1
FAIR
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.
Present: Sri Ch. Balagangadhara Tilak Roy,
X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
Friday, this the 29 th day of July, 2016.
O.S.75 / 2007 (Old O.S.No.421/2005)
Between:
1) Itham Prabhakara Rao, S/o. late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 36 years, resident of Flat No.403, Akella Arcade, Anand Bhavan Residency, near Green Park Hotel, Viskahapatnam- 2.
2) Itham Srinivasa Rao, S/o. late Anandarao, Hindu, aged 37 years, r/of rest-do-
3) Itham Rajesh, S/o. late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, rest-do-
4) Itham Chandravalli, S/o. late Anandarao, Hindu, aged 50 years, rest-do-
.... Plaintiffs.
And:
1) Teda Mutyalu, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 42 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Teda Demudu Babu, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 47 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Teda Kanaka Raju, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 43 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Teda Suryanarayana, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 44 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
5) V. Eswara Rao, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 45 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
6) Dasari Malayadri, S/o. Malakondaiah, Hindu, aged 42 years, residing at D.No.12-4-82, Pudimadaka Road, Anakapalle. …Defendants.
This suit coming before me on 15-7-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s. N.V. Badarinadh & Madan Mohan, Advocates for Plaintiffs and that Sri A.J.Rao & Smt. D.V. Lakshmi Arrabolu, Advocates for defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, their men, agents restraining them not to interfere with the lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever, and for costs of the suit.
2. The plaintiffs filed the plaint with the following pleadings:
The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are sons of the 4th plaintiff. The 4th plaintiff purchased the property under two separate registered sale deeds dt.24-6-1991 for valuable consideration from Smt. Meera Devi and Uday Saroj and since then she has been in lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, and that vendors of the 4th plaintiff, in turn, purchased the same under registered sale deeds dt.10-5-1988 from Lagudu Sannibabu and others and they continued to be in the possession of the said property from the time of their father, until the 2 property was sold to the vendors of the 4th plaintiff, and that 4th plaintiff was also demanded to pay land revenue in respect of the plaint schedule properties, and later as per the representation made by 4th plaintiff, the ownership over the plaint schedule property was changed in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the revenue records, and that Government also issued pattadar pass books in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 in respect of plaint schedule property, and that the plaintiffs have been in lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property, together with the remaining land in S.No.388/1 and the neighbouring survey numbers, in all, in an extent of Ac.12-83 cents, and that plaintiffs are growing vegetables like brinjal and tomato and planted teak along with boundary and also got dug a bore-well therein.
3)While so, during the year 2000, one Teda Ramu tried to interfere high- handedly with a part of the plaint schedule property viz.. Ac.1-50 cents, whereupon the plaintiffs filed a suit against the said Teda Ramu, in O.S.86/2000 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle and obtained interim orders against the said Ramu and
subsequently the said suit was settled in the Lok Adalat on 3-5-2003 where under, the plaintiffs obtained a registered sale deed from the said Ramu, in respect of Ac.1- 50 cents on 11-2-2003 and continued to be in the possession and enjoyment of the said piece of property along with the remaining property, and in fact on 16-10-2005, the 6th defendant along with other defendants arrived near the suit schedule property and demanded the plaintiffs' watchman to remove the gate and solar fence erected around the suit schedule property within a day or two, or else they would forcibly cut the fence, break the gates and occupy the property with the help of local villagers, and hat 1st plaintiff went to the suit schedule property on 17-10-2005, before whom the defendants renewed their high-handed threats, that if the plaintiffs do not remove the gate and fence themselves, the defendants would do it on their own, in a day or two, by mobilizing more villagers there.
4)The plaintiffs further submit that defendants have no respect for law, and they have no manner of right to demand the plaintiffs to vacate the plaint schedule property, and however since the defendants have the advantage of being local villagers having the support of several others, and the plaintiffs are no match for the 3 strength of the defendants. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs are left with no option but to file the present suit for injunction and other releifs. Hence the suit.
5)The 1st defendant filed written statement and defendants 2 to 5 filed a memo adopting the written statement of 1st defendant.
The defendants are denying all the allegations in Para 3(a), para 3(b), para 3(c), para 3(d), para 3(e) and para 3(f) and 3(g) and 3(h) and 3(j) of the plaint. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiffs have no title, possession or enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The further contentions of the defendants are that plaint schedule property is wrongly described as Ac.5-71 cents in S.No.388/1 out of Ac.12-83 cents, and that the registered sale deeds dt.24-6-1991 clearly show that the 4th plaintiff has only purchased Ac.1-50 cents each from her vendors, and that plaintiffs or any other plaintiffs are not having any right over the schedule property, and that even these two sale deeds are invalid and do not confer any right over the property, but the plaintiffs are claiming rights in the entire extent of Ac.12- 83 cents and plaint schedule is wrongly shown as Ac.5-71 cents.
6)The defendants further contended that the co-brother of the 1st defendant Teda Ramu, who is also having rights over the schedule property, resisted the illegal attempts of the plaintiffs when they tried to enter into the schedule property with false documents, during the year 2000 and then plaintiffs filed the suit
O.S.86/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle against the said T. Ramu.
However, as the plaintiffs sought for compromise, after receiving full consideration,
Teda Ramu executed a registered sale deed for an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in
S.No.388/1 in favour of 1st plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that originally plaintiffs are not having any right, title and interest of whatsoever over the schedule property, but ultimately purchased Ac.1-50 cents from Teda Ramu, and that except the Ac.1-50 cents in S.No.388/1, the plaintiffs are not having any right, title and interest whatsoever, and that schedule property covered under S.No.388/1 is concerned is given to barbers and hence any sale of the said land is invalid.
7)The defendants further contended that plaintiffs are conducting that the 4th plaintiff purchased the land under two sale deeds from one Uday Saroj and Smt.
Meeera Devi on 24-6-1991, and the said persons in turn purchased from one 4
Kadupukotla Simhachalam and others in the year 1988, and that on 20-8-1998 one
Mr. Teda Ramu, who is the cousin brother of this defendant, got issued lawyer's notice to the said Uday Saroj, Meera Devi and Kadupukotla Simhachalm, duly intimating that they have no right to alienate the property as the same belongs to
Teda Ramu, and then the said Simhachalam issued reply notice stating that he did not execute any sale deed for the property covered under S.No.388/1, but he executed a sale deed for the property covered under S.No.388/2., and that the said
Teda Ramu filed a suit in O.S.75/1992 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge's Court,
Anakapalle against one Simhachalam, Uday Saroj and Meera Devi for declaration of title and also for recovery of possession, and the said suit was decreed in favour of
Teda Ramu, and that the 4th plaintiff purchased the same property from the said Uday
Saroj and Meera Devi during the year 1991, and that the subject matter of the property was directly under dispute in the year 1991, the said Uday Saroj and Meera
Devi transferred the said property in favour of 4th plaintiff, which is hit by Sec.52 of
Transfer of Property Act, and that the said Teda Ramu filed EP 25/1997 for delivery of possession and the said Senior Civil Judge Court, Anakapalle delivered possession to the said Ramu.
8)The further contention of the defendants is that neither the 4th plaintiff nor their vendors have right, title or possession of the property, and that plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed O.S.86/2000 against the said Ramu, and that it is proved that the sale deeds obtained by the 4th plaintiff are invalid and they do not confer any right over the property, and that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the property except over an extent of Ac.1-50 cents purchased from T. Ramu, and that having a title, right over an extent of Ac.1-50 cents, the plaintiffs in order to grab the entire extent, and falsely claiming rights over the entire extent of Ac.12-83 cents by misleading the Hon'ble Court.
9)The defendants further contend that 1st defendant is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.2-10 cents and executed registered sale deed in favour of 6th defendant for an extent of Ac.2-05 cents and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, and that the suit is bad in law, and the suit for mere permanent injunction without seeking for declaration of title is not valid, and that the 5 documents filed by the plaintiffs are false and fabricated and they do not convey any right, title or interest of whatsoever over the schedule property to the plaintiffs, and that the suit schedule is wrongly described, and there is no cause of action for this suit and it is invented for the purpose of filing the suit, and the suit is not maintainable and bad in law and it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non- joinder of necessarily parties, and defendants pray the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit with costs.
10)The 6th defendant filed written statement by denying all the allegations in
Para 3(a), para 3(b), para 3(c), para 3(d), para 3(e) and para 3(f) and 3(g) and 3(h) and 3(j) of the plaint by contending that the extent of S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village, Sabbavaram mandal is Ac.5-71 cents which is a Service Inam i.e., Mangali
Patta No.1094 and the same was registered in the 10(1) Account/ Village Settlement
Register and other revenue records of Amruthpauram village as Mangali Service
Inam, and that MRO, Sabbavaram issued Pattadar passbook in favour of Teda
Mutyalu in respect of Ac.2-10 cents of land in S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village, and that on 14-10-2005 this defendant purchased Ac.2-10 cents in S.No.388/1 of
Amruthapuram village for valid consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-, and that the date of purchase this defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.2-10 cents of land in S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village and prior to his purchase his vendors and their family members have been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without anybody's threat or interference. There is no cause of action for the suit, and that this defendant prays the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
11)The following issues are framed on the basis of the above pleadings of the plaintiffs, written statement pleadings of the defendants :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?
2. To what relief?
12)During the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.33 besides Exs.X.1 to X.10 are marked. On behalf of defendants, D.W.1 is examined and Exs.B.1 to B.18 are marked.
13)After closure of evidence on both sides, the arguments of both the counsel on record are heard besides the written arguments of the both the counsel, the suit is posted for judgment.
14)Issue No.1 :-
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for an extent of
Ac.2-10 cents of dry land covered by S.No.388/1 in Atchutapuram village of Sabbavaram
Sub-Registry of Visakhapatnam District. The boundaries for the plaint schedule land are:
6 the land of Itham Prabhakar is on east, the road is on south, the land of Dasari Malayadri is on west, and the land of Tayanana Ramunaidu is on north. This suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, Koilada
Venkata Suri Sankara Rao and Gavara Satyanarayana purchased the land of Ac.2-05 cents covered by S.No.388/1 of the entire plaint schedule land to the extent of Ac.2-10 cents covered by S.No.388/1 under a registered sale deed dt.14-10-2005 vide document
No.7968/2005, which is Ex.B.10. The contention of the plaintiffs is that one Teda
Suribabu and Teda Satyanarayana have executed the Ex.B.10 sale deed in favour of
Koilada Venkata Suri Sankara Rao and Gavara Satyanarayana and that the said Teda
Suribabau is father of Teda Satyanarayana and that Teda Suribabu was the absolute owner of the entire extent of Ac.2-10 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1 of
Amruthapuram village. Thus, the remaining Ac.0-05 cents of land is still in the hands of
Teda Suribabu and Teda Satyanarayana from out of Ac.2-10 cents covered by
S.No.388/1. Whereas the contention of the plaintiffs is that the entire extent of land covered by S.No.388/1 which includes the plaint schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs for the last 15 years prior to the date of suit and that the plaintiffs have got possession and enjoyment of Ac.12-83 cents of land covered by S.Nos.388, 388/1 and 388/2 of Amruthapuram village for the said period of 15 years and the said Ac.12-83 cents of land covered by the above mentioned three survey numbers are situate in contiguous blocks. Thus the plaintiffs contended they are the absolute owners with lawful title and enjoyment of the entire Ac.12-83 cents covered by those three survey numbers. The other contention of the plaintiffs is that the land covered by S.No.388/1 is part and parcel of the entire extent of Ac.12-83 cents of land.
The contention of the plaintiffs is that the 4th plaintiff, who is mother of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 purchased the property of about Ac.3-00 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1 of
Amruthapuram village under two separate sale deeds dt.24-6-1991. Thus the defendants have got possession and enjoyment of the said land in S.No.388/1 along with the land covered by S.No.388/2 and S.No.388. There is no pleading whatsoever under which document the plaintiffs have acquired the remaining extent of land of Ac.9-83 cents excluding the land of Ac.3-00 cents of land covered by registered sale deed dt.24-8-1991 as per the written statement of the defendants. The pleadings in the written statement disclose that the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.86/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's 7
Court, Anakapalle in respect of the entire extent of land covered by S.No.388/1 which includes the present suit schedule property against one, Theeda Ramu. However, the further pleadings in the written statement at Para 20 disclose that the plaintiffs purchased ultimately, on compromise by entering into terms of compromise through a
Lok Adalat Award dt.3-5-2003, an extent of Ac.1-50 cents of land covered by
S.No.388/1. Even at this stage also of the pleadings of the written statement, there is no plea about the entire extent of the land covered by S.No.388/1. Therefore, what is ultimately evident from the pleadings of the written statement of the defendants is that the mother of the plaintiffs purchased Ac.3-00 cents of land covered by two registered sale deeds dt.24-6-1991 and that the defendants purchased Ac.1-50 cents of land under a registered sale deed from one Theeda Ramu as per the Lok Adalat Award which was passed in O.S.86/2000. Thus the total extent of the land purchased by the plaintiffs is only to the extent of Ac.4-50 cents of land.
15)It is now to be seen whether there is any document whatsoever which prove the lawful title and possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to Ac.8-33 cents of land out of Ac.12-83 cents of land after deducting this extent of Ac.4-50 cents of land. Ex.B.2 sale deed dt.31-12-2005 is the document executed by Teda Ramu in favour of 1st plaintiff as per the Lok Adalat Award in O.S.86/2000. Ex.A.12 is the Lok Adalat
Award in O.S.86/2000. Ex.A.1 is the sale deed in favour of 4th plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is also the sale deed in favour of 4th plaintiff. One Saroj executed Ex.A.1sale deed and another by name, Meeradevi executed Ex.A.2 sale deed. Ex.A.4 & A.3 are the sale deeds executed by one L. Sannibabu, but there is no mention in the list of documents in whose favour the Ex.A.4 & A.3 sale deeds were executed. The Ex.A.13 sale deed disclosed that an extent of Ac.1-50 cents of land was purchased in S.No.388/1 by the 1st plaintiff from
Theeda Ramu. The Western boundary for the said Ex.A.13 sale deed dt.31-12-2002 is the land in S.No.388/1, but this sale deed schedule does not mention about the owner of the land of Western boundary. Even the terms of compromise in Ex.A.12 in O.S.86/2000, in pursuance of which the Ex.A.13 sale deed was executed, does not mention the boundaries for the land that was sold to 1st plaintiff by Theeda Ramu. At this juncture, it is pertinent to peruse the plaint and written statement in O.S.86/2000. Ex.B.5 plaint disclosed that the defendants, who are the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the present suit on hand, described the plaint schedule property in O.S.86/2000 as an extent of Ac.1-50 cents of 8 land out of Ac.5-71 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village in schedule 'A' as well as in schedule 'B'. The description of boundaries in Schedule 'A' and
Schedule 'B' which are appended to the plaint in O.S.86/2000 disclosed some discrepancy as to the identity of the lands covered by both the schedules. There is no mention in the pleadings of the plaint that both the schedule properties are contiguous to each other. The prudent pleading in the plaint in O.S.86/2000 which was taken by the plaintiffs herein in the said suit O.S.86/2000 is that the land covered by the schedule 'A' & 'B' of the plaint in O.S.86/2000 was purchased by the mother of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in this present suit on hand under the registered sale deeds dt.24-6-1991 and also purchased the said lands under a registered sale deed dt.10-5-1998. So, if the mother of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, who is the 4th plaintiff in this present suit on hand purchased the plaint schedule 'A' & 'B' schedule properties in Ex.B.5 plaint under the registered sale deeds dt.24-6-1991, why should the defendants again purchase Ac.1-50 cents of land covered by Ex.A.13 sale deed as per Ex.B.3 Lok Adalat Award in O.S.86/2000 covered by
Ex.B.5 plaint. As per Ex.B.4 written statement, the defendant by name Teda Ramu in
O.S.86/2000 contended that he is the absolute owner of the land covered by S.No.388/1
and it is a Service Inam land which was given to the Barbers. Even the pleadings in the written statement in Ex.B.4 in O.S.86/2000 further contended that the land covered by
S.No.388/1 is part and parcel of the suit in O.S.75/1992 and that the defendant in
O.S.86/2000 learnt as if one Uday Saroj and Meeradevi purchased the land from one,
Kadupukotla Simhachalam in the year 1988 and the said defendant issued a Lawyer's
Notice dt.20-8-1988 to the said persons and others, who have, on receiving the said notice of the defendant by name, Theeda Ramu, issued Reply notice dt.14-9-1988 stating that they did not purchase the land covered by S.No.388/1, but they purchased the land covered by S.No.388/2 of Amruthapuram village as per the sale deed executed by
Kadupukotla Simhachalam. Even the suit filed by Teda Ramu in O.S.75/1992 was decreed declaring the title and entitlement of him to recover possession of the property covered by S.No.388/1 and the possession of the said land was recovered by Theeda Ramu as per the E.P. Proceedings in E.P.25/1997 in O.S.75/1992. Thus, Theeda Ramu denied the title of the plaintiffs in O.S.86/2000 who are none other than the plaintiffs in the present suit on hand and their possession also in respect of the land covered by S.No.388/1 of
Amruthapuram village.
9
16)Therefore for the above reasons, it can be said that the plaintiffs in the present suit have not got the land covered S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village even by the year 2000 and therefore they obtained a sale deed in Ex.A.13 as per Ex.A.12 Lok
Adalat from Teda Ramu who was the defendant in O.S.86/2000. Thus the plaintiffs in the present suit on hand got only Ac.1-50 cents of land as per Ex.A.13 sale deed. It is even undisputed fact and it is admitted by the plaintiffs in this present suit that the land covered by S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village is a total extent of Ac.5-71 cents.
Therefore, the very evidence of P.W.1 and the pleadings of the plaintiffs in the present suit as per their plaint admittedly and undisputedly prove that they purchased only Ac.1- 50 cents of land in S.No.388/1 and got possession of the same as per Ex.A.13 & A.12 which are sale deed and Lok Adalat Award respectively from one Teda Ramu. Thus a question comes whether the 4th plaintiff who is the mother of plaintiffs 1 to 3 has purchased additionally any land covered by Exs.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds dt.24-6-1991 from one Uday Saroj and one Smt. Meera devi, who is wife of Uday Saroj. The land covered by
Ex.A.2 sale deed relate to S.No.388/1 out of the entire extent of Ac.5-71 cents measuring Ac.1-50 cents. This Ex.A.2 sale deed dt.24-6-1991 schedule discloses the schedule, which is mentioned in Schedule 'A' of O.S.86/2000 in Ex.B.5. The schedule of land in Ex.A.1 sale deed which was executed by Uday Saroj in favour of 4th plaintiff is the schedule covered by plaint schedule 'B' in Ex.B.5 plaint. So, when the pleadings in plaint in O.S.86/2000 covered by Ex.B.5 disclosed that the plaint schedule A & B properties in
O.S.86/2000 were purchased under Ex.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds and the same is denied by
Teda Ramu in O.S.86/2000 who is the defendant therein, how can these plaintiffs including the 4th plaintiff have got title and possession and enjoyment of the Ac.3-00 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1 with different schedule of boundaries when the plaintiffs 1 to 3, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.86/2000, purchased only Ac.1-50 cents of land under Ex.A13 sale deed as per Ex.A.12 Lok Adalat Ward in O.S.86/2000 with boundaries that are different from the schedule of boundaries in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedules in O.S.86/2000 and the said Ex.A.13 sale deed relate to Ac.1-50 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1. Therefore, even according to Ex.A.13 sale deed, the plaintiffs in the present suit on hand got only Ac.1-50 cents of land with different boundaries which are not covered by plaint 'A' & 'B' schedules in S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village. The boundaries in Ex.B.10 sale deed of Koilada Venkata Suri Sankararao and 3 others are 10 quite different from the boundaries in Ex.A.13 sale deed of the plaintiffs. Both the lands covered by Ex.B.10 sale deed and Ex.A.13 sale deed form part and parcel of the extent of land covered by S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village. Therefore, as the extent of
S.No.388/1 in entirety is Ac.5-71 cents of land as per the admission of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, then Koilada Venkata Suri Sankararao and 3 others must have possessed Ac.2-10 cents of land while the plaintiffs possessed only Ac.1-50 cents of land in S.No.388/1.
17)Thus the plaintiffs have not got Ac.12-83 cents of land covered by
S.Nos.388, 388/1 & 388/2 of Amruthapuram village. There is no proof whatsoever placed by the defendants except Ex.A.13sale deed and Ex.A,.12 Lok Adalat Award to prove that they got Ac.12-83 cents of land including the land covered by Ex.B.10 sale deed. In the absence of any document whatsoever placed by the plaintiffs, it cannot be believed that the plaintiffs got title, possession and enjoyment in respect of the Ac.12-83 cents of land except for the extent of Ac.1-50 cents of land out of Ac.5-71 cents of land in S.No.388/1 within the boundaries covered by Ex.A.13 sale deed of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs pleaded that they got absolute title, possession and enjoyment of the land over and above Ac.1-50 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village to the extent of Ac.12-83 cents covered by S.No.388, 388/1 & 388/2 of Amruthapuram village, the other documents in 'A' series only relate to Pattadar Passbooks and land revenue receipts and electricity bills, solar electricity system installation papers, the other bills relating to sale of the agricultural produce etc.. etc... do not mention about the land covered by S.No.388/1 to the extent of Ac.5-71 cents or over and above the extent of
Ac.1-50 cents of land in S.No.388/1 or the remaining land covered by S.No.388 & 388/2 of Amruthapuram village to the extent of Ac.12-83 cents. When there is no such proof placed by the plaintiffs with regard to at least their possession and enjoyment of the
Ac.12-83 cents of land except the Ac.1-50 cents of land, there cannot be any reliance placed on those documents to believe that the defendants got possession and enjoyment or the title in respect of the remaining extent of land covered by S.No.388/1 including the plaint schedule land of the defendants. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have got title, possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in the present suit.
18)The D.W.1 in this suit is the 6th defendant. This D.W.1 filed Ex.B.8 title deed 11 of Teda Mutyalu, the Ex.B.7 pass book of Teda Mutyalu, Ex.B.9 Pattadar Pass Book of
DW1 which show the title and possession of the plaint schedule property belong to the defendants through Teda Mutyalu and themselves. The other 'B' series documents in
Ex.B.16 and Ex.B.17 disclosed that the land in S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village of
Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is Mangal Service Inam to an extent of
Ac.5-71 cents and that the order of Spl. Dy. Tahasildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam in Inam
Case No. A I P No.14/2010 dt.8-7-2010 reveal that Dasari Malayadri got Ac.2-05 cents while Koilada Venkata Suri Sankararao and Gavara Satyanarayana got Ac.2-05 cents of land. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not got any land in respect of Ac.4-10 cents of land out of Ac.5-71 cents in S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village, Sabbavaram Mandal as per
Ex.A.13 sale deed dt.31-12-2002.
19)Even the Exs.X.1 to X.10 amply prove that there are entries in the revenue records relating to the nature of land as Mangala Manyam and that Koilada Venkata Suri
Sankararao, Gavara Satyanaraya and defendants in this suit have got possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land covered by S.No.388/1. Even there is no dispute even by the plaintiffs with regard to coverage of plaint schedule land in S.No.388/1 of
Amruthapuram village and which is also established through Exs.B.5 & B.4 plaint and written statement in O.S.86/2000. Therefore, the defendants have proved that they got
Ac.2-10 cents of land out of Ac.5-71 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1 of
Amruthapuram village.
20)The plaintiffs purchased their land under Ex.A.2 sale deed and Ex.A.1 sale deed as well as Ex.A13 sale deed according to their contentions. Whereas Exs.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds dt.24-6-1991 are executed by Uday Saroj and Smt. Meera Devi, W/o. Uday
Saroj in favour of the 4th plaintiff. The vendors under the Exs.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds dt.24- 6-1991 purchased the said land under Exs.A.1 & A.2 from about 22 persons under two sale deeds dt.10-5-1988 which are Exs.A.4 & A.3. When the plaintiffs 1 to 3 purchased, under Ex.A.13 sale deed as per the Lok Adalat Award in Ex.A.12 in O.S.86/2000, in respect of Ac.1-50 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1, it can be said that all the plaintiffs 1 to 4 got only Ac.1-50 cents of land in S.No.388/1. The Exs.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds of 4th plaintiff and Exs.A.4 & A.3 sale deeds of the vendors of 4th plaintiff relate to one and the same extent of property to the extent of Ac.3-00 cents in total covered by the two sale deeds in Ex.A.4 & A.3 which properties are also covered by Exs.A.1 & A.2 12 sale deeds. The Ex.B.5 written statement of Teda Ramu, from whom the plaintiffs 1 to 3 purchased under Ex.A.13 sale deed as per Ex.A.12 Lok Adalat Award, categorically pleaded that the said Teda Ramu filed O.S.75/1992 against the vendors under Ex.A.1 &
A.2 sale deeds who are none other than the purchasers under Exs.A.4 & A.3 sale deeds and obtained a declaratory decree with a right to recover the possession of the property covered by Exs.A.4 & A.3 sale deeds in O.S.75/1992. The said Teda Ramu has even recovered the possession of the land covered by Exs.A.4 & A.3 sale deeds from the plaintiffs in O.S.75/1992 by filing Ex.B.1 E.P.25/1997 proceedings in the said suit. Thus, it is absolutely evident that the land covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4 sale deeds is one and the same and that those lands were in dispute in O.S.75/1992 and that the said land was recovered by the said Teda Ramu from the purchasers under Exs.A.4 & A.3 sale deeds, who are none other than the vendors under Exs.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds. When the said
Teda Ramu has got the title and also recover the possession of the land as per the decree in O.S.75/1992 from the vendors under Exs.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds, it can be said that the land covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4 sale deeds were recovered by the said Teda Ramu by the date of filing O.S.86/2000 by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the present suit. So, even by the date of the filing O.S.86/2000, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 have not got title, possession and enjoyment of the present suit schedule property in their hands. Therefore, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 have neither title nor possession and enjoyment even prior to the date of Ex.A.13 sale deed, which was executed on 31-12-2012. Even according to Ex.A.13 sale deed, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 got only Ac.1-50 cents of land in their title, possession and enjoyment from Teda Ramu.
21)The Exs.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds were executed in favour of the 4th plaintiff by her vendors only on 24-6-1991, but as per the Ex.B.1 proceedings in E.P.25/ 1997 in
O.S.75/1992 the title, possession and enjoyment of the land covered by Exs.A.1 & A.2
sale deeds of 4th plaintiff was divested from the 4th plaintiff in favour of Teda Ramu.
Therefore, when the 4th plaintiff has not got either title or possession and enjoyment of
Ac.3-00 cents of land covered by Exs.A.1 & A.2 sale deeds as well as Ex.A.4 & A.3 sale deeds, how can the plaintiffs 1 to 3 got possession and enjoyment of the Ac.3-00 cents of land as per other documents in 'A' series. In fact those 'A' series documents were obtained during the year 1995. So these 'A' series documents were issued prior to the suit in O.S.75/1992 and Ex.B.1, E.P.25/1997 which were filed by Teda Ramu. Therefore, 13 when the Ac.3-00 cents of land covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4 sale deeds have been recovered as per the decree in O.S.75/1992 and Ex.B.1, E.P.25/1997 by Teda Ramu, the 4th plaintiff cannot be said to have iota title or possession and enjoyment of the land covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4 sale deeds and as such the permission said to have been given by 4th plaintiff in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 as per the evidence of P.W.1 to have entries in other 'A' series documents with regard to their possession and enjoyment of the land covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4 sale deeds is absolutely non-est in the eye of law and in fact they have not got lawful title or possession and enjoyment of the said land after the
Ex.B.1, E.P. Proceedings in E.P.25/1997 in O.S.75/1992 for the foregoing reasons.
22)Therefore, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 have got only Ac.1-50 cents of land in
S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village as per Ex.A.13 sale deed in accordance with the
Ex.A.12 Lok Adalat Award from Teda Ramu.
23)On the other hand, defendants have got possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties in the present suit, as per their sale deed in Ex.B.10 and in accordance with the other documents in 'B' Series and Exs.X.1 to X.10. Therefore, the plaintiffs in fact have manipulated the records that were issued by the Revenue officials by playing fraud on the revenue officials on the basis of Exs.A.1 to A.4 sale deeds. Thus the other documents in 'A' series do not prove either title or possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in respect of the plaint schedule property in the present suit, which belonged to the defendants and they got the possession and enjoyment of the said land.
24)The plaintiffs have not got Ac.12-83 cents of land even as per other documents in 'A' series and Exs.A.1 & A.2 since Exs.A.1 & A.2 are non-est in the eye of law as per the decree in O.S.75/1992 which was obtained by Teda Ramu. The Exs.A.13 &
A.12 and other documents in 'A' Series only relate to Ac.1-50 cents of land in S.No.388/1 and around Ac.3-00 cents of land in S.No.388/2 and other. Thus the plaintiffs have got in total extent of land of not more than Ac.5-00 cents covered by all the survey numbers as pleaded in their written statement relating to S.No.388/1, 388/2 and 388. Therefore, this case of the plaintiffs that they got title, possession and enjoyment of Ac.12-83 cents of land covered by S.Nos.388/1 and 388/2 and 388 of Amruthapuram village is false as per the evidence on record itself.
25)The principle of law is that the possession follows title. Accordingly the
Koilada Venkata Suri Sankararao, Gavara Satyanarayana and other defendants got 14 possession of Ac.2-10 cents of land in S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village with specific boundaries, whereas the plaintiffs got title, possession and enjoyment in respect of Ac.1- 50 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village with boundaries different from the boundaries of the land of defendants covered by plaint schedule and
Ex.A.10 sale deed. Even the plaintiffs have not filed a piece of document to show their title, possession and enjoyment of any piece of land covered by S.No.388/2 and 388 except the Pattadar Passbooks covered by other documents in 'A' Series. At best the plaintiffs got only Ac.1-50 cents of land other extent of land in their title, possession and enjoyment covered by S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village, which is a part of the entire extent of Ac.5-71 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village except the land of Ac.2-10 cents in S.No.388/1. As such, Koilada Venkata Suri Sankararao,
Gavara Satyanarayana and other defendants in this suit have also got a part of land to the extent of Ac.2-10 cents in S.No.388/1 out of Ac.5-71 cents in S.No.388/1 of
Amruthapuram village.
26)Though in a suit for injunction, the possession is only to be considered, but when the Koilada Venkata Suri Sankararao, Gavara Satyanarayana and other defendants and plaintiffs in the present suit on hand claimed title to the plaint schedule property against each other and as such they claimed possession and enjoyment of the said land as per their respective sale deeds. In such case, the prima facie title has necessarily to be looked into. Therefore, Koilada Venkata Suri Sankararao, Gavara Satyanarayana and other defendants in the present suit have got prima facie title coupled with possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.2-10 cents covered by
S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village. Whereas the plaintiffs have not got prima facie title or possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land in the present suit covered by
S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village.
27)The plaintiffs may have at best possession and enjoyment of other extent of land out of Ac.5-71cents in S.No.388/1 except Ac.2-10 cents of defendants as well as the plaintiffs in S.No.388 and 388/2 of Amruthapuram village. The reason is the defendants did not claim title, possession and enjoyment of the lands covered by S.No.388 and
S.No.388/2 of Amruthapuram village as mentioned in the plaint schedule. Thus, it may be Acs.12-83 cents excluding Ac.2-10 cents in S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village.
15
28)Thus, the other documents in 'A' Series in O.S.75/2007 amply proved the title and possession of the land covered by S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village in the hands of plaintiffs except the extent of Ac.2-10 cents of land covered by S.No.388/1.
29)For the foregoing reasons discussed above, the plaintiffs are not entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint to the extent of Ac.12-83 cents.
30)Issue No.2 :-
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs in the circumstances of the case.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court, this the 29th day of July 2016.
Sd/- x x x x
X Addl. District & Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSESEXAMINED
For Plaintiff:-
S.No. Date Description of Witness P.W.125-1-2010Itham Prabhakara Rao (1st plaintiff) P.W.214-7-2014Voodikala Bhaskara Rao P.W.35-1-2016P. Suresh, VRO P.W.430-3-2016M. Anand Kumar, Dy. Tahasildar
For Defendants :-
S.No. Date Description of Witness D.W.113-8-2014Dasari Malayadri (6th defendant)
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiff:- S.No. Date Description of Document Ex.A.124-6-1991Certified copy of Regd. Sale Deed in favour of plaintiffs. Ex.A.224-6-1991Certified coy of Sale Deed in the name of 4th plaintiff Ex.A.310-5-1988Certified copy of Sale Deed in the name of 4th plaintiff Ex.A.410-5-1988Certified copy of Regd. Sale Deed in favour of vendor of 4th plaintiff Ex.A.5--Certified copy of Pattadar Passbook in the name of 1st plaintiff Ex.A.6--Certified copy of Pattadar Passbook in the name of 2n plaintiff Ex.A.7--Certified copy of Pattadar Passbook in the name of 3rd plaintiff Ex.A.8--Bunch of Photos along with negatives Ex.A.9--Original milk passbook Ex.A.10--Electricity bills (7 in number) Ex.A.11--Certified copy of L.R. Receipts (11 in number) Ex.A.123-5-2003Original Award Copy of Lok Adalat Ex.A.1331-12-2002Certified copy of sale deed executed by T. Ramu in favour of the plaintiffs Ex.A.144-1-2006C.C. of Cattle feed bill Ex.A.1516-1-2006Certified copy of Bill Ex.A.1619-1-2006Certified copy of Bill Ex.A.1715-1-2006Certified copy of Bill Ex.A.1816-1-2006Certified copy of Soil Report Ex.A.1915-1-2006Certified copy of Water Sample Report (2 in number) Ex.A.2027-1-2006Certified copy of Land Fertility Report (5 in number) 16
Ex.A.219-7-2006Certified copy of I.T. Returns of the 1st plaintiff Ex.A.229-7-2003Certified copy of I.T. Returns Ex.A.2325-2-2004C.C. of delivery Challan Ex.A.2410-3-2004C.C. of Solar Fence Ex.A.2524-1-2005C.C. of Proceedings of Project Director Ex.A.2610-10-2005C.C. of Order in IA 2023/05 in O.S.421/05 Ex.A.2719-1-2006C.C. of Complaint of the 1st plaintiff Ex.A.2827-1-2011C.C. of Proceedings of R.D.O. Ex.A.1 to A.8, A.11 and A.13 to A.28 are marked subject to objection Ex.A.2924-6-1991Registration Extract of Regd. Sale Deed in favour of 4th plaintiff Ex.A.3010-5-1988Registration Extract of Regd. Sale Deed in favour of 4th plaintiff Ex.A.3117-1-2011Certified copy of Orders passed by Rdo, Visakhapatnam Ex.A.32--Certified copy of Number III Adangal in respect of Khata No.551/ 361273 (marked subject to objection as to proof and relevancy) Ex.A.33--Certified copy of No.III Adangal Exs.A.32 & A.33 are marked through cross examination of P.W.3 Ex.X.1--I-B Katha Number Register Ex.X.2--Entries of Itham Rajesh in I B Register Ex.X.3--Entries of Itham Prabhakar in I B Register Ex.X.4--Entries of Itham Srinivasarao in I B Register Ex.X.5--Entries of Itham Chandravalli in I B Register Ex.X.6--Village No.3 Adangal Ex.X.7--Entries of Itham Chandravalli in Village No.3 Adangal Ex.X.8--Entries of Itham Prabhakararao in Village No.3 Adangal Ex.X.9--Entries of Itham Rajeswararao in Village No.3 Adangal Ex.X.10--Entries of Itham Srinivasarao in Village No.3 Adangal Exs.X.1 to X.10 are marked through chief examination of P.W.4
For Defendants:-
S.No. Date Description of Document Ex.B.1--Certified copy of Delivery Receipt Ex.B.2--Certified copy of petition and affidavit in IA 509/2000 in
O.S.86/2000
Ex.B.3--Certified copy of Counter in I.A.509/2000 Ex.B.4--Certified copy of Written Statement in O.S.86/2000 Ex.B.5--Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.86/2000 Ex.B.6--Certified copy of issues in O.S.86/2000 Ex.B.73-1-2004Pattadar Pass book issued by MRO in favour of 6th defendant's vendor Ex.B.83-1-2004Title Deed issued by RDO in favour of 6th defendant's vendor Ex.B.928-6-2006Pattadar Passbook issued by MRO in favour of 6th defendant Ex.B.1014-10-2005Sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 5 in favour of D.6 Ex.B.116-2-2013Certified copy of I-B Form Ex.B.126-2-2010Encumbrance Certificate ExB.138-10-2010Encumbrance Certificate Ex.B.1425-1-2010Certified copy of Decree in O.S.75/2007 Ex.B.1525-1-2010Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.75/2007 Ex.B.1613-4-2010Copy of Government of A.P. Visakhapatnam District Gazettee Publication Ex.B.178-7-2010Certified copy of Orders in Inam Case No. AIP No.14/2010 with Form VII Ryotwari Patta Ex.B.18--The original I-B Register pertaining S.No.388/1 of Amruthapuram village relating to Khata No.770.
Sd/- x x x x
X Addl. District & Sessions Judge
Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
17
Date of Presentation : 19-10-2005 Date of Filing : 19-10-2005 Received by made over from VII ADSJ (FTC), VSP to this Court on : 25-8-2011
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLE.
Present: Sri Ch. Balagangadhara Tilak Roy,
X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
Friday, this the 29 th day of July, 2016.
O.S.75 / 2007 (Old O.S.No.421/2005)
Between:
1) Itham Prabhakara Rao, S/o. late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 36 years, resident of Flat No.403, Akella Arcade, Anand Bhavan Residency, near Green Park Hotel, Viskahapatnam- 2.
2) Itham Srinivasa Rao, S/o. late Anandarao, Hindu, aged 37 years, r/of rest-do-
3) Itham Rajesh, S/o. late Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, rest-do-
4) Itham Chandravalli, S/o. late Anandarao, Hindu, aged 50 years, rest-do-
.... Plaintiffs.
And:
1) Teda Mutyalu, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 42 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Teda Demudu Babu, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 47 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Teda Kanaka Raju, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 43 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Teda Suryanarayana, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 44 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
5) V. Eswara Rao, father's name not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 45 years, residing at Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
6) Dasari Malayadri, S/o. Malakondaiah, Hindu, aged 42 years, residing at D.No.12-4-82, Pudimadaka Road, Anakapalle. …Defendants.
The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, their men, agents restraining them not to interfere with the lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever, and for costs of the suit.
The value of the suit is notionally fixed at Rs.15,000/- and a Court Fee
of Rs.1086/- is paid under Art.I,Sch.I r/w Sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V. Act.
This suit coming before me on 15-7-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s. N.V. Badarinadh & Madan Mohan, Advocates for Plaintiffs and that Sri A.J.Rao & Smt. D.V. Lakshmi Arrabolu, Advocates for defendants and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth the order and;
D E C R E E
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed;
2) that there be no costs in the circumstances of the case; Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 29th day of July 2016
Sd/- x x x x
X Addl. District & Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
18
Memorandum of costs
For Plaintiffs:- For Defendants:- No cost memo filed on either side.
Sd/- x x x x
X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
Note:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits
which they may with to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed
after three (3) years from this date.
19