaNONE
Documents Marked
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1/Certified copy of 10 (1) Adangal issued by Village Revenue Officer, Adavivaram for the year 1999 to 2000 Ex.A2/Certified copy of the extract of survey and settlement register of Adavivaram obtained under RTI Act Ex.A3/Served copy of FIR in Crime No.39/14 of Gopalapatnam Police Station Ex.A4/Original copy of letter issued by GVMC Ex.A5/23032007 Certified copy of sale deed stands in the name of Logisa Jayalakshmi Ex.A6/Certified copy of sale deed stands in the name of Vadlamuri Suryavathi Ex.A7/27041987 Certified copy of sale deed dated stands in the name of Palla Venkata Ramana Ex.A8/27082015 Letter issued by the Public Information Officer, VUDA vide RC No.5041/2015/L4 Ex.A9/17092017Letter issued by Assistant Engineer, Gopalapatnam dated to the plaintiff under RTI Act Ex.A10/11092014 Copy of report addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam Ex.A11/15112014 Acknowledgment issued by the Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam Ex.A12/Information given by Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam to the plaintiff pertaining to Crime No.39/14 of Gopalapatnam Police Station Ex.A13/15111984 Certified copy of sale deed dated stands in the name of Venkata Ramana Ex.A14/19032014 Endorsement given by the Zonal Commissioner, GVMC under RTI Act vide RTI No.53/2015 Ex.A15/16092015 Copy of order passed by Andhra Pradesh Information Commission in Complaint Case No.26876/SIC CMR/2015 in Appeal Case No.22986/SICCMR/2015 Ex.A16/30082017 Copy of complaint dated given to Sub Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam
For Defendants:NIL
IV ASCJ:VSP 19
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
Date of Presentation: 24122014 Date of filing: 26122014
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: Smt.C.R.Sumalatha, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.
Wednesday, the 8th day of January, 2020.
O.S 2108/2014
Between:
Sri Bantupalli Suryanarayana, S/o. late Appala Swamy, aged 62 years, Resident of door No.950, Opposite Shivalayam, Old Adavivaram, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam28.
... Plaintiff
And:
1.Palla Venkata Ramana, S/o. Venkata Swamy, aged 62 years, Hindu, residing at Door No.29/44/41, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.
2.Smt. Vadlamuri Suryavathi, W/o. Viswanadharaju, aged 55 years, Hindu, Door No.15681, T.V. Towers Colony, Adivivaram village, Visakhapatnam.
3.Smt. Dendukuri Vijaya Bharati Sita, W/o. Somaraju, aged 60 years, Hindu, residing at Door No.1188, T.V. Towers colony, Adavivaram village, Visakhapatnam.
4.Smt. Logisa Jayalakshmi, W/o. Suri Babu, aged 45 years, Hindu, residing at 9208, Ghat Road, near Ganesh Temple, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam.
...Defendants
Suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant (a) For cancellation of sale deed bearing No.13745/84 dated 15111984 (b) For declaration that the sale deeds bearing Nos.3010/87 dated 27041987 as well as sale deeds Nos.2228/07 and 2229/07 dated 23072007 are false, invalid, non est, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff (c) send a copy of the decree to the Sub Registrar,
Gopalapatnam to make a note of the same in the books of the office (d) for consequential relief of mandatory direction directing the 2nd defendant to deliver vacant possession of plaint “B” schedule property to the plaintiff after removing illegal constructions made therein during the pendency of the suit and in case the defendants failed to deliver the same, the plaintiff may be permitted to take possession of the plaint “B” schedule property after removing the same through the court of law and to recover costs from the defendants (e) For 20
O.S 2108/2014, IV ASCJ:VSP
permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents whoever acting on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever and (f) for costs of the suit.
The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.1,60,000/ and a Court fee of Rs.4,712/ is paid thereon under Section 37 and 26 (c) of the A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act and the court fee for the purpose of additional relief of declaration is valued at Rs.3,00,000/ and a court fee of Rs.5,426/ is paid thereon under Section 24 (d) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.
This suit coming on 18122019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Maheswara Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri
M.Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendants and the same having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and:
D E C R E E
1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and
2.that there be no costs.
* Copy of ScheduleA, ScheduleB, Form No.8 are attached hereto (3).
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 8 th January, 2020.
IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)
VISAKHAPATNAM
Memorandum of Costs
For Plaintiff:For Defendants: Rs.
Stamp on Vakalat200No costs memo is filed Stamp on plaint 5,42600 Stamp on petition300 Process fee 48000 Advocate fee 9,85000 Writing/Typing/ Clerk Wages 10000 Costs Certified 15,86100
IV ASCJ:VSP