1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.
PRESENT: Sri Ch.Madhava Rao, B.Sc, B.L.,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017
Original Suit No. 483 / 2014
Between:- Machavarapu Mallikarjuna Rao s/o. Tirupathaiah, Hindu, aged about 36 yrs., R/o. Kanaparru Village, Nadendla Mandal & JCJC., Guntur District.,
... Plaintiff.
And
1.Jampani Bhavani w/o. Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 yrs., House Wife, R/o. Kandlagunta village, H/o. Chagallu village, Nakarikallu Mandal, Narasaraopet JCJC., 2.Guntupalli Saroja w/o. Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu, aged 37 yrs., House Wife, R/o.Vijetha Towers, Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet Town & JCJC., Guntur District.,
... Defendants.
This suit is coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Anjaneyulu Chowdary, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for Second Defendant and First Defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, and on hearing both sides, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed for Declaration of right and title of the plaintiff over the schedule property and for consequential Injunction and for costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are,the plaintiff purchased the schedule property prior to 4 years of the sale deed as Bill Contract for
Rs.2,50,000/- by paying the entire sale consideration. As the Plaintiff demanded to execute registered sale deed in his favour, the defendant executed a Registered Sale Deed Dt. 5-7-2013. The possession of the schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff prior to 4 years of the sale deed and ever since the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute rights and title over the schedule property by virtue of sale deed. The plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any 2 interruption from anybody. The first defendant is no other than the younger daughter of the vendor of the plaintiff by name Kondapaneni
Venkatramaiah. The husband of the 2nd defendant though residing at
Narasaraopet, he hails from Kandlagunta village. The defendants are nothing to do with the schedule property. The schedule property is the self acquired property of the said Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah. As such the 1st
Defendant is not having any right over the schedule property. The 2nd
Defendant is no way related with the family of Kondapaneni
Venkatramaiah. The said Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah is having Ac.5.62 cents of land in D.no.331 of Chagallu and out that extent he sold the schedule property to the plaintiff. The said Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah also sold Ac.0.50 cents of land out of Ac.5.62 cents in the same demarcation number to one Athaluri Sudhakar and executed a registered sale deed in his favour on 5-7-2013. The said Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah is having remaining Ac.5.12 cents in his possession. The Defendants have proclaiming in the village since a week that they are going to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. The defendants are proclaiming that they are having certain documents in their favour in respect of the schedule property. Hence, the defendants are going to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.
The defendants are not having any documents in their favour in respect of schedule property according to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Even if there are any documents existing in favour of the defendants which might have obtained collusively from the said Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah subsequent to the sale deed of plaintiff, such documents are not valid in the eye of law, they are null and void and such documents have no binding at all on the plaintiff . If there is any document in favour of the defendants which might have obtained from the said Kondapaneni 3
Venkatramaiah, if such document is in existence, there will be a cloud over the right and title of the plaintiff over the schedule property.
3.The brief averments of the written statement of the Second
Defendant apart from the denial of the plaint allegations are,
Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah is native of Manchikalapudi of Duggirala
Manal. He migrated to Kandlagunta about 60 years back. In fact he sold away or disposed off all his ancestral properties there and with the said amounts, Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah purchased AC.5.62 cents of land situated in D.No.331 of Kandlagunta from one Ravela Raghavaiah and others under Registered Sale Deed Dt. 15-5-1959. The said land of
Ac.5.62 cents includes the suit schedule land is not a self acquired property of Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah. The said Kondapaneni
Venkatramaiah got two daughters namely Gali Ramadevi and Bhavani i.e., D.1 herein. He performed the marriage of his elder daughter
Ramadevi with one Gali Kotaiah. At the time of her marriage, Kondapaneni
Venkatramaiah gave western Ac.2.00 cents of land out of Ac.5.62 cents to her towards her pasupukumkuma and ever since Ramadevi has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights by paying land revenue etc., Her name was also mutated in Revenue Records including Adangals. Later Ramadevi also purchased Ac.0.50 cents of land which is adjacent north of her Ac.2.00 cents from her father Kondapaneni
Venkatramaiah under oral agreement of sale in the month of May,1986 and ever since she has been in possession of the entire extent of Ac.2.50 cents of land with absolute rights. The said Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah also gave Ac.2.00 cents of land to her 2nd daughter i.e., 1st defendant on the northern adjacent of his remaining land towards her Pasupu Kumkuma at the time of her marriage and ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights and her name was also 4 mutated in revenue records. In fact Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah hold
Ac.1.12 cents only and the same was in his possession and enjoyment.
The revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed to said
Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah in respect of said Ac.1.12 cents of land.
Ramadevi had two daughters and performed their marriages. Ramadevi gift away her Ac.2.50 cents of land to her younger daughter Attaluri
Venkayamma towards her pasupu Kumkuma under unregistered gift document Dt. 6-2-2008 and delivered possession of the same. Ever since the said Venkayamma has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. The Revenue Authorities also recognized her title and possession and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour in respect of said Ac.2.50 cents of land in the month of
July,2008 itself. While so, Venkayamma for her necessities, offered to sell away her Ac.2.50 cents of land. The 2nd defendant purchased it under
Registered Sale Deed Dt.30-5-012 for valid and adequate consideration.
Since then, the 2nd defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights known to all including the plaintiff. The Revenue Authorities , having recognized the possession of 2nd defendant, issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour in respect of Ac.2.50 cents of land and also mutated her name in revenue records. The 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser. The 2nd defendant obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from PACS, Cheemalamarri in the year, 2013.
3(i). There were disputes with regard to the bund in between 2nd defendant and vendor of the plaintiff Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah, due to which he bore grudge against the 2nd defendant and with a view to harass her, the said Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah colluded with the plaintiff and another who are close associates with him and brought into 5 existence styling it as Registered Sale Deed Dt. 5-7-2013 in respect of suit schedule property by giving the boundaries of the land of 2nd defendant as if he sold away it four years prior to the date of it's registration to the plaintiff. The Registered Sale Deed Dt. 5-7-2013 is not a valid document in the eye of law and no consideration was passed under it. The plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser. The vendor of the plaintiff has no right in respect of schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get any better title than the vendor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of schedule property, as such , he is not entitled for Permanent
Injunction. In fact the vendor of the plaintiff also got issued legal notice
Dt. 15-12-2014 claiming the land of the 2nd defendant for which the 2nd
defendant filed COP.No.82/14 on the file of PSCJ and OP.No.32/14 on the file of PJCJ, Narasaraopet. The suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary party , as the first defendant is no way concerned with the schedule land. There is no cause of action for the suit. The frame of the suit is not correct. The plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for Declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to ask for consequential Permanent Injunction ?
3. To what relief?
5. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 are examined and marked
Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of the Second Defendant, D.W.1 is examined and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.12.
6. Heard.
7. Issue No. 1:-
P.w.1 is the plaintiff. He gave the evidence in line with the plaint 6 stating that he purchased the suit schedule property four years back under Bill Contract for Rs.2,50,000/-. He paid the entire consideration amount to his vendor and demanded him to execute a registered sale deed in his favour and he executed registered sale deed in his favour on 5-7-2013. The possession of the plaint schedule property was delivered to him four years prior to the sale deed. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute right without obstruction from anybody. The first defendant is the younger daughter of his vendor by name Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah. The husband of the second defendant though residing in Narasaraopet, he migrated from
Kandlagunta village. The schedule property is the self acquired property of Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah. The first defendant is not having any right over that property. Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah had Ac.5.62 cents land in
D.No.331 of Challagulla village. The schedule property is the part of that extent. Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah also sold Ac.0.50 cents of land out of
Ac.5.62 cents of land to Athaluri Sudhakar under a Registered Sale Deed
Dt. 5-7-2013. He is in possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent
Ac.5.12 cents. The defendants without having any right and title over the schedule property trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Therefore, he filed the suit. In the cross examination, he stated that he is resident of Kanaparthi, Nadendla
Mandal, working in Quality Diagnostic Lab since 2 years at Narasaraopet.
In Sanjivini Diagnostic Center, Attaluri Hanumantharao R/o. Kallagunta is known person to him. His main source of income is his salary. Except
Hanumantharao there were no relatives to him at Kallagunta. The distance between his village and Kallagunta is 30 Kms., In the year, 2009, the stamped agreement of sale was executed for the suit land in his favour in Sanjivini Lab, Narasaraopet. At that time, his wife and 7
Venkatramaiah are present. K.Venkatramaiah have two daughters. First daughter is Ramadevi i.e., D.1 and one Bhavani. He gave the amount to
Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah as Hanumantharao recommended him to lend money. As per the pass book of Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah, he has
Ac.1.62 cents. Hanumantharao's wife is Venkayamma. She sold the land to Second Defendant. Venkayamma is the Venkatramaiah's eldest daughter. The second defendant state to him the land was sold to her by
Venkatramaiah's grand daughter and showed her documents to him After selling the above lands, there is Ac.0.12 cents remaining land with
Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah. Out of Ac.5.62 cents Bhavani is having
Ac.2.00 cents of land on the eastern side. He denied the suggestion
Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah had only Ac.1.12 cents of land between
Defendants 1 and 2. In the document executed by Venkatramaiah in favour of D2, Hanumantharao is the attestor. He denied the suggestion that there were boundary disputes between him and Kondapaneni
Venkatramaiah and D.2 and the sale deed was executed in his favour with the help of grand daughter of Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah and he filed this suit.
8.P.w.2 and P.w.3 are the attestors of Sale Deed Ex.A1. They both testified that Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah four years back executed the sale deed on 5-7-2013 to the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. G.V.Naga Bhushanarao scribed the document and they both attested in it. After reading the sale deed, Venkata Ramaiah signed in it.
From that on wards, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
9.P.w.4 is the scribe of Ex.A1. He testified that Ex.A1 was scribed and prepared by him at the instance of Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah and plaintiff. In his presence Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah executed Ex.A1 8
Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff.
10.The vendor of the plaintiff, Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah was examined as P.w.5. He gave the evidence with regard to the execution of
Ex.A1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the signature in it is his signature. He also executed the sale deed in favour of A.Sudhakar. As per his pattadar pass book , there is Ac.1.52 cents in his favour. On that day, his son in law Gali kotaiah asked him to come as a witnesses. He went there and signed in the document. Hanumantharao is son in law of his son in law. Hanumantharao is also present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 sale deed. He denied the suggestion he executed Ex.A1 sale deed and also the sale deed in favour of Sudhakar and now deposed false as D.2 is his daughter.
11. D.w.1 is the Second Defendant. Her evidence is the father of the 1st Defendant Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah disposed off his ancestral properties at his native place Manchikalapudi, migrated to Kandlagunta about 60 years back and purchased Ac.5.62 cents which includes the suit schedule property. Kondapaneni Venkatramaiah got two daughters namely
Gali Rama Devi and Jampani Bhavani i.e., First Defendant. He performed the marriage of his elder daughter with one Gali Kotaiah. At the time of her marriage, Venkatramaiah gave western Ac.2.00 cents of land out of
Ac.5.62 cents to her towards her pasupukumkuma and ever since
Ramadevi had been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights by paying land revenue. Her name was also mutated in
Revenue Records including Adangals. Later Ramadevi also purchased
Ac.0.50 cents of land which is adjacent north of her Ac.2.00 cents of land , from her father under oral agreement of sale in the month of May,1986 and ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the extent of 9
Ac.2.50 cents with absolute rights. Venkatramaiah also gave Ac.2.00 cents of land to her 2nd daughter i.e., D.1 on the northern adjacent of his remaining land towards her pasupukumkuma at the time of her marriage and ever since she has been possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights and her name was also mutated in revenue records In fact
Venkatramaiah hold Ac.1.12 cents only and the same was in his possession and enjoyment. The revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed to Venkatramaiah in respect of said Ac.1.12 cents only. Ramadevi has two daughters and she performed their marriages.
Ramadevi gifted Ac.2.50 cents of above land to her younger daughter
A.Venkayamma w/o. Hanumantharao towards her Pasupukumkuma under a Registered Gift Deed and delivered possession of the same to her. Ever since Venkayamma has been in possession and enjoyment of the same to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents. Venkayamma for her necessities sell away her
Ac.2.50 cents of land to her under a Registered Sale Deed Dt. 30-5-2012.
Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. The revenue authorities also mutated her name in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of said Ac.2.50 cents in her name. She obtained Rs.1,00,000/- from PACS,
Cheemalamarri in the year, 2013 and repaid that amount and again taken the loan. There were disputes with regarding to the boundary between her and the vendor of the plaintiff Venkatramaiah. Due to which he bore grudge against her and Venkatramaiah colluded with the plaintiff and another close associate of him brought into existence of the sale deeed
Ex.A1 Dt. 5-7-2013 by giving boundaries of his land as it was sold to the plaintiff four years back. Ex.A1 is not a valid document and no consideration under it was passed. The plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser. Since the vendor of the plaintiff had already given the land of 10
Ac.2.50 cents to his daughter, he has no right in respect of the suit schedule property within her land boundaries, as such the plaintiff cannot get any better title than his vendor. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He is not entitled for
Permanent Injunction. The plaint is bad for misjoinder of parties, as the
D.1 is no way concerned with the suit schedule property. She is residing at
Narasaraopet since 15 to 16 years. Her husband Laxminarayana is doing
Real Estate Business. She purchased the land from Athaluri Venkayamma on 30-5-2012 under Ex.B.2. Ramadevi also got the property from her father. In Ex.B.1 Sale Deed Hanumantharao husband of Venyakamma and also her husband are the attestors. She denied the suggestion the sale deed Ex.B.2 in her favour will not convey the right and title in her favour.
12.The documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to prove his claim over the schedule property are, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the
Sale Deed Dt. 5-7-2013 to schedule land in favour of plaintiff from
K.Venkatramaiah. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed Dt.15-5- 1959 in favour of K.Venkatramaiah to an extent of Ac.5.62 cents. Ex.A3 is the Sale Deed in favour of A.Sudhakar by K.Venkatramaiah to an extent of
Ac.0.50 cents in the same survey number of the suit land. Ex.A4 is the pattadar pass book in the name of K.Venkatramaiah, in which the extent of the land in his name was shown as Ac.1.62 cents in S.No.331, but in the extent column there are some arisers.
13.The documentary evidence on behalf of the Second Defendant are,
Ex.B.1 is the Sale Deed Dt. 5-7-2013 in favour of A.Sudhakar by
K.Venkatramaiah with regard to Ac.0.50 cents in D.No.331 of Kandlagunta village. Ex.B.2 is the Sale Deed in favour of G.Saroja i.e., D.2 by
A.Venkayamma w/o. Hanumantharao Dt. 30-5-2012 to an extent of
Ac.2.50 cents in d.No.331. Ex.B.3 is the pattadar pass book in favour of 11
G.Saroja to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in D.No.331. Ex.B.4 is the 1-B ROR in favour of G.Saroja to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in D.No.331. Ex.B.5 is the Adangal extract, in which the 7th serial number was shown as G.Saroja in possession of Ac.2.50 cents for Fasli No.1422. Ex.B.6 is the cist receipt to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in D.No.331 in favour of G.Saroja. Ex.B.7 is the Adangal extract for Fasli No.1396 in D.No.331 shows an extent of
Ac.3.69 cents in the name of K.Venkatramaiah. Ex.B.8 is the Kisan Credit
Card in favour of D.2 i.e., G.Saroja. Ex.B.9 to Ex.B.12 are the Form-B applications of A.P Co-operative Society with regarding to the giving of land in favour of K.Venkatramaih. Ex.B.13 is the office copy of legal notice Dt.15-12-2014 issued by K.Venkatramaiah to the Second
Defendant.
14.The counsel for the plaintiff argued that K.Venkatramaiah executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for Ac.1.00 cents. The same was admitted by K.Venkatramaiah in his evidence. K.Venkatramaiah is having
Ac.1.62 cents after giving the land to his daughters. Therefore, the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A1 is a valid document and it is binding on the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right and title over the suit schedule property and also argued the payment of the revenue receipts and other revenue records with regarding to the
Ac.2.50 cents in the name of Second Defendant will not create any title in favour of the Defendants. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Nath Khanna and others v.
Narinder Nath Kapoor (Dead) Through L.Rs., and others reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 1433 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held at Para -22 as follows:- “ In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand & Ors., this Court held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an 12 immovable property. In the case of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh & Ors., this
Court observed that entries made by patwari in official record are only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be drawn on the same , particularly, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the appellants in the revenue records.
In the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar and
P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors., v. Revemma & Ors., this Court held that in cases where the possession was initially permissive, the burden lies heavily on that person alleging adverse possession to prove that the possession has become adverse. Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession.”
15.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Second Defendant argued that K.Venkatramaiah already gifted Ac.2.00 cents to his elder daughter and another Ac.0.50 cents by way of oral agreement of sale.
After that he is not having the land to sell Ac.1.00 cents to the plaintiff and Ac.0.50 cents to A.Sudhakar, therefore, Ex.A1 is not a valid document and it is not binding on the Defendants.
16.In view of the decided case of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that
Revenue Records will not create title except for recovery of revenue for the state. The second defendant exbited Ex.B.2 Sale Deed in his favour from A.Venkayamma with regarding to the Ac.2.50 cents in S.No.331.
There is no dispute with regarding to the execution of Ex.B.2 Sale Deed.
The only dispute is with regarding to the extent of the land covered under that sale deed. Even as per the case of the Defendants, K.Venkatramaiah gifted Ac.2.00 cents towards pasupukumkuma to his eldest daughter
G.Ramadevi and another Ac.0.50 cents was purchased by her under an 13 oral agreement of sale from Venkatramaiah total it became Ac.2.50 cents and that extent was gifted by her to his grand daughter Venkayamma.
Venkayamma executed Ex.B.2 sale deed in favour of Second Defendant.
The main source of title acquired by First Defendant and her successor
Venkayamma are acquired the title through Venkatramaiah.
Venkatramaiah himself executed Ex.A1 Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff.
He admitted the execution of the sale deed in his examination. There is no dispute with regarding to the giving of Ac.2.00 cents land to pasupukumkuma to Ramadevi and another Ac.0.50 cents was given to her under an oral agreement of sale. So, that oral agreement of sale was not valid under law. Apart from it, the real title holder Venkatramaiah himself executed Ex.A.1 Sale Deed. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is having right and title for the suit schedule property of Ac.1.00 cents and he is entitled for Declaration of his right and title as prayed for.
17.Issue No. 2: -
In view of the finding in Issue No.1, the plaintiff is also entitled for consequential Permanent Injunction.
18.Issue No.3 : -
In the result, suit is decreed by declaring that the Plaintiff is having right and title over the suit schedule property and also granted
Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the Defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, each party has to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Steno Gr.-II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NARASARAOPET.
14
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:- P.w.1 : Machavarapu Mallikarjuna Rao. P.w.2 : Makkena Anjaneyulu. P.w.3 : Kavuri Padma Rao. P.w.4 : G.V.Nagabhushanam. P.w.5 : K.Venkatramaiah.
For Second Defendant:- D.w.1 : Guntupalli Saroja.
For First Defendant : - Exparte.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff:- Ex.A1 : C/c of Sale Deed Dt. 5-7-2013. Ex.A2 : C/c of Sale Deed Dt. 15-5-1959. Ex.A3 : Signature of K.Venkatramaiah on original Sale Deed Dt.5-7-2013. Ex.A4 : Pattadar Pass Book in favour of K.Venkatramaiah.
For Second Defendant:- Ex.B.1 C/c of Sale Deed Dt. Dt. 5-7-2013. Ex.B.2 Registered Sale Deed Dt. 30-05-2012. Ex.B.3 Pattadar Pass Book in favour of 2nd Defendant. Ex.B.4 1-B ROD Dt. 22-1-2015. Ex.B.5 Fasli Dt. 9-2-2013. Ex.B.6 Cist Receipt Dt. 18-12-2014. Ex.B.7 C/c of Adangal/Fasli 1396. Ex.B.8 Kisan Credit Card. Ex.B.9 to Ex.B.12 C/c of Mortgage/Charge Deeds executed in favour of PACS, Cheemalamarri. Ex.B.13 O/c. Of Legal Notice Dt. 15-12-2014.
For First Defendant : Exparte.
P.S.C.J.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.
PRESENT: Sri Ch.Madhava Rao, B.Sc, B.L.,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017
Original Suit No. 483 / 2014
Between:- Machavarapu Mallikarjuna Rao s/o. Tirupathaiah, Hindu, aged about 36 yrs., R/o. Kanaparru Village, Nadendla Mandal & JCJC., Guntur District.,
... Plaintiff.
And
1.Jampani Bhavani w/o. Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 yrs., House Wife, R/o. Kandlagunta village, H/o. Chagallu village, Nakarikallu Mandal, Narasaraopet JCJC., 2.Guntupalli Saroja w/o. Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu, aged 37 yrs., House Wife, R/o.Vijetha Towers, Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet Town & JCJC., Guntur District.,
... Defendants.
This suit is filed for Declaration of right and title of the plaintiff over the schedule property and for consequential Injunction and for costs.
Plaint presented on : 04-12-2014. Plaint filed on: 04-12-2014.
Cause of action for the suit arose four years prior to execution of sale deed
Dt. 5-7-2013, since then when the plaintiff have been enjoying the property having
delivered possession of the property by receiving the entire sale consideration, when the K.Venkatramaiah executed a Registered Sale Deed D. 5-7-2013 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property and the plaintiff having acquired right and title over the property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and when since a week when the defendants proclaiming in the village that they are having certain documents in respect of schedule property at Kandlagunta village where the property is situated and where the plaintiff and defendants have been residing at Kandlagunta and Narasaraopet within the jurisdiction of this court.
Valuation :-
This being a suit for Declaration and for consequential Permanent Injunction, the Market Value of the property is Rs.2,50,000/-, 1/2th same is Rs.1,25,000/-. On which a court fee of Rs.3,626/- is paid u/s.24(b) of APCF & SV Act.
Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.1,25,000/-.
This suit is coming on 16-3-2017for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Anjaneyulu Chowdary, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for Second Defendant and First Defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, and on hearing both sides, this court doth the order and decreed as follows:-
i) That the suit be and the same is decreed; and ii) That declared the plaintiff is having right and title over the suit schedule property ; and iii) That granted Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property; and iv) That each party do bear their own costs.
Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 27th day of April,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NARASARAOPET.
Table of Costs
For Plaintiff:-For Second Defendant:-
Vakalat 2-00 2-00
Stamp on plaint 3626-00 --
Advocate's fee 7500-00 7500-00
Process fees 200-00 --
Writing charges 20-00 20-00
Typing charges 20-00 20-00
----------------------------------
Total : Rs.11368-00 7,542-00
------------- ---------------------
P.S.C.J.
N.B:- Plaint Schedule is herewith attached.