1 of 38 A.S. No.44 of 2022
TSKM000005722022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT
KAMAREDDY.
Present:- Dr.Ch.V.R.R. Varaprasad,
Principal District Judge, Kamareddy.
FAC: I Addl. District Judge, Kamareddy.
TUESDAY, THE 17 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
A.S. No. 44 O F 2022
(Old A.S. No.14 of 2018 on the file of VII Addl. District Court, Bodhan).
Between: G.Saireddy S/o Gali Reddy, Age:60 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Borlam Village, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. … APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
AND
1.Sri Venkateshwara Educational Society vide Registered No.6386 of 2000 represented by its president Venkateshwar Rao Desai S/o Manikeshwar Rao Desai, Age:60 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.5-99, Rudraram Village, Post and Mandal Rudrur, Nizamabad District.
2.K.Gangadhar S/o Kistaiah, Age:63 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-2-91, Post and Mandal Rudrur, Nizamabad District.
3.K.Jayasri W/o K.Gangadhar, Age:59 Years, Occ:Housewife, R/o H.No.4-2-91, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
4.K.Hanmanth Rao S/o Vittal Rao, Age:68 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-1-6/7, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
2 of 38
5.K.Laxmi Bai W/o K.Hanmanth Rao, Age:62 Years, Occ:House wife, R/o H.No.4-1-6/7, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
6.K.Sadanandam S/o Venkataiah, Age:58 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-1-8/1, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
7.K.Vimala Devi W/o K.Sadanandam, Age:53 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-1-8/1, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
8.P.VenkatRamuluS/oKeshanna,Age:73Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.7-10-116, R.P.Road, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
9.P.Manohar S/o Venkatramulu, Age:44 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.7-10-116, R.P.Road, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
10. B.Prakash S/o Gangaram, Age:55 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-45, Post Deshaipet, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District.
11. M.Venu Gopal S/o Kedhari, Age:45 Years, Occ:Govt. Employee, R/o H.No.2-12-74, Vayuputhra Colony, Post and Mandal Hanmakonda, Warangal District.
12. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Educational Society, Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District vide Reg. No.582/2009 represented by Sri Rangineni Hanamanth Rao S/o Vittal Rao, Age:77 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-1-6/7, Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.
… RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS
ON APPEAL AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 09.01.2018 PASSED BY THE JUNIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BANSWADA
IN
OS.NO. 45 OF 2011
A.S. No.44 of 2022
3 of 38
Between: G.Saireddy S/o Gali Reddy, Age:53 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Borlam Village, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District.
.. PLAINTIFF
AND
1.Sri Venkateshwara Educational Society vide Registered No.6386 of 2000 represented by its president Venkateshwar Rao Desai S/o Manikeshwar Rao Desai, Age:60 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.5-99, Rudraram Village, Post and Mandal Rudrur, Nizamabad District.
2.K.Gangadhar S/o Kistaiah, Age:56 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-2-91, Post and Mandal Rudrur, Nizamabad District.
3.K.Jayasri W/o K.Gangadhar, Age:52 Years, Occ:Housewife, R/o H.No.4-2-91, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
4.K.Hanmanth Rao S/o Vittal Rao, Age:61 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-1-6/7, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
5.K.Laxmi Bai W/o K.Hanmanth Rao, Age:55 Years, Occ:House wife, R/o H.No.4-1-6/7, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
6.K.Sadanandam S/o Venkataiah, Age:51 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-1-8/1, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
7.K.Vimala Devi W/o K.Sadanandam, Age:46 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-1-8/1, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
8.P.VenkatRamuluS/oKeshanna,Age:66Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.7-10-116, R.P.Road, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
9.P.Manohar S/o Venkatramulu, Age:37 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.7-10-116, R.P.Road, Post and Mandal Banswada, Nizamabad District.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
4 of 38
10. B.Prakash S/o Gangaram, Age:48 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-45, Post Deshaipet, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District.
11. M.Venu Gopal S/o Kedhari, Age:38 Years, Occ:Govt. Employee, R/o H.No.2-12-74, Vayuputhra Colony, Post and Mandal Hanmakonda, Warangal District.
12. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Educational Society, Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District vide Reg. No.582/2009 represented by Sri Rangineni Hanamanth Rao S/o Vittal Rao, Age:70 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-1-6/7, Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.
.. DEFENDANTS
This Appeal Suit is coming before me for final hearing on 09.03.2026 in the presence of Sri G.Jagannatham, Advocate for Appellant, Sri. Ch.Murali, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6, Respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7 to 12 being remained exparte, and on hearing both sides and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This Appeal is filed by plaintiff in OS.No.45 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Banswada under Order XLI Rule 1 r/w
Order XLI Rule 22(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) praying the court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2018 passed by the said court dismissing the suit and counter claim of defendants without costs.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
5 of 38
2.Appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 12 herein are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 12 respectively, as arrayed in OS.No.45 of 2018.
3.Initially OS.No.45 of 2018 was filed against defendant Nos.1 to 11 alone for declaration of title, mandatory injunction, recovery of possession and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre from the date of filing suit till the date of delivery of possession in respect of Ac.2.20 of land in Sy.No.364/1 bounded by: North –
Land of defendants, South – Land of plaintiff, which includes road and land, East – Shivar of Borlem Village and West – Land belonging to Government, situated at Banswada Village and
Mandal, Nizamabad District, presently Kamareddy District, for short ‘suit land’.
4.As per order dated 07.08.2013 in IA.No.16/2013, defendant
No.12 was impleaded in suit.
5.Averments of plaint in OS.No.45 of 2011, in brief, are as follows:
A.S. No.44 of 2022
6 of 38 5.1.Plaintiff purchased Ac.4.01 Gts., Ac.3.38 Gts. and Ac.3.19
Gts. in Sy.Nos.364/1, 364/2 and 364/3 respectively, total extent being Ac.11.18 Gts. of Banswada Village from original pattedars, he got the said land mutated in revenue records and he was issued with pattedar passbook and title deed with Patta No.858.
Similarly, in the name of his wife G.Bhagya Laxmi, plaintiff also purchased Ac.2.36 Gts., Ac.4.04 Gts. and Ac.2.26 Gts. in
Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 respectively, total extent being
Ac.9.26 Gts. of Banswada Village from original pattedars, followed by issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed in her favour.
Thus, plaintiff and his wife became the absolute owners and pattedars and possessors of Ac.11.18 Gts. and Ac.9.26 Gts.
respectively in Sy.Nos.364/1, 364/2 and 364/3 and Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 of Banswada.
5.2.Defendant No.1 is a registered educational society.
Defendant No.1 approached plaintiff and other pattedars to purchase lands to establish Engineering College. Without receiving any sale consideration plaintiff supported defendant No.1 and agreed to transfer part of above lands under gift settlement deeds. Wife of plaintiff executed registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.3745/2000 dated 10.11.2000 (Ex.A3) in
A.S. No.44 of 2022
7 of 38 favour of defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.9.26 Gts. covered by
Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 of Banswada, without receiving any sale consideration. Plaintiff executed registered Gift Deed bearing Document No.604/2001, dated 04.04.2001 (Ex.A5) in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.4.01 Gts. and Ac.1.00
Gts. in Sy.Nos.364/1, 364/2 respectively, total extent being
Ac.5.01 Gts. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 together executed registered Cancellation Deed bearing Document No.3746/2000,
dated 10.11.2000 (Ex.B7). After the execution of Ex.B7 plaintiff
executed registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document
No.605/2001, dated 04.04.2001 (Ex.A4) in respect of Ac.1.15 Gts.
in Sy.No.364/1 out of Ac.11.18 Gts. held by him and, thereby, plaintiff remained as absolute owner of Ac.10.03 Gts. in
Sy.Nos.364/1, 364/2 and 364/3, as mentioned in the sketch annexed to the plaint.
5.3.Defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant Nos.2 to 11 high- handedly occupied suit land on 13.11.2011 and erected double storeyed building, besides constructing compound wall from East to West abutting the road. Road is existing in Sy.No.364 and the plaintiff is the owner of Ac.10.03 Gts. including road. Defendant
No.1 in collusion with defendant Nos.2 to 11 got created
A.S. No.44 of 2022
8 of 38 registered Sale Deed Document No.1838/2010, dated 28.04.2010 (Ex.B9) in respect of lands adjoining survey numbers with an intention to cause loss to plaintiff. Though plaintiff approached police they paid deaf ear and advised him to approach civil court.
Plaintiff approached defendant Nos.1 to 11 on 14.11.2011 demanding redelivery of possession of suit land but they have denied the title of plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 to 11, through mediators, requested plaintiff not to take legal action and offered to pay compensation but invain. Defendant Nos.1 to 11 neither paid compensation nor removed the illegal constructions in suit land, which compelled plaintiff to file suit with above reliefs.
Thus submitting, plaintiff prayed the court to decree the suit as prayed for.
6.Defendant Nos.1 to 11 filed common Written Statement- cum-counter claim, inter-alia, stating as follows:
6.1.By purchasing Ac.16.02 Gts. of land at Banswada outskirts and Ac.11.13 Gts. at the outskirts of Borlam Village, total extent being Ac.27.15 Gts., as one compact block, defendant No.1
Educational Society established Engineering College by paying sale consideration. For the purpose of Income Tax and to avoid
A.S. No.44 of 2022
9 of 38
Stamp Duty, at the request of vendors, registered Gift Deeds were got executed by land holders. Under Ex.A3/Ex.B6 total extent of
Ac.9.26 Gts. in Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 of Banswada was purchased from wife of plaintiff. Ac.5.01 Gts. was purchased from plaintiff under Ex.B7 covered by Sy.Nos.364/1 and 364/2 of
Banswada. Under Ex.A5 registered cancellation deed plaintiff and defendant No.1 cancelled Ex.B7. Plaintiff executed Ex.A4/Ex.B8 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.1.15 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada. Defendant No.1 purchased Ac.6.08 Gts. in
Sy.Nos.615/1, 615/2 and 615/3 under Ex.B2 from one G.Vijaya.
Defendant No.1 purchased Ac.1.16 Gts. in Sy.No.617/అ of Borlam
Village under Ex.B2 from B.Gunnavva. Defendant No.1 also purchased Ac.1.16 Gts. in Sy.No.616/Paiki of Borlam under Ex.B3 from Narsing Rao. Defendant No.1 purchased Ac.1.16 Gts. in
Sy.No.617/ఆ of Borlam under Ex.B4 from Purushottam Reddy.
Similarly, defendant No.1 purchased Ac.0.37 Gts. in Sy.No.616 of
Borlam under Ex.B5 from G.Mahipal Reddy. Though the registered gift deeds were executed by land holders defendant No.1 paid entire sale consideration. By virtue of above registered documents defendant No.1 became the absolute owner and possessor of above properties.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
10 of 38 6.2.Land in Sy.Nos.364/1 and 364/2 of Banswada is the main approach and frontage property to Engineering College.
Defendant No.1 constructed elevated compound wall, doubled storeyed buildings, tin sheet roof sheds, garden, etc. in 2000-2001 itself. Ex.A5 and Ex.B8 are sham and nominal documents and not binding on defendants. Entire land of Ac.5.01 Gts. in Sy.Nos.364/1 and 364/2 of Banswada Village along with other lands purchased by defendant No.1 are covered by compound wall and structures and defendants are in physical possession. Defendant No.1 is neither owner nor possessor of suit land because it has transferred entire lands in favour of defendant No.12 under
Ex.B12. Even by the date of execution of Ex.A5 cancellation deed structures were existing in suit land and no possession was delivered to plaintiff. Land covered by Ex.A5 cancellation deed is abutting the road followed by buildings and sheds constructed by defendant No.1 in Sy.No.364. Suit land is in possession and enjoyment of defendants. Allegation of plaintiff that defendants made illegal constructions and occupied suit land on 13.11.2011 is false. Original ownership of plaintiff and his wife is true and correct. Other averments of plaint are false and baseless. Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On 06.01.2013 plaintiff
A.S. No.44 of 2022
11 of 38 illegally tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of defendants, which compelled defendant to claim the relief of perpetual injunction by way of counter claim.
Thus submitting, defendant Nos.1 to 11 prayed the court to dismiss the suit and allow counter-claim with costs.
7.Defendant No.12 filed separate Written Statement almost reiterating the same averments of Written Statement of defendant
Nos.1 to 11. Defendant No.12 further stated that defendant No.1 gifted the lands under Ex.B12 registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.12 and it was accepted by defendant No.12 and since then defendant No.12 is in physical possession and enjoyment of the said lands, including suit land. Thus submitting, defendant No.12 prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
8.Plaintiff filed rejoinder reiterating, in brief, the averments of plaint and asserted that he has executed Ex.A4 registered Gift
Deed only for Ac.1.15 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada in favour of defendant No.1 after cancellation of Ex.A5 Gift Deed under Ex.B7 cancellation deed and, therefore, suit land was illegally occupied by defendants and they made illegal constructions. Plaintiff denied
Ex.B12 registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour
A.S. No.44 of 2022
12 of 38 of defendant No.12. The allegation of defendants that Ex.B7 and
Ex.A4 being sham and nominal documents is categorically denied.
Plaintiff has also denied the alleged interference on 06.01.2013 and stated that the said allegation was introduced by defendant only for the purpose of counter claim, which is not at all maintainable. Ultimately, plaintiff prayed the court to decree the suit with costs and dismiss the counter claim.
9. After hearing both sides and on perusal of pleadings following issues were framed by trial court:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to (be) declare(d) as the owner of suit schedule property?
2. If so, the plaintiff (is) entitled for relief of mandatory injunction for removal of illegal construction in and over the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff (is) entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant?
4. Whether the plaintiff (is) entitled for mesne profits as prayed for?
5. Whether defendant Nos.1 to 11 are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed in their counter claim?
6. To what relief?
A.S. No.44 of 2022
13 of 38
10.Plaintiff alone was examined as PW1. Defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and got examined M.Anil Kumar, the then
Mandal Surveyor of Banswada as DW2. Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B28 were got marked on behalf of plaintiff and defendant
Nos.1 to 11 respectively, the details of which are mentioned at the
Appendix of Evidence in the judgment under appeal.
11.In Memorandum of Appeal the Grounds taken by plaintiff are that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the suit instead of decreeing the same; trial court failed to appreciate that plaintiff clinchingly proved his ownership over suit land and defendant
Nos.1 to 11 illegally occupied the suit land and made illegal constructions and, therefore, judgment and decree under Appeal are not sustainable under law or facts and they are liable to be set aside.
12.Heard Sri G.Jagannatham, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff and Sri. Ch.Murali, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6/defendant Nos.2, 4 and 6. Respondent
Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7 to 12/defendant Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7 to 12 remained exparte.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
14 of 38
13.Following points arise for determination:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and mesne profits as prayed for in respect of suit land?
2. Whether judgment and decree in O.S.No.45 of 2011, dated 09.01.2018 passed by learned Junior
Civil Judge, Banswada are sustainable under law or
liable to be set aside?
POINT NO.1:
Requirements of legal aspects to be proved:
14.Point No.1 covers Issue Nos.1 to 4 framed by trial court.
There is no necessity for this court to deal with the counter claim of defendant Nos.1 to 11 because no cross appeal has been filed by them. In a first Appeal of this nature this court has to re- appreciate the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, independently and record findings and examine whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs prayed by him. Burden heavily lies on plaintiff to establish his case by cogent and trustworthy evidence.
Plaintiff cannot gain strength to his case from the weaknesses, if any, in the case of defendants. Plaintiff should stand or fall on the strength of his own case. Plaintiff must establish that he is the absolute owner of suit land within the boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule as on the date of filing suit; defendant Nos.1 to 11
A.S. No.44 of 2022
15 of 38 have illegally occupied suit land on 13.11.2011 and made illegal constructions pushing plaintiff into wrongful loss and wrongful gain to defendants. Unless these necessary ingredients are established by plaintiff court can not grant any relief in favour of plaintiff. In this legal backdrop, court proceeds to appreciate the evidence on record and see whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs prayed by him.
Admitted facts:
15.Plaintiff lives by agriculture and resident of Banswada.
Plaintiff purchased Ac.4.01 Gts., Ac.3.38 Gts. and Ac.3.19 Gts. in
Sy.No.364/1, 364/2 and 364/3, total extent being Ac.11.18 Gts., of
Banswada from original pattedars and he was issued with pattedar passbook and title deed with Patta No.858. G.Bhagya Laxmi (wife of plaintiff) purchased Ac.2.36 Gts., Ac.4.04 Gts. and Ac.2.26 Gts.
in Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 respectively, total extent being
Ac.9.26 Gts., of Banswada from original pattedars and she was issued with pattedar passbook and title deed by revenue authorities. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pahanies for the year 1996-1997 reflected the ownership and possession of plaintiff and his wife
G.Bhagya Laxmi in respect of lands purchased by them from original pattedars. Under Ex.A6/Ex.B9 Sale Deed dated 28.04.2010
A.S. No.44 of 2022
16 of 38 defendant No.1, represented by defendant No.2, sold Ac.9.26 Gts.
in Sy.No.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3, which was purchased from wife of plaintiff under Ex.A3, to defendant Nos.2 to 4, R.Hanmanth Rao (husband of defendant No.4) and defendant Nos.6 to 12. Ex.A7 reflected the market value of lands in Sy.Nos.364/1 and 364/2 of
Banswada. Ex.A8 pahani for the year 2001-2002 and 2007-2008,
Ex.A9 pahani for the year 2007-2008, Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 pahanies for the year 2011-2012 also reflected the name of plaintiff as pattedar and possessor of Ac.11.08 Gts. in Sy.Nos.364/1, 364/2 and 364/3 of Banswada. Ex.A12 pattedar passbook of plaintiff also reflected his ownership and possession in respect of total extent of Ac.11.18 Gts. covered by Sy.Nos.364/1, 364/2 and 364/3 of
Banswada. Ex.A13 shows that plaintiff availed crop loan on his land from Andhra Bank, Banswada by depositing his title deed.
16.Ex.A3/Ex.B6 registered Gift Deed was executed by wife of plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 on 10.11.2000 in respect of entire extent of Ac.9.26 Gts. in Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 of
Banswada purchased by her from original pattedars. Under Ex.B7 registered Gift Deed dated 10.11.2000 plaintiff gifted Ac.4.01 Gts.
in Sy.No.364/1 and Ac.1.00 Gts. in Sy.No.364/2, total extent being
Ac.5.01 Gts. of Banswada in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.A5
A.S. No.44 of 2022
17 of 38 registered cancellation deed dated 04.04.2001 was executed by plaintiff and defendant No.1, represented by its President
Venkateshwar Rao Desai, cancelling Ex.B7 registered Gift Deed executed by plaintiff. Ex.A4/Ex.B8 is the registered Gift Deed
dated 04.04.2001 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant
No.1 in respect of Ac.1.15 Gts. in Sy.Nos.364/1 out of Ac.4.01 Gts.
of Banswada.
17.Under Ex.B1 registered Gift Deed dated 10.11.2000 was executed by G.Vijaya in favour of defendant No.1 for Ac.6.08 Gts.
in Sy.Nos.615/1, 615/2 and 615/3 of Borlam Village outskirts.
B.Gunnavva executed Ex.B2 registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.1 for Ac.1.16 Gts. in Sy.No.617/అ of Borlam Village outskirts on 10.11.2000. One Narsing Rao S/o Bapu Rao executed
Ex.B3 registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.1 for Ac.1.06
Gts. in Sy.No.616/Paiki of Borlam Village outskirts on 10.11.2000.
One Purushottam Reddy S/o Narayana Reddy executed Ex.B4 registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.1 for Ac.1.16 Gts.
in Sy.No.617/ఆ of Borlam Village outskirts. G.Mahipal Reddy S/o
Raji Reddy executed Ex.B5 registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.0.37 Gts. in Sy.No.616 of Borlam
A.S. No.44 of 2022
18 of 38
Village outskirts. Ex.B10 Sale Deed was executed by defendant
No.1, being represented by its President (defendant No.2), in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4, R.Hanmanth Rao (husband of defendant No.4) and defendant Nos.6 to 12 on 28.04.2010, in respect of lands covered by Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 to Ex.B5, which were gifted to defendant No.1. Ex.B12 is the registered Gift Deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.12 for
Ac.1.16 Gts. in Sy.No.617/ అ of Borlam Village outskirts, which was gifted to defendant No.1 under Ex.B2. Under Ex.B11 registered
Lease Deed dated 01.06.2010, defendant No.12 for Ac.5.07 Gts. in
Sy.No.615/2, 615/3, 617/A and 617/AA of Borlam Village outskirts in favour of Navya Bharathi Educational Society, Hyderabad represented by its Secretary K.Santhosh Kumar. These facts are not in dispute.
Analysis of evidence with regard to disputed facts:
18.Plaintiff no doubt pressed into service the plea that without receiving any sale consideration he has executed Ex.A4/Ex.B8 registered Gift Deed and several other persons, including his wife
Bhagya Laxmi, executed registered Gift Deeds in favour of defendant No.1. On the other hand, it is the case of defendant
A.S. No.44 of 2022
19 of 38
No.1 that at the request of plaintiff, his wife and other vendees, defendant No.1 obtained registered Gift Deeds to avoid payment of income tax and higher stamp duty and, as such, no registered sale deeds were executed in place of registered Gift Deeds.
Admittedly, plaintiff has not challenged Ex.A4/Ex.B8 registered
Gift Deed as null and void within the period of limitation. It appears that since defendant No.1 is an Educational Society having been registered in the year 2000 as a Charitable Trust the
Registering Authority entertained the registered Gift Deeds executed by plaintiff, his wife and others in favour of defendant
No.1. It is true that there is no recital in Ex.A4/Ex.B8 and other registered Gift Deeds about receiving sale consideration and naturally so because a Gift Deed does not contain any sale consideration. At this length of time plaintiff can not contend that without receiving sale consideration he has executed Ex.A4/Ex.B8 in favour of defendant No.1. The fact remains that Ex.A4/Ex.B8 was executed by plaintiff way back on 04.04.2001, while the suit was filed in trial court on 16.12.2011.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
20 of 38
19.It is not in dispute that initially plaintiff has executed Ex.B7 registered Gift Deed on 10.11.2000 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of Ac.4.01 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 and Ac.1.00 Gts. in
Sy.No.364/2 of Banswada in favour of defendant No.1 and the possession of the said land was also delivered, as reflected in
Ex.B7. Boundaries mentioned in Ex.B7 are: East – Land of defendant No.1 received under gift in Borlam Village outskirts,
West – Government land, North – Land of defendant No.1 received under gift and South – Remaining land of plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that Ex.B7 was cancelled under Ex.A5 registered
Cancellation Deed dated 04.04.2001 mentioning the very same boundaries as shown in Ex.B7. On behalf of defendant No.1
Society its President Venkateshwar Rao Desai has signed on Ex.A5 registered Gift Deed. Defendants have not disputed Venkateshwar
Rao Desai being the President of defendant No.1 Society at the relevant time. One can not deny that Ex.B7 registered gift deed can be cancelled under registered instrument by Donor and Donee and it cannot be cancelled unilaterally by Donor alone because gift comes into force immediately when it is accepted by the
Donor. That apart, defendants are not disputing the factum of
A.S. No.44 of 2022
21 of 38 cancellation of Ex.B7 registered gift deed under Ex.A5 registered cancellation deed.
20.Court has to refer to the mutation and other documents in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.B14 is the pattedar passbook issued in favour of defendant No.1 Society, represented by Venkateshwar
Rao Desai, in respect of Ac.4.01 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 and Ac.1.00 in
Sy.No.364/2 of Banswada, which land is covered by Ex.B7, issued on 30.01.2010 by Tahsildar, Bichkunda, apart from lands in
Sy.Nos.363/1 to 363/3, which realted to Ex.A3/Ex.B6 executed by wife of plaintiff. Ex.B15 is the title deed and Ex.B16 is the pattedar passbook issued on 30.01.2010 in favour of defendant No.1
Society, represented by its President Venkateshwar Rao Desai, in respect of total extent of Ac.11.13 Gts. in Sy.No.615/1 to 615/3, 616 and 617/ ఆ of Borlam Village outskirts. Ex.B17 is the mutation proceedings in respect of lands covered by Ex.B15 and Ex.B16.
Ex.B15 to Ex.B17 are not relevant because they do not relate to the subject matter of suit. Ex.B18 is the mutation proceedings
dated 30.01.2010 issued by Tahsildar, Bichkunda in favour of
defendant No.1 Society, represented by its President
Venkateshwar Rao Desai, mutating its name in place of G. Bhagya
A.S. No.44 of 2022
22 of 38
Laxmi (wife of plaintiff) in respect of total extent of Ac.9.26 Gts. in
Sy.Nos.363/1 to 363/3 covered by Ex.A3/Ex.B6 and Ac.4.01 Gts. in
Sy.No.364/1 and Ac.1.00 Gts. in Sy.No.364/2 of Banswada in place of name of plaintiff, which corresponds to Ex.B7 registered Gift
Deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1.
21.As already stated, Ex.B7 registered Gift Deed was cancelled by plaintiff and defendant No.1 Society together under Ex.A5 registered Cancellation Deed dated 04.04.2001. Ex.B7 was executed on 10.11.2000 by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1.
Nearly after five months Ex.A5 cancellation deed was executed cancelling Ex.B7. There is no record to show that the name of defendant No.1 Society was mutated in revenue records immediately after execution of Ex.B7 registered Gift Deed. The question of mutation of Ac.4.01 Gts. in the name of defendant
No.1 after 04.04.2011 does not arise because Ex.B7 was cancelled on 04.04.2001 under Ex.A5. On the same date of Ex.A5 cancellation deed, plaintiff has executed Ex.A4/Ex.B8 in favour of defendant No.1 Society on 04.04.2001 in respect of Ac.1.15 Gts.
of land in Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada with boundaries: East –
Borlam outskirts covered by land in Sy.Nos.615/1, 615/2 and
A.S. No.44 of 2022
23 of 38 615/3, West – Government land, North – Land in Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 and South – Remaining land of plaintiff.
Ex.A4/Ex.B8 is not in dispute.
22.It is very important to note that despite cancellation of Ex.B7 registered Gift Deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant
No.1 Society under Ex.A5 registered cancellation deed Tahsildar of
Banswada without even verifying the documents and revenue records has mutated the name of defendant No.1 Society under
Ex.B18 for Ac.4.01 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada on 30.01.2010. Though the fact remains that Ex.A4/Ex.B8 was executed in favour of defendant No.1 Society only for Ac.1.15 Gts.
in Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada, Thasildar, Banswada went to the extent of issuing on the same day (30.01.2010) Ex.B14 pattedar passbook in favour of defendant No.1 Society for Ac.4.01 Gts. in
Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada, which is quite illegal. There is no explanation from defendants as to how they got the name of defendant No.1 mutated in revenue records and got issued Ex.B14 for Ac.4.01 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada despite having knowledge that plaintiff and Venkateshwar Rao Desai, the then
President of defendant No.1 Society, cancelled Ex.B7 registered gift deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 Society.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
24 of 38
Defendants played fraud and obtained Ex.B14 pattedar passbook and Ex.B18 mutation proceedings by mentioning Ex.B7 registered gift deed, which was cancelled under Ex.A5. This is one of the serious infirmities in the case of defendants which cuts the case of defendants at its root.
23.It is mentioned in written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 11 and reiterated by DW1 in his chief-examination affidavit that
Ex.B7 registered gift deed was cancelled under Ex.A5 at the request of plaintiff himself for his purpose and that Ex.A4 and
Ex.A5 are sham and nominal documents and they have to be completely ignored. The said statement of DW1 and recital in written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 11 to that effect is quite contrary to law. The said plea of defendant Nos.1 to 11 is also quite contrary to Ex.A5 under which Ex.B7 gift deed was cancelled and plaintiff has executed Ex.A4 gift deed on the very same date of Ex.A5 cancellation deed (04.04.2001) for Ac.1.15 Gts. in
Sy.364/1 of Banswada. Defendants can neither take the plea nor adduce oral evidence contrary to Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. Any amount of plea or oral evidence of defendants taken contrary to Ex.A4 and
Ex.A5 is of no value.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
25 of 38
24.Ex.A14 filed by plaintiff is also very important. Ex.A14 is mutation proceedings dated 12.02.2011 issued by Tahsildar,
Banswada mutating the name of plaintiff in place of Venkateshwar
Rao Desai for Ac.4.01 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada and
Ac.1.00 Gts. in Sy.No.364/2 of Banswada. In Ex.A14 there is a reference of Ex.A5 cancellation deed. As stated supra, on 30.01.2010 Ex.B18 was issued by Tahsildar, Banswada without taking into consideration Ex.A4 registered gift deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 Society on 04.04.2001 for
Ac.1.15 Gts. and without taking the said extent of land into consideraton Ex.A14 was issued erroneously by Tahsildar,
Banswada. Be that as it may, from the evidence on record, it is clear that plaintiff gifted only Ac.1.15 Gts. of land in Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada under Ex.A4/Ex.B8 and by virtue of cancellation of
Ex.B7 under Ex.A5 there remained Ac.2.26 Gts. with plaintiff in
Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada and Ac.1.00 Gts. in Sy.No.364/2 of
Banswada. It is clear from Ex.A4/Ex.B8 that after cancellation of
Ex.B7 under Ex.A5, only Ac.1.15 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 was delivered to defendant No.1 Society by plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of defendants that there was no redelivery of Ac.2.26 Gts. in
A.S. No.44 of 2022
26 of 38
Sy.No.364/1 to plaintiff subsequent to Ex.A5 cancellation deed can not be accepted as true and correct.
25.In Para No.8 of written statement-cum-counter claim it is categorically mentioned that the land admeasuring Ac.2.20 Gts. in
Sy.No.364 (suit land) is in possession and enjoyment of defendants. The said recital has been reiterated by DW1 in Para
No.9 of chief-examination affidavit of DW1. In cross-examination
DW1 admitted that total extent of land in Sy.No.364/1 to 364/3 is
Ac.11.18 Gts. In subsequent sentences of cross-examination, DW1 categorically stated that defendant No.1 Society has concern only with AC.1.15 Gts. of land in Sy.No.364/1 and they have no concern with remaining land. DW1 also admitted that under Ex.B13 defendant No.1 sold out Ac.1.15 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 (covered by
Ex.A4/Ex.B8) on 28.12.2011 to defendant No.12 Society. From the above statements of DW1 and recital in Para No.8 of written statement-cum-counter claim of defendant Nos.1 to 11 it is clear that defendants are admitting that suit land is in their possession.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
27 of 38
26.Then comes the boundaries mentioned in Ex.B7, Ex.A5 and
Ex.A4/Ex.B8. In Ex.B7 and Ex.A5 the boundaries are found tallying.
Naturally they would tally because Ex.B7 was the initially registered gift deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant
No.1 for Ac.5.01 Gts. and under Ex.A5 dated 04.04.2001, Ex.B7 gift deed was cancelled. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2, 4 and 6, who are contesting this appeal, contended that boundaries prevail over extent and survey number and as the very same boundaries are mentioned in Ex.A4 and Ex.B7, no credence can be given to the case of plaintiff. Court has compared the boundaries mentioned in Ex.B7 and Ex.A4/Ex.B8. For the sake of comparison it is just and necessary to extract the boundaries mentioned in
Ex.B7 and Ex.A4/Ex.B8. Boundaries mentioned in Ex.B7 are as follows:
East – Land of defendant No.1 received under gift in Borlam Village outskirts, West– Government land, North– Land of defendant No.1 received under gift South – Remaining land of plaintiff.
Boundaries mentioned in Ex.A4/Ex.B8 are as follows:
East –Borlam outskirts covered by land in Sy.Nos.615/1, 615/2 and 615/3, West – Government land, North – Land in Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 South – Remaining land of plaintiff.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
28 of 38
Except Western and Southern boundaries the other boundaries are found not tallying between Ex.B7 and Ex.A4/Ex.B8. In Ex.B7
Eastern boundary is shown as land of defendant No.1 received under gift at Borlam outskirts whereas in Ex.A4/Ex.B8 Eastern boundary is shown as land in Sy.Nos.615/1, 615/2 and 615/3 of
Borlam outskirts. Similarly, in Ex.B7 Northern boundary is shown as land of defendant No.1 got under gift and in Ex.A4/Ex.B8 land in Sy.Nos.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 is shown. It is true that defendant No.1 Society purchased lands in Sy.Nos.615/1, 615/2 and 615/3 from G.Vijaya and it is not known whether it is the same land referred to as Eastern boundary in Ex.A4/Ex.B8. Similarly, defendant No.1 Society purchased land in Sy.No.363/1, 363/2 and 363/3 from G.Bhagya Laxmi (wife of plaintiff) and it is not known whether it is the same land referred to as Northern boundary in
Ex.A4/Ex.B8. Even if assuming for a moment that the boundaries between Ex.B7 and Ex.A4/Ex.B8 are tallying with each other, as already stated, in written statement-cum-counter claim of defendant Nos.1 to 11 and the chief-examination affidavit of DW1 it is categorically admitted that suit land is in possession of defendants, which is favourable to plaintiff to decree the suit.
A.S. No.44 of 2022
29 of 38
27.DW1 deposed in cross-examination that the land covered by
Ex.B7 is situated on either side of the road towards North and
South. DW1 also admitted that they have constructed a Gate on
Northern side of the road, which is entry gate, and they have no lands towards Southern side of the road in Sy.No.364/1 of
Banswada. In Ex.A4/Ex.B8 Northern side boundary is not shown as road. DW1 reiterated in cross-examination that defendant No.1
Society encroached into his property, which is supported by the recitals in Para No.9 of written statement-cum-counter claim and the chief-examination affidavit of DW1. As already stated, the factum of plaintiff executing Ac.1.15 Gts. under Ex.A4/Ex.B8 is categorically admitted by DW1 in cross-examination and he has asserted that defendants have no concern with the other land in
Sy.No.364/1, except Ac.1.15 Gts. Therefore, it is clear that defendants have illegally occupied suit land to the extent of
Ac.2.20 Gts. and made illegal constructions.
28.It is an admitted fact that defendant No.1 Society made certain constructions and established Engineering College. Ex.B19 is the proceedings of Director of Town and Country Planning,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 26.05.2001,
A.S. No.44 of 2022
30 of 38 under which construction permission was granted in favour of defendant No.1 Society. Ex.B20 is the proceedings of same authority dated 14.06.2001, wherein in Reference No.7 there is a mention about telephone call received from the then Hon’ble
Minister, Panchayat Raj Department. Approved plans annexed to
Ex.B19 and Ex.B20 are not filed by defendants, probably to suppress the truth regarding the measurements of the land in which the college buildings were constructed. Hence, adverse inference has to be drawn against defendants. DW1 admitted in cross-examination that he worked as MLA from 1989 to 1994 and he was affiliated to a political party being resident of Banswada.
Therefore, it is clear that DW1 (defendant No.2) is a political leader having worked as MLA. It appears that by exercising political influence Ex.B19 and Ex.B20 were obtained from Director of Town and Country Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad. Be that as it may, in the absence of approved plans no credence can be given to Ex.B19 and Ex.B20.
29.Ex.B22 is the invitation for the inauguration of Srinivasa
Engineering College established by defendant No.1 Society.
Ex.B23 consists of photographs and CDs of inaugural function of
A.S. No.44 of 2022
31 of 38 said Engineering College. Ex.B24 is the invitation published in
News Paper regarding inaugural ceremony of Engineering College while Ex.B25 is the Registration Certificate of DW12 Society and
Ex.B25 is Memorandum of DW12 Society. Members in defendant
No.1 and defendant No.12 Society are almost one and the same. It appears that the name of defendant No.1 Society has been changed and in its place defendant No.12 Society has been registered and subsequently the lands of defendant No.1 Society have been transferred to defendant No.12 Society, which can be seen from the above evidence on record.
30.Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2, 4 and 6 contended that evidence of DW2 and Ex.B26 to Ex.B28 are sufficient to dismiss the suit because DW2 categorically deposed that an extent of Ac.1.15 Gts. is alone in possession of defendants and his evidence falsifies the very plea of plaintiff regarding illegal encroachment of suit land by defendants and allegedly making illegal constructions. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2, 4 and 6 also contended that since plaintiff is a signatory to Ex.B28 panchanama, he can not deny its contents. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff contended that no credence can be
A.S. No.44 of 2022
32 of 38 given to DW2 and Ex.B26 to Ex.B28 because they were pressed into service long after execution of Ex.A4/Ex.B8 by plaintiff.
31.DW2 is the then Mandal Surveyor of Banswada. DW2 deposed that on the application filed by defendant No.4 by paying necessary amount by way of challan he has got conducted survey and prepared Ex.B27 and Ex.B28, at which time plaintiff was also present. PW1 has denied the suggestion that on 30.01.2011 defendants made survey of entire property in Sy.No.363 and
Sy.No.364 of Banswada and he was one of the panch witnesses to the said survey. Unfortunately, Ex.B28 was not confronted to PW1 by defendants in his cross-examination. Defendants ought to have cross-examined PW1 by confronting Ex.B26 to Ex.B28 but they did not do so, which is fatal to the case of defendants.
32.Defendant No.2 stated to have applied for survey on 03.09.2010 vide file No.S/12247/2009, which is evident from cross-examination of DW2. When the application of defendant
No.2 was made for survey on 03.09.2010 it is not known how with ante-date a file number was created. DW2 has not produced in court the notices with acknowledgments issued to neighbouring land holders at the time of conducting land survey. Ex.B28 is
A.S. No.44 of 2022
33 of 38 prepared in the format by filling up the details. DW2 could not state the number of pattedars in Sy.No.363 and Sy.No.364 and other surrounding survey numbers and those details did not contain the file carried by him. DW2 also admitted that the file did not contain the notices issued to plaintiff prior to conducting survey. DW2 also admitted that the file did not contain original tippons alleged to have been taken from Assistant Director of
Survey and Land Records. Though DW2 stated to have taken tippons from Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records he has admitted that no application was given to said party to take tippons. DW2 also admitted that the application filed by defendant No.2 did not contain the survey numbers and their extent. DW2 admitted that while giving application for conducting survey by defendant No.2, he has annexed photostat copy of pattedar passbook of defendant No.1 Society, wherein there is a mention about Ac.2.36 Gts. in Sy.No.363/1, Ac.4.04 Gts. in
Sy.No.363/2, Ac.2.26 Gts. in Sy.No.364/3, Ac.4.01 Gts. in
Sy.No.364/1 and Ac.1.00 Gts. in Sy.No.364/2, total extent being
Ac.14.27 Gts. As already stated, Ex.B7 registered gift deed executed by plaintiff stood cancelled under Ex.A5 and it is not known how DW2 relied on the said photostat copy of pattedar
A.S. No.44 of 2022
34 of 38 passbook furnished to him by defendant No.2. Therefore, in view of the above statements elicited form DW2 no credence can be given to his evidence and the alleged survey conducted by him.
33.DW2 deposed in cross-examination that as per Ex.B28 boundaries of Sy.Nos.363 and 364 to the extent of Ac.9.26 Gts.
and Ac.11.18 Gts. were fixed. DW2 had not specifically shown in
Ex.B28 that towards Northern side of the road in Sy.No.364 there is Ac.1.15 Gts. of land, which is admitted by DW2 in his cross- examination. DW2 could not even state the dimensions from the point of Sy.No.363 and Sy.No.364 and they are not mentioned in
Ex.B28 as well. DW2 admitted that as per pattedar passbook the extent of land mentioned is Ac.4.01 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 and
Ac.1.00 Gts. in Sy.No.364/2, but as per his survey in Sy.no.364 after the road towards Northern side there is only Ac.1.15 Gts. of land. DW2 also admitted that he has no report to show that there is Ac.1.15 Gts. in Sy.No.364 after the road towards Northern side.
Without taking into consideration Ex.A4/Ex.B8 executed by plaintiff for Ac.1.15 Gts. in Sy.No.364/1 in favour of defendant
No.1 on 04.04.2001 Ex.B26 and Ex.B28 were prepared by DW2.
Incomplete survey has been conducted by DW2 without even
A.S. No.44 of 2022
35 of 38 mentioning the measurements. Even Ac.1.15 Gts. is not specifically marked separately in Ex.B27 location sketch. Ex.B26 does not contain the signatures of panchas, not to speak of the signature of plaintiff. Therefore, no credence can be given to
Ex.B26 to Ex.B28, particularly as one can not deny the possibility of political influence exercised by DW1 on DW2 at the relevant time because DW1 worked as MLA of Banswada.
34.Above discussion leads me to conclude that plaintiff is the owner of suit land within the boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule because himself and defendant No.1 Society represented by its President, Venkateshwar Rao Desai, together cancelled Ex.B7 registered gift deed under Ex.A5 registered cancellation deed and on the date of Ex.A5 itself plaintiff executed
Ex.A4/Ex.B8 in favour of defendant No.1 Society for Ac.1.15 Gts. in
Sy.No.364/1 of Banswada but by relying on Ex.B7, which was cancelled, defendants created documents by colluding with revenue authorities and pressed into service Ex.B26 to Ex.B28 with the help of DW2. As stated supra, evidence on record establishes that defendants encroached into suit land and made illegal constructions causing loss to plaintiff and failed to remove
A.S. No.44 of 2022
36 of 38 the constructions nor handed over the vacant physical possession of suit land to plaintiff. As already stated, in Para No.8 of written statement-cum-counter claim and in Para No.9 of chief- examination affidavit of DW1 there is a clear recital that suit land is in possession of defendants, in which they made constructions.
Though plaintiff sought the relief of mesne profits as well there is no evidence adduced by plaintiff to that effect. However, law empowers plaintiff to file separate petition to determine mesne profits. Therefore, I hold that plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration of title, mandatory injunction for removal of illegal constructions and recovery of vacant possession of suit land and mesne profits. However, plaintiff is required to file separate petition to determine mesne profits. Point No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of plaintiff.
POINT NO. 2 :
35.Court has carefully perused the judgment and decree, dated 09.01.2018 in OS.No.45 of 2011 passed by learned Junior Civil
Judge, Banswada. The main ground taken in the Grounds of
Appeal, as referred to in Para No.11 of this judgment, is that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper
A.S. No.44 of 2022
37 of 38 perspective and erroneously dismissed the suit instead of decreeing the same. This court has re-appreciated the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, independently on Point
No.1 and recorded the findings that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration of title, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession and mesne profits. On a careful perusal of the judgment of the learned trail court, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and recorded wrong findings by dismissing the suit. Trial court has also ignored the important admissions in Para No.8 of written statement-cum-counter claim of defendant Nos.1 to 11 and despite certain statements reflecting in chief-examination affidavit of DW1 in Para No.9. Therefore, judgment and decree under Appeal are liable to be set aside as they are not sustainable under law. Point No.2 is accordingly answered in favour of appellant/plaintiff.
36. In the result, Appeal is allowed with costs, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2018 in OS.No.45 of 2011 passed by the court of Junior Civil Judge, Banswada. Consequently,
OS.No.45 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Banswada stands decreed holding that appellant/plaintiff is
A.S. No.44 of 2022
38 of 38 entitled for decree of declaration of title, mandatory injunction, recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of suit land.
However, appellant/plaintiff has to file separate petition to determine the mesne profits.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th day of March, 2026.
Digitally signed by CH V R R
CH V R R
VARAPRASAD
VARAPRASAD
Date: 2026.03.17
16:19:15 +0530
PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KAMAREDDY.
FAC: I-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
KAMAREDDY.