O.S.No.71 of 2008- 1 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.
PRESENT:- CH.V.RAMAKRISHNA
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR
WEDNESDAY, THE 3 rd DAY OF MAY, 2017
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.71/2008
BETWEEN:-
1. Dornala Ram Prasad (died ) by Lrs.
2.D.Triveni W/o late D. Ram Prasad, aged about 39 years, Hindu House wife, R/o Atmakur, Kurnool District.
3.D. Bhuvaneswari, D/o late D.Ram Prasad, aged 11 years.
4.D. Akamksha D/o late D. Ram Prasad, aged about 8 years.
D3 and D4 being minors rep. by mother 2nd petitioner. Both are residents of Atmakur, Kurnool District.
D2 to D4 are added as legal representatives of D1 as per the orders in I.A.No.522 of 2010 dated 21.12.2010 .….PLAINTIFFS
and
Budamakayala Venkata Reddy S/o B.Linga Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, R/o Tanguturu (v), Banaganapalli mandal, Kurnool District. …… DEFENDANT
-oo0oo-
This suit coming on 21.03.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Murali Mohan & Sri B.Nagesh, Advocates for the plaintiffs and Sri Y.Prakash Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, or anybody on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs.
2.Brief averments of the amended plaint are as follows.
Plaintiff no.1 (deceased plaintiff) is owner of the plaint schedule land and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Plaintiff no.1 filed pattadar passbook, title deed passbook, relinquishment deed dated 01.11.2006 and registered gift deed dated 03.10.2007. The contents of the said documents may be read as part and parcel of the pleadings. The defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 31.07.1993 with the father of the plaintiff no.1 agreeing to purchase Ac.24.49 cents. The defendant executed counterpart
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 2 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
agreement of sale also in favour of the father of plaintiff no.1 on the same day. Since the defendant failed to perform his part of contract, as per the terms of the agreement, the agreement stood cancelled in the year 1994 itself. The original counterpart agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff no.1 dated 31.07.1993 is filed. As per the terms of the counterpart agreement and original agreement the defendant delivered back the possession of the agreement scheduled properties including the plaint schedule land.
Since the father of the plaintiff no.1 orally allotted the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff No.1 after cancellation of the above said agreement, the plaintiff no.1 obtained agricultural loan in the year 1995 from State Bank of India, Atmakur branch, on the plaint schedule property for development of the plaint schedule land and accordingly he developed the plaint schedule land and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till today. The agricultural credit passbook account no.5309 issued by the State Bank of India, Atmakur is filed.
While the matter stood thus, in the year 1996, the father of the plaintiff no.1 passed away intestate leaving away behind the plaintiff no.1, his brothers and sisters and nearly Ac.48.25 cents of land including the plaint schedule land at Siddapuram village. While the matter stood thus, again the defendant approached the plaintiff no.1 and his brothers and on his severe request the plaintiff no.1 and his brothers agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the defendant and as such on 14.07.1997 the plaintiff no.1 and his brothers got executed an agreement of sale on white paper but no possession was given to the defendant and as per the terms of the contract, the time is essence of the contract. The defendant again failed to perform his part of contract and as such the agreement stood cancelled in the year 1998 itself.
From then onwards the defendant has never shown his face to the plaintiff no.1 and to his brothers. The photocopy of the said white paper agreement of sale dated 14.07.1997 is filed as the original is with the defendant.
While the matter stood thus, in the year 2005, all the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff no.1 settled their entire properties i.e., Ac.48.25
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 3 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
cents situated at Siddapuram village and as such Ac.27.67 cents fell to the share of plaintiff no.1 including the plaint schedule property and
Ac.20.58 cents fell to the share of the sister of the plaintiff by name
Pothuganti Shashikala. In acknowledgment of the same, the brothers and sisters have, from the years 2005 to 2007, executed three registered gift deeds and a relinquishment deed. All the gift deeds executed respectively in favour of the plaintiff no.1 and his sister
Pothuganti Shashikala are accepted by them respectively and all the lands are in their possession and enjoyment till today as of full owners.
Now the Government had sanctioned Siddapuram lift irrigation and as such the rates of land in Siddapuram village are fetching high rates.
The plaintiff no.1 on his behalf and on behalf of his sister also removed the bushes and the thorny plants and levelled the lands other than the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff dug a well in sy.no.189 by selling
Ac.5.00 cents in sy.no.207/2 to one Somula Subalaxmma, in the year 2007. In the said well, the plaintiff got sufficient water. The village head by name Y.V.Ramana Reddy and Y.Venu Reddy of Siddapuram got greedy eye towards the plaintiff no.1 and they demanded the plaintiff
No.1 to sell his entire lands at cheaper rates and as the plaintiff no.1 refused to sell the same they brought the defendant into picture from
Tanguturu village and trying to create galata at the plaint schedule property. In February 2008 with the support of Y.V.Raman Reddy and
Y.Venu Reddy the defendant with huge mob tried to occupy the plaint schedule property forcibly by driving out the plaintiff no.1 and his hired tractor out of the plaint schedule property. As such, the plaintiff no.1 gave complaints to the Superintendent of Police, District Collector etc.
The defendant got afraid of the enquiry ordered by the District Collector and tendered apology and went to his native place.
While the matter stood thus, all of a sudden, the defendant got issued a legal notice dated 01.05.2008 and the plaintiff no.1 got issued a reply notice dated 03.05.2008. Both notices are filed. The plaintiff no.1 came to know the that the defendant no.1 at the behest of
Y.V.Ramana Reddy, Y.Venu Reddy and others tampered the agreement of the sale dated 14.07.1997 with forged endorsement dated
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 4 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
26.07.1998, as mentioned in their notice, and created the payment of balance amount with the forged signature of plaintiff no.1. As a matter of fact, the said agreement was cancelled by March 1998 itself and the defendant never paid any amount to the plaintiff no.1 or to his brothers.
The plaintiff no.1 never signed on the alleged endorsement. The said claim is time barred one and is a cancelled claim and because of tampering the defendant is not entitled for any equitable relief.
The plaintiff no.1 came to know that the defendant is in a big plan to high handedly occupy the plaint schedule land with a huge mob with the support of village heads. On 05.05.2008 the defendant came to the house of plaintiff no.1 at about 10.30 AM and scolded the plaintiff no.1 in vulgur language as he got issued a reply notice to the notice issued by defendant and proclaimed that he is going to occupy the land in summer vacation. Hence, this suit. Plaintiff nos.2 to 4 being the legal representatives and having succeeded the title, enjoyment and possession over the plaint schedule property they are entitled to the relief as prayed for.
3.The plaint schedule is as follows.
The land property situated at Siddapuram village limits, Atmakur mandal and Kurnool District.
Sy.No. Full Extent Actual extent Name of the land
206/2 pyki Ac.7.62Dornala vari Chenu
Bounded as follows:
East:- Land of Venkoji and Kasi Reddy etc.
West:- Land of Subbamma and Kesalu Reddy etc.
North:- Land of Narayana Setty etc.
South:- Land of Somula Subbalaxmma and Pothuganti Shashikal etc.
4.The defendant filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. He admitted that plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule land but denied that plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. It is submitted that the pattadar passbook and title deed passbook are invented for the purpose of the
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 5 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
suit. He admitted that the defendant obtained an agreement of sale on 31.07.1993 with the father of plaintiff No.1 agreeing to purchase an extent of Ac.24.49 cents of land but denied that since the defendant failed to perform his part of contract the agreement stood cancelled in the year 1994 itself. It is false to say that as per the terms of counterpart of agreement and original agreement the defendant delivered back the agreement scheduled properties including the plaint schedule properties. It is admitted that on 14.07.1997 the plaintiff and his brothers executed an agreement of sale on white paper. It is utterly false to say that no possession was given to the defendant and as per the terms of the contract time is essence of the contract. It is also false to say that the defendant again failed to perform his part of contract and as such the agreement stood cancelled in the year 1998 itself. It is submitted that the defendant is not aware that in the year 2005 all the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff settled their entire properties i.e, 48.28 cents situated in Siddapuram village and such Ac.27.16 cents fell to the share of plaintiff including the plaint schedule property and
Ac.20.58 cents fell to the share of the sister of the plaintiff by name Smt
Pothuganti Shashikala. He admitted that Government sanctioned lift irrigation and as such rates of lands at Siddapuram increased. It is baseless to say that the village heads by name Y.V.Ramana Reddy and
Y.Venu Reddy of Siddapuram village have greedy eye towards the plaintiff and demanded the plaintiff to sell the entire land at cheaper rates and they were the back support of the defendant. It is also false to say that the defendant at the behest of Y.V.Ramana Reddy and
Y.Venu Reddy and others have tampered the agreement of sale dated 14.7.1997 with a forged endorsement dated 26.7.1998 and got created the payment of balance amount with the forged signature of the plaintiff. It is false to say that the said agreement stood cancelled by
March 1998 and the defendant never paid any amounts to the plaintiff or to his brothers. It is submitted that the defendant has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule land without any obstruction from anybody especially from the plaintiff till today. The plaint schedule land is shown as in plaint plan of the defendant for proper understanding. The defendant is a native of Tanguturu village of
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 6 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
Banaganapalli mandal and he is a small farmer hailed from his village to
Siddapuram village. He settled at Siddapuram village in 1990 by cultivating the lands of others at Siddapuram tank. On seeing the hard work, labour and faithfulness of the defendant, the father of the plaintiff by name Dornala Venkata Ratnam agreed to sell Ac.24.49 cents of land including the plaint schedule land which is abutting to Nallamala forest under an agreement of sale dated 31.7.1993 for Rs.1,60,000/-. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the father of the plaintiff on the same day towards part of the sale consideration. The father of the plaintiff delivered possession of the entire land including the plaint schedule land even on the date of agreement itself on 31.7.1993. the said aspect is clearly noted in the 8th and 9th lines of the page no.2 of the agreement. It is also mentioned in the said agreement that the subject matter of the agreement land as mentioned in the agreement has to be registered in favour of the defendant or at his order by the transferor or by the legal representatives of the transferor with the registration expenses of the transferee. The same is mentioned in 6th, 7th, and 8th lines of the page 2 of the said agreement. As per one of the conditions stipulated in the said agreement, the transferee himself should cultivate the land. Hence, the defendant cleared ant hills, jungle plants, trees and levelled the entire land and brought the plaint schedule land under cultivation. During March, April and May 2007 the defendant dug the channels on Southern side in the plaint schedule land to an extent of nearly half of the land in order to flow the flood water and seepage water. The channels are ranging from 2 to 3 feet depth. The defendant developed the land with more than 15 acres leaving remaining portion of K.Nageswar Reddy's land as it is. It is submitted that the defendant could not perform his part of contract as stipulated in the agreement of sale dated 31.07.1993 executed by the father of the plaintiff as he was a political sufferer and moving from one place to other without permanent residence. He died on 08.06.1996 while in hospital at Hyderabad. By the time he died his age was more than eighty years. He was attacked with paralysis and having four sons and daughters. The defendant tried to meet the father of the plaintiff several times as he wanted to perform his part of contact by keeping the required money but could not do so as
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 7 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
the father of the plaintiff used to visit Delhi, Hyderabad, Bangalore to meet the National as well as State leaders of Congress party. It is submitted that the father of the plaintiff agreed to sell some of the lands of others by way of the said agreement of sale. The lands of others are
K.Nageswara Reddy of Brahmanakotkur, transferor’s son-in-law
Subramanyam and his daughter. Those lands are also mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 31.7.1993. The transferor did not show any agreement or power of Attorney or bring the owners of the lands whenever demanded by the defendant in order to get the lands registered in his favour. Hence, the defendant got issued two legal notices on 16.06.1994 through an Advocate by name V.V.Seshapani.
The transferor i..e, the father of the plaintiff received the notices. The office copies and the two postal acknowledgments are filed. On 28.3.1996 the defendant got issued another notice by the same
Advocate. The office copy and postal receipts are also filed. Having received the notices the father of the plaintiff did not give any reply.
The plaintiff and his brothers were also giving evading answers. The father of the plaintiff used to receive money from the defendant whenever he was in need of money at the time of his visits to
Siddapuram. Likewise, the defendant gave Rs.1200/-, 1500/-, 1000/- and 1,300/- on 02.09.1993, 20.02.1994, 17.03.1994 and 19.04.1994 respectively and acknowledged the receipt of the same on single unstamped white paper. The defendant incurred Rs.2,000/- towards medicines and hired taxi for taking ill-health father of the plaintiff to his native place. After the death of the father of the plaintiff on the advice of several people the plaintiff and his brothers executed another agreement of sale in continuation of the previous agreement on 14.09.1997 for Rs.52,000/- in favour of the defendant with regard to the plaint schedule land only as the defendant got pressure to show authority to sell other than the plaint schedule land. The defendant had paid Rs.37,000/- to the plaintiff and his brothers towards part of sale consideration. But remaining balance of Rs.15,000/- has to be paid on or before the end of March 1998. The defendant paid the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff alone on 26.07.1998 as he could not secure the presence of his brother. The balance of the part payment
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 8 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant in the presence of attestors and scribe. Since then neither the plaintiff nor his brothers show any interest to get the plaint schedule land registered in his favour with ulterior motive. There was also a dispute with regard to the extent of the plaint schedule land and ownership. The plaintiff or his brothers did not come to settle the dispute in spite of several oral requests.
Moreover, they gave evasive answers with ulterior motive. In the meanwhile, there were proposals of providing lift irrigation to the
Siddapuram tank from Velgode Balancing Reservoir. So, the plaintiff hatched a plan of escaping registration of the plaint schedule land. It is only on the advice of Y.V.Ramana Reddy, Talari Mosha and others of
Siddapuram village the plaintiff and his brothers executed an agreement of sale of the plaint schedule land. But the plaintiff did not heed to the advice of the elders to register the land as the market value of the lands increased. The plaintiff at times stated that he will come for registration, but he did not do so. The plaintiff did not show any power of Attorney from his brothers. The defendant thought of solving the problem by mediation with patience as there is a delay. The defendant started legal remedy only on the day when the plaintiff complained the
District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool with false allegations. The matter was reported in Telugu Daily newspaper on 22.3.2008. There was an enquiry by the Revenue officials and police.
The defendant got issued a legal notice on 01.05.2008 through his
Advocate to the plaintiff demanding him to come for registration along with his brothers but in vain. The plaintiff after receipt of the notice gave reply with all false allegations. A copy of the notice issued to the plaintiff dated 01.05.1998 and the postal acknowledgment signed by the plaintiff dated 02.05.2008 are filed. The plaintiff in order to take the possession of the plaint schedule land from the defendant got pressure on the Revenue officials by using the names of the political leaders and got inserted the plaint schedule land in the pattadar passbook and title deed passbook during March 2008 and later tried to take back the possession from the defendant but failed to do so.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 9 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
The plaintiff's intention is to knock away the entire land of his family for himself by evading the shares to his brothers and sisters. The plaintiff and his brothers took away the photocopies of the agreement on 14.7.1997 itself and payment endorsement copy was taken away by the plaintiff on the date of balance payment of 26.07.1998 by the defendant. The defendant strongly suspects that the plaintiff had predetermined intention of cheating the defendant to knock away the entire land. Hence, the photocopy of the payment endorsement was suppressed by the plaintiff in order take the plea of forgery taking advantage of his putting signatures in different styles at different stages. The defendant also suspects that the plaintiff is responsible for not allowing his father and brothers for registration of the sale deed in favour of the defendant. So the plaintiff created the self styled document in his favour. It is submitted that the defendant has a right to protect his possession in view of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property
Act. The defendant was put in possession of the plaint schedule land by the father of the plaintiff on the date of agreement of sale dated 31.07.1993 and the defendant had taken possession of the land and developed the same even after execution of another agreement of sale by the plaintiff and his brothers on 14.07.1997 and the defendant is in continuous possession till today. The possession of defendant is settled one. There is an entry in the revenue records about possession of the defendant over the plaint schedule land. The defendant filed no.2
Adangal for fasli 1417 for the year 2008 issued on 21.4.2008 by the
Village Revenue officer, Pinnapuram showing the possession. The defendant raised paddy in August 2007 and harvested by the end of
January 2008. No second crop is raised as there was no sufficient water.
The other lands in Southern side of plaint schedule are kept vacant as still they are not brought under cultivation by the defendant or any other person. The defendant has done development activities in the plaint schedule land and made the land fit for cultivation in furtherance of the contract of sale and has been raising paddy crop and the same is continued till today. Though giving possession is not mentioned in latter agreement, because of the development activities on the Southern side of the plaint schedule land the possession of the defendant is not legal.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 10 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
The two agreements dated 31.07.1993 executed by the father of the plaintiff and another agreement dated 14.07.1997 are valid and binding on the plaintiff. The defendant has performed his part of contract as per the latter agreement dated 14.07.1997 and could not do as per agreement dated 31.7.1993 for the reasons mentioned above. It is contended that the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable as the defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff did not take any steps either cancellation of the agreement of sale or for possession of law. The plaintiff or anybody did not issue any prior notice also. The defendant also did not hand over the possession voluntarily. Hence, the possession of the defendant cannot be disturbed.
5.The plaintiff filed re-joinder denying the allegations made in the written statement. It is contended that the defendant never issued any legal notice dated 16.06.1994 through his Advocate by name
V.S.Seshapani and it is false to say that the same is served on the father of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the notice does not contain the signature of the Advocate. It is further submitted that the father name of the plaintiff is wrongly shown. The signature on the acknowledgment card was not in usual manner and is forged one and the address is also wrong as the father of the plaintiff was at Hyderabad with the brother of the plaintiff due to his old age. It is submitted that all the allegations in the second notice dated 27.3.1996 said to have been issued by the defendants are also false. Voter identity card clearly upholds that it is not the photo of the defendant. Hence, the voter identity card is fabricated for the purpose of the suit. The payment receipts four in one sheet is also totally false as it does not bear the signatures of the father of the plaintiff who is habituated to subscribe his signature in English.
The endorsement on the backside of the 1997 sale agreement clearly upholds that it is a fabricated one with forged signature of the plaintiff to cover up the latches of the defendant in respect of his alleged possession and payment. No.3 Adangal dated 27.4.2008 said to have been issued by the Village Revenue officer clearly shows that it is a collusive document and issued without verification under the influence
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 11 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
or bribe. The plaintiff brought only Ac.3.28 cents under cultivation in the year 1995 and the remaining extent is under development process which were started for the last three years. Hence, raising of paddy in
Ac.7.62 cents does not arise and also it is contrary to the pattadar passbook and title deed passbook issued by the higher authorities of the
Village Revenue officer on 01.3.2008 just one month prior to No.3
Adangal. Hence, on the face of it, it is clear that the No.3 Adangal is a fabricated document. The cultivation width on the Eastern side is 3 chains and on the Western side 3 chains 90 links and on the Northern and Southern side it is 9 chains 50 links. The cultivation portion is extended abutting the land of Narayana Setty on the North side and the remaining extent is under development. Both portions are divided by newly dug channel by the plaintiff.
6.Based on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial.
1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the perpetual injunction as prayed for?
2) To what relief?
7.In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.2 got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. However, the
Ex.A3 was de-marked. In support of his case, the defendant got himself examined as DW1 and two others as DW2 and DW3 and got marked
Exs.B1 to B20 and Exs.X1 to X11.
8.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Despite giving sufficient adjournments and opportunities, the defendant has failed to put-forth his arguments and is not even ready to put-forth the arguments or at least to file written arguments. Hence, the defendant is treated to have heard. Perused the material on record.
9.The learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the deceased plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for permanent injunction. It is submitted that as the defendant failed to pay the balance of sale consideration within time the agreement stood cancelled and possession has never been delivered to the defendant under Ex.B3. It is contended
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 12 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
that the defendant tampered Ex.B3 document by putting Ex.B4 endorsement. The defendant failed to examine any person relating to
Ex.B4 endorsement. It is further contended that the Tahsildar who was examined as DW3 admitted that the file upon which the defendant has relied on is a tampered one and so it has no sanctity now and so the evidence of DW3 and the documents produced by her cannot be accepted. It is further contended that there is no counter claim by the defendant and so application of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act does not arise as the possession was never delivered to the defendant.
It is submitted that in view of the contentions raised by the defendant it is clear that he has been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land though the defendant is never in possession and enjoyment of the same. So, the defendant and his men shall be restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.
ISSUE NO.1:
10.The plaintiff no.2, as PW1, in her chief examination affidavit, stated that during the lifetime of her father-in-law who is the father of deceased plaintiff, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale including the plaint schedule land and he failed to perform his part of contract and so the agreement of sale dated 31.7.1993 stood cancelled and the defendant deliver back the possession of properties including the plaint schedule land. It is stated that as her father-in-law orally allotted the plaint schedule property to her husband, after cancellation of the above said agreement, her husband obtained agricultural loan in the year 1995 from the State Bank of India, Atmakur branch on the plaint schedule property and developed the plaint schedule land and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. It is submitted that while the matter stood thus in the year 1996 her father- in-law passed away intestate leaving behind him, her husband, the brothers and sisters of her husband as legal heirs and also left nearly
Ac.48.25 cents of land including the plaint schedule property at
Siddapuram village. While the matter stood thus, again the defendant had approached the brothers of her husband and her husband and on
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 13 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
his repeated requests her husband along with his brothers agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the defendant and as such on 14.07.1997 they all together executed an agreement of sale on white paper but no possession was given to the defendant and as per the terms of the contract the time is the essence of the contract. It is submitted that the defendant again failed to perform his part of contract and as such the agreement stood cancelled in the year 1998 itself.
Since then the defendant never came in contact with them. The original of the said sale agreement dated 14.7.1997 is with the defendant. It is submitted that in the year 2005 all the brothers and sisters of her husband settled their properties situated at Siddapuram village and as such Ac.27.67 cents fell to the share of her husband including the plaint schedule property and an extent of Ac.20.68 cents fell to the share of her husband's sister by name Pothuganti Sashikala and in acknowledgment of the same all the brothers and sisters have executed three registered gift deeds and a relinquishment deed during the years 2005 to 2007. The said gift deeds were accepted and acted upon. They are in possession and enjoyment of all the lands till today as of owners.
During his lifetime, her husband has sold some of the lands pending the suit. It is submitted that now the Government has sanctioned
Siddapuram lift irrigation and as a result the rates of the lands in
Siddapuram village increased. Her husband cleared the thorny plants and bushes and levelled the land other than the plaint schedule property on behalf of his sister also. He also got dug a well in sy.no.189 by selling Ac.5.00 land in sy.no.207/2 to one Somula Subbalakshmamma in the year 2007 and he fetched sufficient water from the well. While the matter stood thus, some of the villagers developed greedy eye against her husband and demanded their lands at cheap rates and as her husband refused to sell the same at cheap rate, they brought this defendant into picture from Tanguturu village and tried to create disturbances at the plaint schedule property. In the month of February 2008 the defendant came along with mob and tried to forcibly occupy the plaint schedule property. When her husband complained the matter to the higher officials of the District, the defendant got afraid of the enquiry and apologized her husband and fled away to his native place.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 14 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
While the matter stood thus, the defendant got issued a legal notice
dated 01.05.2008 for which her husband got issued a reply notice dated
03.05.2008. The defendant tampered the white paper agreement of sale dated 14.07.1997 with the forged signature of her husband and as a matter of fact the said agreement stood cancelled by March 1998 itself and the defendant never paid any amounts to her husband or to his brothers or her husband never signed on the alleged endorsement.
11.Ex.A1 is Pattadar passbook issued by Tahsildar, Atmakur in favour of the deceased plaintiff. Ex.A2 is Title deed passbook issued in favour of the deceased plaintiff. Ex.A3 is Relinquishment deed dated 01.11.2006 executed in favour of deceased plaintiff (de-marked as per orders in i.A.No.202/2016 dt.09.06.2016). Ex.A4 is Registered gift deed
dated 10.3.2007 executed in favour of first plaintiff. Ex.A5 is Bank
passbook issued in favour of the deceased plaintiff. Ex.A6 is Legal notice dated 01.05.2008 issued by the defendant. Ex.A7 is office copy of the reply notice dated 3.5.2008 issued by the deceased plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A8 is part of legal notice issued by the defendant through his Advocate V.V.Seshapani dated 6.6.1994 to the fatherof the deceased plaintiff. Ex.A9 is the Statement of the defendant given to
Mandal Revenue Inspector, Atmakur, in April 2008. Exs.A8 and A9 are marked through the evidence of DW1 in his cross-examination.
12. In her cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she has adopted plaintiff No.3 from her younger brother by name Srinvasa Setty. She admitted that she never got mentioned specifically in the amended plaint as well as in the chief-affidavit that plaintiff No.3 is her adopted daughter. She does have records to show that herself and her husband got admitted plaintiff No.3 in school as their adopted daughter, but she has not filed any such record before the court. She stated that her marriage with deceased plaintiff was performed about 20 years back but she cannot say the date or year. She stated that she has also shown her two daughters as legal heirs to the deceased plaintiff. She did not give birth to them but adopted them. No written adoption deed was executed and no adoption ceremony was performed. She gave declaration in the respective schools of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 that they
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 15 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
are her adopted children. She stated that after her marriage, herself and the deceased plaintiff lived together in Hyderabad for about 2 or 4 years and thereafter they have lived at Atmakur for about 20 years. She did not file any documentary proof showing that they are wife and husband and as such lived under a common roof in Atmakur for 20 years and they never lived in Siddapuram village where the suit property is situated. She did not raise crops for the last three years in the suit schedule property. She did not file any documentary proof to show that she has raised crops in the suit schedule property even prior to three years from today. She does not know whether the deceased plaintiff after meeting the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool got published a news item with his photograph stating that the defendant highhandedly trespassed into the suit schedule property though the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same under an agreement. She does not know whether the deceased plaintiff approached the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Atmakur and gave a statement about the possession and enjoyment of the defendant over the suit schedule property. She does not know whether the statement purported to have been given by the deceased plaintiff before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Atmakur, was also brought on record. She does not know whether any document was executed on 14.07.1997 by the deceased plaintiff and his brothers. She does not know as to how much amount was paid towards the said transaction. Deceased plaintiff used to subscribe his signature in both
English and Telugu. In all the agreements filed before this court the deceased plaintiff subscribed his signature in English. The brothers of the deceased plaintiff also subscribed their signatures in English. The signatures on the agreement dt.14.07.1997 belong to her husband but she does not know the recitals of that agreement. She does not know about the endorsement dt.27.06.1999 made on the back side of the agreement dt.14.07.1997 and the signature on such endorsement is not that of the deceased plaintiff. She does not know about the endorsement and the purpose of such endorsement. The signature shown to her on the postal acknowledgment card which shows the date of delivery as 20.06.1994 is of the deceased plaintiff. The signature shown to the witness is containing letters ‘D.V.Ratnam’ but the witness
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 16 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
identified the same as the signature of the deceased plaintiff. She stated that she does not know whether she has filed any document in the court as her evidence. When the learned counsel for defendant asked the witness by showing her chief affidavit whether she knows the purpose of that document, she stated that she does not know for what purpose the same was filed.
13.The defendant as DW1 in his chief examination affidavit submitted that he is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule land since 1993 and as on the date of filing of the suit and even till today without any objection or obstruction from anybody muchless from deceased plaintiff and his late father and his brothers. There are other legal heirs to the late Dornala Venkata Ratnam who is father of the deceased plaintiff. The claim of the deceased plaintiff as owner of the plaint schedule property is not tenable in law. Obtaining pattadar passbook and title deed passbook for himself is against law and adding of plaintiff nos.2 to 4 without showing the relationship is against law.
The plaintiff no.2 is not the wife of plaintiff no.1 and other plaintiffs who were added are not the children of the deceased plaintiff. He obtained an agreement of sale on 13.07.1993 from Dornala Venkata Ratnam who is the father of the plaintiff and he delivered possession of the property to him and he obtained another agreement of sale dated 14.07.1997 from the deceased plaintiff and his brothers in respect of the plaint schedule land for valuable consideration and the balance consideration of Rs.15,000/- was paid and got an endorsement on the back side of the agreement by the deceased plaintiff. He incurred huge expenses for development of the plaint schedule land. The injunction passed in favour of the deceased plaintiff is also dismissed. The deceased plaintiff, in order to take back the possession of the plaint schedule property, had filed C.C.No.158/2009 under section 447 IPC against him and tried to get him arrested through the police. The said case was ended in acquittal. In the judgment in the said case basing on the statements of the prosecution witness it was observed that he is in possession of the plaint schedule land. There is also the statement of the deceased plaintiff about his (defendant) possession over the plaint
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 17 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
schedule land in the newspapers. The report submitted by the Mandal
Revenue officer before the court in I.A.No.261/2009 is available on record and from the said record it is clear that he has been in possession of the plaint schedule land since 1993. The judgment copy in C.C.No.158/2009 is filed along with other documents. The plaintiff no.1 and the present plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
14.The defendant got marked in all Exs.B1 to B20. Ex.B1 is the plan filed by the defendant. Ex.B2 is agreement dt.31.07.1993 between the father of the plaintiff No.1 by name Dornala Venkata Ratnam in favour of the defendant. Ex.B3 is the unregistered agreement dt.14.07.1997 executed by plaintiff No.1 and his three brothers in favour of the defendant. (Stamp duty and penalty paid.). Ex.B4 is payment endorsement dt.26.07.1998 on the back side of Ex.B3. Ex.B5 is postal acknowledgment card signed by the father of the plaintiff No.1 by name
Venkata Rathnam dt.22.06.1994. Ex.B6 is legal notice dt.27.03.1996 issued by the defendant to the father of the plaintiff. Ex.B7 is postal receipt dt.28.03.1996. Ex.B8 is post card dt.25.09.1996. Ex.B9 is post card dt.11.10.1996. Ex.B10 is legal notice dt.01.05.2008 issued to plaintiff No.1. Ex.B11 is postal receipt dt.01.05.2008 corresponding to the legal notice dt.01.05.2008 (Ex.B.10). Ex.B12 is postal acknowledgment card signed by plaintiff No.1 dt.03.05.2008 corresponding to the legal notice dt.01.05.2008 (Ex.B.10). Ex.B13 is true copy of No.2 Adangal for fasli 1417 issued on 21.04.2008 by the
Village Revenue Officer, Pinnapuram (marked subject to objection that the Villaga Revenue Officer is not competent to issue true copies of the revenue records). Ex.B14 is Newspaper publication item dt.22.03.2008 in Surya Telugu Daily News Paper (marked subject to proof and relevancy). Ex.B15 is the certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.158/2009 dt.08.10.2012 on the file of JMFC,Atmakur. Ex.B16 is Voter identity card of the defendant. Ex.B17 is the payment endorsement dt.02.09.1993.
Ex.B18 is the payment endorsement dt.20.02.1994. Ex.B19 is the payment endorsement dt.17.03.1994. Ex.B20 is the payment endorsement dt.19.04.1994.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 18 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
15.In his cross-examination, DW1 admitted that he has got lands and house properties at Tangutur village of Banaganipalli mandal which is his native village and he is residing there itself even today and that he also has voter identity card at Tangutur village. He admitted that one person will have only one voter identity card and that he has a voter identity card at Siddapuram village of Atmakur mandal but denied the suggestion that he has got fabricated the said voter identity card for the purpose of the suit. He admitted that, as per his version, he has also got issued notices to the plaintiff through an Advocate from Nandyal and the Advocate at Nandyal also read over the contents of the said notices to him. He does not know whether he has got filed a legal notice which does not contain the signature of an Advocate. He admitted that as there is no signature of the advocate the court has not accepted for marking of the same as an exhibit in his chief examination. He denied the suggestion that he has got mentioned in the said unmarked notice that “Further to give a colour of authenticity you alleged their in that possession of acres Ac.24-24 was being delivered on the same date”. He does not know whether the date of the said unmarked notice was altered as 16.06.1994 from 06.06.1994. He admitted that he has got filed the legal notice purported to be dated 16.06.1994 into the court along with his documents and all the contents therein are prepared to his instructions to his advocate Seshaphani. He does not have any knowledge with regard to the alteration/corrections in the last page of
Ex.B2 and I also do not know whether, as per the endorsement thereon dt.03.08.1993, the same were certified to have been made corrections in the schedule. He denied the suggestion that the said corrections/ alterations in the last page of Ex.B.2 are made intentionally for the purpose of the suit and that had the said corrections/alterations took place in the year 1993 itself, those altered/corrected versions should have been present in Ex.A.8 notice. He denied the suggestion that he had tampered Ex.B2 and so Ex.B2 is not a valid document. He admitted that in Ex.B2 it was specifically mentioned that some part of the lands belong to one Nageswara Reddy and some part of the lands belong to
J.Subramanyam and some part of the lands belong to the father of the plaintiff No.1. He admitted that as per Ex.B2, he was put in possession
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 19 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
of Ac.24-24 cents. He denied the suggestion that he has not paid the entire sale consideration by the date of Ex.B2. He denied the suggestion that he is not in possession and enjoyment of Ac.24-24 cents as on today. Defendant adds that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.24-24 cents even today. He does not have any registered sale deeds in respect of the said Ac.24-24 cents obtained from the said
Nageswara Reddy and J.Subramanyam and the father of the plaintiff
No.1. He does not know whether he has filed any documents to show his possession and enjoyment over the said Ac.24-24 cents of land. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B2 stood cancelled long back as per the contents of the said document and that in the purported receipts (Exs.B17 to B20) executed on white paper, it was written in the name of one Budamakayala Linga Reddy (father of defendant) but not himself and there is no mention about the Ex.B2 agreement in the said document and further in the said document it is shown as only a debt and so those four receipts cannot be connected to Ex.B2 as claimed by him. The father of plaintiff no.1 suffered paralysis and resided in
Hyderabad since 1994 and died there itself. He denied the suggestion that since the father of plaintiff No.1 has resided in Hyderabad due to paralysis, his claim that he gave notice under Ex.B6 and Ex.A8 to the father of plaintiff No.1 addressed at Atmakur is false. He stated that all the contents in Ex.B3 are true and correct. He admitted that there is no reference about the execution of Ex.B2 in Ex.B3. He admitted that in
Ex.B3 there is no recital about the delivery of possession of suit schedule property to him on the date of Ex.B3. The defendant says that it may be true that there is a mention in Ex.B3 about the possession of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.1 and his brothers. He admitted that he had attended before the Tahsildar of Atmakur Mandal for enquiry with regard to the suit schedule property and had produced photocopies of Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 before the Tahsildar and that he also gave a statement before the Tahsildar on that day which is Ex.A9 in
April, 2008. He does not know whether in Ex.A9 there is no mention about Ex.B4 part payment endorsement. He cannot say what he has stated before the Tahsildar and whether what all he has stated before the Tahsildar had been recorded or not. He denied the suggestion that
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 20 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
the signature of plaintiff no.1 on Ex.B4 is a forged one. He cannot say whether there is a difference in the signature of plaintiff no.1 from Ex.B3 to Ex.B4. Defendant says that since by that time, the plaintiff no.1 was not hale and healthy the signature might be different. He denied the suggestion that by the time, the plaintiff No.1 is hale and healthy and so, what all he has explained about the difference of signature is not correct. He admitted that he has not filed any documents to show that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land from the year 1993 to till the date of filing of the suit. He admitted that the land in dispute in the suit is Government land. He admitted that the suit schedule land was given to the father of the plaintiff No.1 under
Freedom Fighters quota. He does not know whether the father of the plaintiff No.1 gave an extent of Ac.300-00 in Bhudana Yagnam. He admitted that the Government gave a patta in favour of the father of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of the suit schedule land. He admitted that the plaintiff no.1 applied for issuance of a duplicate patta in respect of the suit schedule property on the ground that he lost the patta granted to his father. He does not know whether the brothers of plaintiff no.1 executed a relinquishment deed dt.01.11.2006 in respect of the suit schedule property relinquishing their rights in favour of plaintiff No.1.
He came to know about the execution of some documents by the brothers and sisters of plaintiff no.1 in favour of plaintiff No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property and other properties situated at
Siddapuram village but he does not know the details of the said documents and the contents therein. He admitted that DW3 issued pattadar passbook and title deed passbook to plaintiff No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property. He admitted that in general, the adangals will be issued in the name of the person or persons in whose favour the pattadar passbook and title deed passbook stands. He admitted that the pattadar passbook (Ex.A1) and title deed passbook (Ex.A2) are standing in favour of plaintiff no.1 but the No.2 adangal (Ex.B13) is standing in his name. Defendant stated that Ex.B13 was given to him while he was in agriculture operations in his fields. He cannot say the name of the
Village Revenue Officer who issued Ex.B13. He admitted that Ex.B13 was issued to him at his instance by looking into Ex.B3. Defendant adds
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 21 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
that the revenue authorities have visited the said land. He denied the suggestion that none of the revenue authorities visited the said land and none of the officers handed over Ex.B13 to him at the agricultural land and that he had obtained the same by offering bribe to the Village
Revenue Officer. He admitted that he had produced Ex.B13 before the court and so the injunction granted in favour of plaintiff No.1 was vacated. He admitted that obtaining the orders from the court by producing false and fabricated documents is an offence. He admitted that if any application is given to the Tahsildar the applicant will subscribe his signature on the application and that if any applications are available with the revenue officials without signatures of the applicant, they are fabricated. He admitted that page 75 of the revenue file sent for by them does not contain the signature of any person muchless plaintiff No.1 and so is the case with page 93. He admitted that the signatures of plaintiff No.1 in the said revenue record filed are different from one to another. He admitted that in the said revenue file a photocopy of Ex.B3 is available as page no.99 and on the back side of the said photocopy the endorsement under Ex.B4 is not appearing. He denied the suggestion that he had fabricated the entire revenue file to suit his case and that he had obtained false report from DW3 either by colluding with her or misleading her and got the same record sent for to the court. He admitted that he had never issued any legal notice to the plaintiff no.1 and his brothers in respect of Ex.B3 requiring them to register a regular sale deed in his favour. He denied the suggestion that since the limitation is barred to seek specific performance of Ex.B3 he has not issued any legal notice to the plaintiff no.1 and his brothers. He admitted that even today he has not filed case against the plaintiff no.1 and his brothers for specific performance of contract in respect of Ex.B3.
He denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to any benefit under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for want of ingredients.
He admitted that after the death of plaintiff no.1, his wife and children have filed a petition for impleading them in this suit. The defendant adds that they are not the wife and children of plaintiff No.1. He does not know whether revenue authorities have issued family members certificate to plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 as legal heirs of plaintiff No.1. He has
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 22 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
not filed any counter by that time stating that plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are not the legal representatives of plaintiff No.1. Defendant adds that his the then counsel has not suggested him so. He stated that he does not know prior to filing of the suit, Siddapuram lift irrigation was sanctioned or not. He admitted that two or three years prior to filing of the suit, the lands in Siddpauram have fetched high prices but he does not know whether in view of the hike in prices the agriculturists in Siddapuram village have occupied the neighboring lands. He does not know whether there is any sale transaction between Somula Subbalakshmamma and plaintiff No.1 in respect of Sy.No.207/2 which was mentioned in Ex.B2 and whether the Revenue Department has issued Pattadar passbook and title deed passbooks to the plaintiff No.1. He does not know whether the name of plaintiff No.1 was not entered in the official web site of Revenue Department due to pendency of the suit. He denied the suggestion that, as per his claim, he is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the date of Ex.B2.
16.DW2, Kachireddy Chandra Sekhara Reddy, in his chief examination affidavit, stated that the plaintiff no.1 was the son of D.Venkata Ratnam who belongs to Siddapuram village and that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of land since 1993 for nearly Ac.24.00 of land in Siddapuram village including the plaint schedule land which is to an extent of Ac.7.62 cents in sy.nos.206/2 of Siddapuram village basing on the agreement of sale executed by the said Venkata Ratnam in favour of the defendant. He also stated that he is the servant of the defendant and they both also resided at Siddapuram for some period. He also attends the agricultural works at Siddapuram village along with defendant over the plaint schedule land and other lands. At present also the defendant alone is in possession of the plaint schedule land which is to an extent of Ac.7.62 cents and he is raising crops in the said land. The deceased plaintiff and other plaintiff nos.2 to 4 were never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. The sons of
Venkata Ratnam also executed another agreement in the year 1997 in respect of the plaint schedule land. Plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are not the legal
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 23 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
representatives of the deceased plaintiff. So, the defendant is only in possession of the plaint schedule land from the year 1993.
17.In his cross-examination, DW2 stated that he had Ac.2-00 of agricultural land but now he is working as agricultural labour. The
Ac.24-00 at Siddapuram village is a single plot. Eastern boundary is the land of Venkoji. The western boundary is rastha. Northern boundary is the land of Narayana Setty and the southern boundary is forest land. He cannot say how many owners are there for the Ac.24-00 of land. Out of the Ac.24-00 of land Ac.10-00 is under cultivation and in the remaining
Ac.14-00 of land is not under cultivation. He does not know whether one
Nageswara Reddy whose name is mentioned in Ex.B2 has sold away his land in the said Ac.24-00 of land to third parties. He does not know whether the third parties were also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed passbooks and whether they were now in possession and enjoyment or not. He does not know whether one Subramanyam whose name is mentioned in Ex.B2 has bequeathed his property which is in the
Ac.24-00 of land to his wife and she in-turn gifted the said property to plaintiff No.1 or not. DW2 says that he does not know whether the deceased plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the land of one Subramanyam and he was issued pattadar passbook or not. DW2 volunteers that all the said pattadar passbooks and title deed passbooks were fabricated for the purpose of this case. He does not have any personal knowledge with regard to fabrication of any pattadar passbooks and title deed passbooks by the deceased plaintiff. He does not know whether Ex.B2 agreement is cancelled or not. The defendant is a resident of their village and their houses are in different streets and existing nearby. He also work under the defendant at Tangutur. He denied the suggestion that since he is working under the defendant he came to the court to give false evidence at the instance of the defendant.
18.DW3 (T. Anjana Devi) who worked as Tahsildar, Atmakur, from 2005 to 2009 deposed that during her tenure as Tahsildar, Atmakur, she received an application of deceased plaintiff No.1 through the District
Revenue Officer, Kurnool, and in that regard she had conducted an
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 24 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
enquiry. Ex.X.1 is the application of the deceased plaintiff No.1 dated 24.12.2007. She stated that on the application of the deceased plaintiff dt.29.02.2008 addressed to the then Hon'ble Chief Minister which is communicated through the Collector Camp Office, her initial is not present to say that she has received the said communication and so she cannot say anything about the said document. She does not know how the said application appear in the bunch of the documents produced
before the court from the revenue department. As per the record, she
has issued Ex.X2 notice vide Rc.B.No.150/2008 dt.16.04.2008 and signed by her on 18.04.2008 to the deceased plaintiff and the defendant. As per the endorsement, she has received the Ex.X3 application of deceased plaintiff dt.29.02.2008 addressed to the District
Revenue Officer on 31.03.2008. She has also received the Ex.X4 undated application of the deceased plaintiff on 15.05.2008. (Ex.X3 and
Ex.X4 are one and same). Ex.X5 is the report submitted by the then in- charge Mandal Revenue Inspector which was received by her on 29.04.2008. Ex.X6 is the statement of the deceased plaintiff recorded on 23.04.2008 by the then Mandal Revenue Inspector, Atmakur. Ex.A9 is the statement of the defendant recorded by the then Mandal Revenue
Inspector. On 02.06.2008, she has received Ex.X7 communication from the District Revenue Officer, Kurnool, in Rc.E2.686/2008 dt.21.05.2008. Ex.X8 is the report sent by her to the Revenue Divisional
Officer vide Rc.B.No.150/2008 dt.01.05.2008. As per Ex.X8, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the Ac.7-62 cents of land in
Siddapuram village as per an agreement. Ex.X9 is the adangal for fasli 1417 was issued by her and as per column No.13 thereof, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.206/2 to an extent of Ac.7-62 cents.
19.In her cross-examination, DW3 admitted that Ex.X1 does not contain the seal of the office of District Revenue Officer, Kurnool and when and how it was received. She admitted that the signatures of the deceased plaintiff in Ex.X1, Ex.X3 and Ex.X6 are not tallying with each other. She admitted that Ex.X4 does not contain the signature of the deceased plaintiff but it contains her initial to show that she has
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 25 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
received the same. She admitted that, in general, the staff will bring the
Tappal and she merely puts her initials on those papers and she does not inquire into whether they are really received through post or through some other mode. She admitted that in Ex.X5, which is a report of Mandal Revenue Inspector there is a recital to show that on 26.07.1998 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was given to the deceased plaintiff and there is an endorsement in writing found that since 1993 the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
She admitted that in Ex.A9 which is a statement of the defendant recorded by the Mandal Revenue Inspector there is no statement made to the effect that on 26.07.1998 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was given to the deceased plaintiff and also about the endorsement found in writing that since 1993 the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. She admitted that in the copy of agreement available in the bunch of record, there is no such endorsement (Ex.B4 endorsement) on the back side of the same. Ex.X10 is the photocopy of agreement of sale dt.14.07.1997 available in the revenue file. She admitted that she gave report based on the report of the Mandal
Revenue Inspector. She does not know how the Mandal Revenue
Inspector has issued his report without there being any statement to the effect that on 26.07.1998 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was given to the deceased plaintiff No.1 and there is an endorsement found that since 1993 the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in writing. DW3 adds that based on an agreement the title of property cannot be transferred from one person to other person but stated that enjoyers may be different. She admitted that
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 contain her signatures and they are issued in favour of the deceased plaintiff. She admitted that in any adangals issued subsequent issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed passbook, if the name of the other person is to be incorporated as pattadar, the concerned Village Revenue Officer has to obtain the permission of the then Tahsildar but the same is not necessary for incorporating the names of others as enjoyers. She stated that there is no record to show that she has verified the name of the defendant to be as enjoyer for such and such periods. She admitted that in the bunch of record, there
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 26 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
are several papers without signatures of the deceased plaintiff and she cannot say how those papers are available in the said bunch. She cannot say whether submission of the bunch of record is done without meddling the documents in that record or not. She admitted that in
Ex.X9 the name of pattadar is shown as Dornala Venkata Reddy to show that the defendant himself is the pattadar and that in the column pertaining to the enjoyer the surname 'Budamkayala', the term 'Budama' is struck off and she cannot say as to why the same was struck off. She admitted that the nature of possession is shown as agreement of sale, but the date of agreement and the parties of the agreement is not shown. She admitted that a perusal of Ex.A9 makes it clear that the Village Revenue Officer who filled up the said document has made the agreement of sale as a basis for issuance of adangal in favour of defendant. She admitted that in the adangal issued for the year 1997, the name of pattadar is shown as Dornala Venakta Ratnam and in the said document, no name is shown as enjoyer. Ex.X11 is the adangal/pahani issued for the year 1997. She admitted that as per
Ex.X11, even if the name of the enjoyer is not shown, the pattadar himself shall be treated as enjoyer. She admitted that the entire proceedings bundle in Rc.B.No.150/2008 is not having any sanctity now because of insertion of various other documents unconcerned with the matter inquired by her and further the Revenue Inspector's report is not tallying with the statement of the defendant.
20.Ex.A1 is a pattadar passbook and Ex.A2 is a title deed passbook.
Both Exs.A1 and A2 do contain the signatures of the deceased plaintiff.
Both initially stand in the name of deceased plaintiff and later the name of PW1 was inserted with an endorsement by the Tahsildar, Atmakur, to the effect that since her husband died her name was mutated. In both the said documents initially entries of three extents were made in sy.nos.196, 197/1 and 207/2 and total extent is shown as Ac.20.05 cents and subsequently, there is a 4th entry for an extent of Ac.7.62 cents in sy.no.206/2 and the total extent is shown as Ac.22.80 cents. However, the first three entries were struck off in both the said documents and there is no dispute or contention to that effect by the defendant in the
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 27 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
written statement or in the cross-examination of PW1. Further, the defendant himself admitted in his written statement that the deceased plaintiff is owner of the plaint schedule property i.e., an extent of
Ac.7.62 cents in sy.no.206/2. As per the dates mentioned underneath the signature of the Mandal Revenue office, Exs.A1 and A2 were issued to the deceased plaintiff no.1 on 17.1.2006. Further, DW3 admitted that she has issued Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 to the deceased plaintiff and so the contention of the defendant that they are fabricated documents cannot be accepted. The fourth entry was made in Exs.A1 and A2 on 11.3.2008. Further, there need not be any doubt on the fourth entry and the mutation of the name of the plaintiff no.2 in Ex.A1 and A2 as all the relevant entries, are certified by the concerned officials. Hence, the contention of the defendant and his witness that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are fabricated for the purpose of the suit cannot be accepted as not proved and I hold that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are valid documents.
21.Ex.A3 is a relinquishment deed dated 01.11.2006 purportedly executed by the three brothers of the deceased plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that by mistake the said document was marked as
Ex.A3 as Registered gift deed. However, the said document was demarked and so the same need not be considered. Ex.A4 is a registered gift deed dated 03.10.2007 whereby one Allagadda
Kasturibayamma gifted the property under Ex.A4 to the deceased plaintiff. The said Kasturibayamma is the sister of the deceased plaintiff. No dispute is raised by the defendant against the said document. Ex.A5 is agricultural credit pass book issued by the State
Bank of India, Atmakur branch in favour of the deceased plaintiff. It contains the photograph of the deceased plaintiff. By virtue of Ex.A5 nothing can be stated that as to for which parcel of land, loan was given by the bank and so it is not a helpful document to the deceased plaintiff.
22.Ex.A6 is the legal notice dated 01.05.2008 got issued by the defendant to the deceased plaintiff through his first counsel in this suit.
From the recitals of the said legal notice it can be noted that the defendant purchased Ac.24.49 cents in sy.nos.208/1A, 207 and 217/1 and 206/2 situated at Siddapuram village, Atmakur mandal from the
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 28 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
father of the deceased plaintiff on 31.7.1993 for Rs.1,60,000/- under an agreement of sale. It is further mentioned in the said legal notice that since the said date the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the lands and brought the said land under cultivation. It is further mentioned in the notice that the defendant paid more than half amount to his father (i.e., father of the deceased plaintiff) whenever demanded but failed to get endorsements on the agreement. From this version of the defendant it is clear that the defendant himself is not certain about the quantum of amount paid by him to the father of the deceased plaintiff and admittedly there were no endorsements of payment on the agreement of sale dated 31.7.1993. It is further mentioned in the said notice that the defendant came to know that the father of the deceased plaintiff is not the owner of the some of the lands and hence there was a dispute with regard to the ownership and part payments. It is further mentioned in the said notice that the defendant raised an objection several times and he demanded him orally and through legal notices to register the lands on whatever lands her got ownership but his father died without registration. It is further mentioned in the said notice that after the death of the father of the deceased plaintiff, the defendant demanded the deceased plaintiff and his brothers for registration of the lands to whatever extent their father actually owns and in that connection there was a panchayath before the elders like Y.V.Ramana
Reddy and others. The said Y.V. Ramana Reddy name was shown by the plaintiff in the plaint as the key person behind this dispute and as supporter of the defendant. It is further mentioned in the said legal notice that as a result of the panchayath the deceased plaintiff and his brothers by names Venkataiah Gupta, Mohanakrishna Gupta and
Vivekananda Murthy have agreed to forego the land in sy.no.206/2 to an extent Ac.7.62 cents which is the plaint schedule property and to which his father is the exclusive owner. It is further mentioned in the said legal notice that the deceased plaintiff and his brothers have executed a white paper agreement for Rs.52,000/- on 14.07.1997 and received
Rs.37,000/- on the same day and again on 26.07.1998 he paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards balance consideration and the same was endorsed on the backside of the white paper agreement. It is further
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 29 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
mentioned that his client has left the other lands and has been in possession and enjoyment of the land in sy.no.206/2 to an extent of
Ac.7.62 cents and demanded the deceased plaintiff orally to register the land in his favour. So, from the above recitals it is clear that the first agreement of sale executed in between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant stood cancelled. Because if the defendant did not treat the same as cancelled he would not have opted for and entered into another agreement of sale with the sons of the executant of first agreement of sale. So, the first agreement of sale dated 31.7.1993 shall be treated as non-est. Coming to the second agreement of sale even according to the defendant it was executed on white paper by the four brothers and even by the date of second agreement itself the defendant has information with regard to the right and ownership of the father of the deceased plaintiff over such and such properties mentioned in the first agreement of sale. It is also clear that he left the other lands but stating that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of second agreement of sale dated 14.07.1997 and whether this recital is true or not will be decided infra.
23.Ex.A7 is office copy of legal notice dated 03.05.2008 issued by the counsel for deceased plaintiff to the defendant through his first counsel.
In the said legal notice, all the recitals mentioned in Ex.A6 are specifically denied. In 5th paragraph, it is clearly mentioned that as admitted by the defendant the agreement of sale dated 31.07.1993 stood cancelled by 1994 itself as the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and as such by virtue of the cancelled agreement of sale the defendant cannot claim any possession as Doctrine of Estoppel operates. In 6th paragraph, it is mentioned that again on 14.07.1997 the defendant entered into fresh agreement of sale with the deceased plaintiff and his brothers under which no possession was given to the defendant and the schedule mentioned in the agreement of sale clearly discloses that the deceased plaintiff and his brothers are in possession of the same. It is contended in the 10th paragraph that being a party to the agreement of sale the defendant is stopped from denying the contents and facts of the said agreement of sale. It is also mentioned
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 30 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
that agreement of sale also stood cancelled by March 1998 as the defendant failed to perform his part of contract as per the terms stipulated therein. It is contended that the endorsement dated 26.07.1998 is a forged and created one for the purpose of the said notice. It is further contented that the deceased plaintiff never received any amount or part of the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the defendant and never signed on the alleged endorsement on the backside of agreement of sale. So, it is clear that the first payment of Rs.37,000/- is accepted. It is contended that tampering of document clearly establishes that the defendant is not entitled for any equitable relief as claimed in the notice. In the said notice there is also a mention about the deceased plaintiff obtaining loan from the State Bank of India,
Atmakur branch and his brothers and sister bequeathed the property of himself and his sister Sashikala etc facts. So, the contention of payment of balance sale consideration is to be decided.
24.Ex.A8 is also a copy of the legal notice dated 06.06.1994 issued by an Advocate by name V.V.Seshphani to the father of the deceased plaintiff and it is not a full document and does not contain the signature of the Advocate. It must also be stated here that initially the defendant intended to exhibit this document during his chief-examination but the same was not accepted as it is not a full document and does not contain the signature of the said Advocate. But, the same marked in view of the admissions made by the defendant, in his cross-examination, in respect of some recitals therein. In the said notice there is a recital that “Further to give a colour of authenticity you alleged their in that position of acres 24-24 was being delivered on the same date”. From this said portion it is understood that in fact no possession was delivered under the first agreement of sale but only a recital was mentioned and the same was reminded by the defendant to the father of the deceased plaintiff through that legal notice. Further, this typed document originally contains the date “6.6.94”. But ‘1’ was inserted with black colour pen to make the date “16.6.94”. The defendant says that he does not know who altered the said date. When the father of the deceased plaintiff sought to sell the lands to which he is not the owner,
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 31 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
if the said act is a fraudulent one, the defendant ought to have take steps for initiation of criminal proceedings. Though in the said notice the words used by the defendant are “you cheated my client and made him part with 15000/- and Rs.5000/-“, but no such steps are taken by the defendant.
25.Ex.A9 is the statement of the defendant recorded by the Mandal
Revenue Inspector, Atmakur, recorded on xx/04/2008. In Ex.A9 it is merely recorded that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the father of the deceased plaintiff for purchase of the suit schedule property. But for the reasons best known to the defendant he did not even make a mention about the other properties to which the father of the deceased first plaintiff is not the owner and which were also agreed to be purchased by the defendant under the first agreement of sale. It is mentioned that an amount of Rs.15000/- was given as advance of sale consideration and it was agreed that the after making of balance sale consideration the registration will take place and that he (defendant) used to pay the amounts to the father of the deceased plaintiff whenever requested and the father of the deceased plaintiff used to issue slips in token of receipt of amounts and later the father of the deceased plaintiff died. It is also recorded that the sons of Dornala
Venkata Ratnam have received Rs.37,000/- to meet the expenses of death ceremony of their father and have collectively issued a receipt. It is also recorded that since the date of first agreement of sale he is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. But there is no mention of making balance payment to the deceased plaintiff and obtaining receipt.
DW3 who was the Tahsildar Atmakur admitted that in Ex.X5, which is a report of Mandal Revenue Inspector there is a recital to show that on 26.07.1998 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was given to the deceased plaintiff and there is an endorsement in writing found that since 1993 the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
She also admitted that in Ex.A9 which is a statement of the defendant recorded by the Mandal Revenue Inspector there is no statement made to that effect. So, it is clear that the Mandal Revenue Inspector got influenced by the defendant and also failed to at least note the date of
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 32 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
recording of statement. DW3 also admitted that in Ex.X9 the nature of possession is shown as agreement of sale, but the date of agreement and the parties of the agreement is not shown and that a perusal of
Ex.A9 makes it clear that the Village Revenue Officer who filled up Ex.X9 has made the agreement of sale as a basis for issuance of adangal in favour of defendant. So, it is clear that by virtue of agreement of sale the defendant managed most of the revenue officials to issue documents in his favour.
26.Ex.B1 is the plan filed by the defendant. There is no dispute on the said plan and the contents therein. Hence, there need not be any discussion of Ex.B1.
27.Ex.B2 is agreement of sale dated 31.07.1993 whereby the father of the deceased plaintiff agreed to sell certain properties to the defendant.
According to the recitals in Ex.B2 the father of the deceased plaintiff agreed to sell the land in Sy.No.206/2 which is the suit schedule property and which belongs to him. It is also further mentioned therein that he also agreed to sell the land in sy.no.207/2 which belongs to his nephew-cum-son-in-law being the husband of his daughter by name
J.Subramanyam and also the land in sy.nos.207 and 217/1 which belongs to K.Nageswar Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-.
From the recitals it is clear that he obtained the property in sy.nos.207, 207/1 and 207/2 by way of agreement of sale from those persons. In
Ex.A6 which is a legal notice issued by the defendant through his counsel to the deceased plaintiff there is a recital that “My client came to know that your father is not the owner of some of the lands”. That recital goes to show that he recently invented and came to know that the father of the deceased plaintiff is not the owner of the other lands and thereby he was cheated by the father of the deceased plaintiff. The recitals in Ex.B2 are very clear and categorical in terms that the father of the deceased plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property which belongs to him and also the properties of others by mentioning their names and showing that the obtained agreement of sale from those persons in respect of those properties. So there is never any suppression by the father of the deceased plaintiff. Now, by virtue of
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 33 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
Ex.A6 legal notice, the defendant tried to give a colour that the father of the deceased plaintiff has cheated him by trying to sell the lands of others to him. Further, Ex.A8 which is a legal notice issued by the defendant to the father of the deceased plaintiff also shows a recital to the effect that in Ex.B2 he (father of the deceased plaintiff) has misrepresented him (defendant) for sale of the properties not belonging to him. So, the contention of the defendant in Ex.A6 that the father of the deceased plaintiff has cheated him and misrepresented him cannot be accepted. Therefore, it is very clear that the defendant is making bald allegations against the father of the deceased plaintiff since the date of Ex.A8 i.e., 06.06.1994. In Ex.B2 it was mentioned that an amount of Rs.15,000/- was received by the father of the deceased plaintiff from the defendant towards part of the sale consideration and it was also agreed that the the defendant shall pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,45,000/- to the father of the deceased plaintiff in three installments viz., Rs.50,000/- on or before 31.3.1994; Rs.50,000/- on or before 31.3.1995; and Rs.45,000/- on or before 31.3.1996 and shall obtain endorsements on Ex.B2 and thereafter the registered sale deed will be executed. It was also mentioned in Ex.B2 that the defendant was put in possession of an extent of Ac.24.24 cents of land.
There is a condition stipulated in Ex.B2 that if the defendant fails to get the registered sale deed as mentioned in Ex.B2 the father of the deceased plaintiff will pay only Rs.50,000/- if that amount is paid which is the first installment. There is another condition in Ex.B2 that if the defendant fails to pay the sale consideration he has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the father of the deceased plaintiff or to his legal representatives and shall deliver back possession of the said properties. These conditions have not been fulfilled by the defendant.
According to the defendant, he has paid some amounts to the father of the deceased plaintiff as and when requested but failed to get endorsements. The mere oral testimony without any proof with regard to payment of amounts cannot be accepted. So, it is clear that the defendant has not paid any amounts to the father of the deceased plaintiff or his legal representatives. The general principal of law is that as per Section 55 of the Contract Act 1872, in a contract for sale of land
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 34 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
or immovable property it would normally be presumed that the time is not the essence of contract. But, in the case on hand, in respect of
Ex.B2, the time is the essence of contract as there is also a condition stipulated in the payment of compensation and re-delivery of possession of the property covered under Ex.B2 either to the father of the deceased plaintiff or to his legal representatives. So, as contended by the deceased plaintiff the Ex.B2 stood cancelled.
28.Coming to Ex.B3, it is a white paper agreement executed between the defendant and the sons of Dornala Venkata Ratnam i.e. the deceased plaintiff and his brothers on 14.07.1997. According to the recitals therein the executants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.52,000/- and received an amount of Rs.37,000/- and the remaining amount is to be paid on or before the end of March 1998. There is also a condition stipulated in Ex.B3 that if the defendant fails to pay the balance sale consideration he has to lose the advance of sale consideration paid. There is also a recital in Ex.B3 that if they fail to execute the registered sale deed as per the demand of the defendant they have to pay a compensation of Rs.74,000/- to the defendant. There is also a recital that the schedule property in Ex.B3 was in their possession after the death of their father. So it is very clear there is no recital showing that the possession of the suit schedule property was given to the defendant by virtue of Ex.B3. So what all stated by the defendant with regard to his possession over the suit schedule property from the date of Ex.B3 is false. The deceased plaintiff never denied the execution of Ex.B3 by himself and his brothers. Here it is to be noticed that if Ex.B2 is still in force there can be no need for the defendant to enter into Ex.B3 agreement of sale. Further there is no mention in Ex.B3 about the execution of Ex.B2.
29.Ex.B4 is an endorsement on the back side of Ex.B3. According to the said endorsement, on 26.07.1998 the defendant had paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- and there is a further recital that since the rainy season in the year 1993 the defendant himself is enjoying the said property by bringing the same fit for cultivation and he will execute the register sale deed as and when demanded by the
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 35 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
defendant. This Ex.B4 is purportedly executed by only the deceased plaintiff whereas Ex.B3 is executed by the deceased plaintiff and his three brothers. If really the defendant has paid the balance sale consideration to the deceased plaintiff, the deceased plaintiff would have mentioned only that fact as endorsement and there is no need for him to mention anything about the possession of the defendant over the suit property. Further there are two witnesses for the said transaction but none of them is examined to prove the same by the defendant. In this connection, DW3 has clearly admitted that in Ex.A9 which is a statement of the defendant recorded in April 2008 by the Mandal
Revenue Inspector, Atmakur, there is no recital about the payment of balance sale consideration. But surprisingly in Ex.X5 which is a report of the said Mandal Revenue Inspector there is a mention with regard to payment of Rs.15,000/- on 26.07.1998. DW3 also admitted that in
Ex.A9 there is no mention about the defendant being in possession of the suit schedule property but in Ex.X5 the Mandal Revenue Inspector,
Atmakur mentioned the same. DW3 also admitted that as per Ex.X10 which is a copy of Ex.B3 agreement submitted to their office by the defendant, on the backside there is no endorsement of Ex.B4. So, it is clear that the defendant has managed the Mandal Revenue Inspector,
Atmakur and got fabricated the Ex.X5 report and further he has also got fabricated the Ex.B4 endorsement on the backside of Ex.B3. If what is stated by the defendant that he has paid the balance sale consideration and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property is true and correct, nothing prevented him to get a regular sale deed registered from the deceased plaintiff and his brothers, more particularly, when there is a condition stipulated in Ex.B3 that if the deceased plaintiff and his brothers fail to execute register sale deed on demand they have to pay a compensation of Rs.74,000/-. The defendant has not filed any suit for specific performance and at least there is no counter claim in this suit and so it is clear that the defendant has committed fraudulent acts and suppressed the true facts before the court and took all false pleas and also committed fabrication of the documents.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 36 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
30.Ex.B6 is legal notice dated 27.3.1996 issued by the defendant to the father of the deceased plaintiff. As per Ex.B6 the defendant has demanded the father of the deceased plaintiff to execute a registered sale deed but as already observed above the first agreement of sale i.e.,
Ex.B2 stood cancelled. Ex.B7 is a postal receipt. Ex.B5 is a postal acknowledgment. Ex.B5 shows the date of delivery as 20.6.1994 and so it cannot be stated as to which letter it belongs. Ex.B8 is a post card
dated 25.9.1996 purportedly written by one of the sons of Dornala
Venkata Ratnam by name D.Venkaiah Gupta. The recitals therein clearly show that his father Dornala Venktaratnam is seriously ill. Ex.B9 is another post card purportedly written by the said D.Venkaiah Gupta on 11.10.1996. According to it, his father has demised on 18.10.1996.
Ex.B10 is a copy of Ex.A6 which was discussed supra and so there need not be any further discussion on Ex.B10. Ex.B11 and B12 are the postal receipt and acknowledgment card pertaining to Ex.B10.
31.Ex.B13 is a true copy of no.2 Adangal issued by the Village
Revenue officer, Pinnapuram village for fasli no.1417. Ex.B13 was marked subject to objection that the Village Revenue officer has no authority to issue true copies. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1059 dated 31.7.2007 the Village Revenue Officers are competent to issue extracts of revenue records. So, the Ex.B13 is admissible in evidence. However,
DW3 in her cross examination admitted that in any adangal issued subsequent to the issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed passbook if the name of other person is to be incorporated as pattadar the concerned Village Revenue Officer has to obtain permission of the then Tahsildar but obtaining permission is not necessary for incorporation of the name of others as enjoyers. In Ex.B13 the name of pattadar is shown as Dornala Venkata Ratnam and the name of the defendant is shown as enjoyer and the nature of possession is shown as by virtue of agreement. As already observed supra, by virtue of Ex.B3 the defendant is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and so either he has managed the Village Revenue Officer to issue Ex.B13 with the said recital or he might have shown the Ex.X5 which was held to be prepared by the Mandal Revenue Inspector,
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 37 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
Atmakur, at the instigation and influence by the defendant to the Village
Revenue officer and therefore there is such an entry in column no.15 in respect of nature of possession. Therefore, the Ex.B13 is not a valid document.
32.Ex.B14 is a newspaper clipping. According to the said newspaper clipping the deceased plaintiff has complained about the illegal occupation of the defendant over the suit property. The Ex.B14 is marked subject to objection. As per the words of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court a news paper clipping is only hearsay secondary evidence and the same cannot be relied on unless proved by aliunde. [See S.A. Khan v.
Ch, Bhajan Lal, (1993) 3 SCC 151 : 1993 Cr.LJ 1042 : AIR 1993 SC 1348 :
(1993)]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that even where nobody has opposed the report, the party citing the report would not be absolved of the obligation to prove the truth of its contents. Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act deals with secondary evidence. News paper reports come under secondary evidence. As per the book “The Law of
Evidence” 25th edition by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal published by LexisNexis at page no. 411 it is noted as follows; “ In the words of the Supreme Court a newspaper report is a hearsay-secondary evidence. It cannot be relied upon unless proved by evidence aliunde. Even where nobody has opposed the report, the party citing the report would not be absolved of his obligation to prove the truth of its contents. The court said:
In the present case, no evidence has been let in proof of the statement of facts contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial by the maker of the statement, viz., the
Minister, will not absolve the applicant from discharging his obligation of proving the statement of facts as appeared in the press report. The Minister in his counter-affidavit had taken a stand that the statements attributed to him based on the newspaper report are mere heresay and cannot in law be relied upon for the purpose of initiating such proceeding. Therefore, in the absence of required legal proof, the Court will not be justified in issuing a suo motu notice for contempt of court.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 38 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
Moreover, the news item does not spell out any reference to the case of corruption or its proceeding pending before the
Supreme Court. In the alleged contemptuous statement only the view of the reporter was mentioned as if the Minister had been provoked about the proceedings pending before the
Supreme Court, There is no reason much less compelling reason to issue suo moto notice to the Minister for contempt of court.” [See S.A. Khan V. Ch. Bhajan Lal, (19993) 3 SCC 151] underlining mine.
In the case on hand also the defendant did not examine the newspaper
Reporter or Editor or Publisher to prove the newspaper item and so the same is not a valid document.
33.Ex.B15 is a certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.158/2009
dated 08.10.2012. It is the well settled principal of law that the
observations made by the criminal courts are not binding on the criminal courts. A judgment in a criminal case cannot be received in a civil action to establish the truth of the facts upon which it is rendered. A decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court but a civil courts decision has a binding effect in criminal proceedings to the extent of civil aspects. So, Ex.B15 has no bearing on this suit.
34.Ex.B16 is a voter identity card which stands in the name of the defendant and the address shown therein is H.No.10/37/1, Siddapuram,
Atmakur. In his cross-examination, the defendant clearly admitted that one person will have only one voter identity card and that he has a voter identity card in Tangturu village and that he also has a voter identity card at Siddapuram village. There is no proper explanation from the defendant for having two voter identity cards at two places. He admitted that the said address belongs to a village elder in Siddapuram.
The defendant denied the suggestion that he has fabricated Ex.B16 for the purpose of this suit and the address in Ex.B16 belongs to the village elder under at whose instance he is fighting this litigation. Though the defendant denied the said suggestion the said allegation appears to be true because he has failed to give proper explanation for having two voter identity cards. Further, by mere having Ex.B6 it cannot be stated
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 39 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
that the defendant has accrued any right over the suit property. So,
Ex.B16 has no bearing on this suit.
35.Exs.B17 to B20 are the payment endorsements on white paper purportedly made by the father of the deceased plaintiff, on 25.9.1993, 20.2.1994, 17.3.1994 and 19.4.1994 for Rs.12,000/-, Rs.15,000/-,
Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,300/-, respectively. As already observed above, in
Ex.A6 itself the defendant has stated that he has paid more than half of the amount towards Ex.B2 agreement of sale dated 31.7.1993 but failed to get endorsements on the agreement. In such circumstances the defendant is duty bound to prove the execution of Exs.B17 to B20 endorsements by the father of the deceased plaintiff. It must be stated that at first instance those endorsements do not contain the necessary stamp duty and it is only when marking of such endorsements is objected for want of stamp duty, the defendant made good the stamp duty. So, it is clear that by the said dates of Ex.B17 to B20 they are not valid but now after payment of the stamp duty and the penalty they were brought into existence from the respective dates. However, the defendant is not absolved of the burden to prove the handwriting and signatures of the father of the deceased plaintiff in view of his admission in Ex.A6 that he did not get any endorsements. Further, in view of the above attitude of the defendant in fabrication of the documents the
Exs.B17 to B20 cannot be accepted without there being any proof.
Further when Ex.B3 is executed these Exs.B17 to B20 endorsements even if the same are really executed by the father of the deceased plaintiff can be said to be of no avail.
36.In the plaint, the deceased plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of suit schedule land. The same is admitted by the defendant in his written statement. So the title of the deceased plaintiff over the plaint schedule land is not in dispute. The deceased plaintiff claimed that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. The defendant denied the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land and it is claimed by the defendant that he is in possesion and enjoyment of the suit schedule land by virtue of Ex.B3, Ex.B4 etc documents. So, the possession and enjoyment of the deceased plaintiff
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 40 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
over the plaint schedule property is in dispute. However, in view of the observations made with regard to documents Ex.B3, B4, B13 etc., it is clear that the defendant is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land and that he is lying and committed fraudulent acts and also fabricated the documents to suit the case. Though the deceased plaintiff has not filed any document to show his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land, it is clear that the defendant is not in possession of the same and so it shall be presumed that the deceased plaintiff and after him his legal representatives are in possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of Exs.A1 and A2. It can also be stated that since the contention of the defendant is disproved by the plaintiffs, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the deceased plaintiff and his legal representatives above the possession and enjoyment. Further, admittedly, the suit schedule land is not under cultivation now and so except Exs.A1 and A2 no other documents can be produced. Further, the defendant himself admitted that the deceased plaintiff did not remove the bushes and thorny plants in the suit schedule land. Further, the defendant has relied on the report in Rc.B.No.150/2008 submitted by the then Mandal Revenue
Officer, Atmakur, which was sent for to the Court in I.A.No.261/2009 to show his possession. The defendant has examined DW3 to prove that aspect. The DW3 has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that the entire proceedings bundle in Rc.B.No.150/2008 is not having any sanctity now because of insertion of various other documents unconcerned with the matter inquired by her and further the Revenue
Inspector's report is not tallying with the statement of the defendant. It is further clear that since the defendant is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land by virtue of Ex.B3 he is not entitled to claim the benefit of part performance as contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
37.It must also be stated here that the deceased plaintiff died on 06.07.2010 and plaintiff nos.2 to 4 have filed a petition under Order XXII
Rule 3 CPC with a prayer to permit them to be added as plaintiff nos.2 to 4 being the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff. The said petition was
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 41 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
allowed on 21.12.2010 as no counter was filed by the defendant. In the said petition along with the death certificate of the deceased plaintiff, the plaintiff nos.2 to 4 have also enclosed a family members certificate.
On a perusal of the said family members certificate it is clear that the plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are the family members of the deceased plaintiff.
However, it is mentioned that the plaintiff nos.3 and 4 who are minor daughters are under the guardianship of their mother i.e., plaintiff no.2 (PW1) and that the plaintiff no.2 is shown as the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff. In the cross examintion for PW1 various questions were posed to her to elicit that plaintiff nos.3 and 4 are not their adopted daughters. PW1 admitted that no written adoption deed was executed and no adoption ceremony was performed. She stated that plaintiff nos.3 & 4 are infact the daughters of her own younger brother by name Srinivasa Setty who is a resident of Puttaparthi and further stated that she stood as guardian to plaintiff nos.3 & 4 in their respective school records. She also admitted that she has not filed those school records before the court. Some questions were also put to
PW1 to show that she is not the wife of plaintiff no.1. In that connection she stated that after marriage, herself and the deceased plaintiff lived together in Hyderabad for about two or four years and later they lived in
Atmakur for 20 years and that she did not file any document to show that they are the wife and husband and lived as such under a common roof in Atmakur for 20 years. She also stated that her marriage with the deceased plaintiff was performed about 20 years but she cannot say the date or year of marriage. It appears that the defendant has raised this contention to show that the plaintiff no.2 is not at all a legal heir of the deceased plaintiff and so the suit is not maintainable in view of the death of deceased plaintiff. Admittedly for the petition under Order 22
Rule 3 CPC in I.A.No.522/10 the defendant has not filed any counter and further the defendant has filed a memo on 25.04.2011 informing that “no additional written statement at present”. This memo came to be filed after the neat copy of the plaint is filed on 18.01.2011. So, it is clear that the defendant has not raised any object for the relationship as mentioned in the cause title in the amended plaint by that time. So he cannot be permitted to raise any dispute on that aspect at a later stage
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 42 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
that too without any averment. Further the defendant has not produced any evidence to show that the plaintiff no.2 is not the wife of the deceased plaintiff. So, I hold that the plaintiff no.2 is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and this view is supported by the family members certificate filed by the plaintiff no.2 in
I.A.No.522/2010. Plaintiff nos.3 and 4 are not the own daughters of plaintiff nos.1 & 2 but as admitted by PW1 she stood as guardian to both of them treating both of them as their adopted daughters. Even if plaintiff nos.3 & 4 are on record or not on record the result of the suit will not change, because at the most they could be termed as unnecessary parties. It is the well settled principal of law that mere joining the unnecessary parties is not a ground for dismissal of the suit.
38.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the defendant is interfering with the right, title, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and so the plaintiffs are entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for. This issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Issue No.2:
39.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendant or anybody on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected,
signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of May, 2017.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ATMAKUR.
Appendix of Evidence
(Witnesses examined for)
Plaintiffs: PW.1: D. Thirveni
Defendant:
DW1: B. Venkata Reddy DW2: K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy DW3: T.Anjana Devi, Tahsildar.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 43 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
Exhibits marked for
Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1: Pattadar passbook issued in favour of the first plaintiff
Ex.A2: Title deed passbook issued in favour of the first plaintiff.
Ex.A3: Registered gift deed dated 1.11.2006 in favour of first plaintiff (Demarked as per orders in i.A.No.202/2016 dt. 9.6.2016)
Ex.A4: Registered gift deed dated 10.03.2007 in favour of first plaintiff.
Ex.A5: Agricultural Loan Bank passbook issued by SBI, Atmakur, in favor of the first plaintiff.
Ex.A6: Legal notice dated 01.05.2008 issued by defendant to the deceased plaintiff through his advocate.
Ex.A7: Office copy of reply notice dated 03.05.2008 issued by the deceased plaintiff to the defendant through his advocate
Ex.A8: Part of legal notice issued by the defendant through his Advocate V.V.Seshapani dated 06.06.1994 to the father of the deceased plaintiff.
Ex.A9: Statement of the defendant given to Mandal Revenue Inspector, Atmakur, in April 2008.
Defendant:
Ex.B1 : Plan filed by the defendant.
Ex.B2 : Agreement dt.31.07.1993 between the father of the plaintiff No.1 by name Dornala Venkata Ratnam in favour of defendant.
Ex.B3 : Unregistered agreement dt.14.07.1997 executed by plaintiff No.1 and his three brothers in favour of the defendant. (Stamp duty and penalty paid)
Ex.B4 : payment endorsement dt.26.07.98 on the back side of Ex.B3.
Ex.B5 : postal acknowledgment card signed by the father of the plaintiff No.1 Venkata Ratnam dt.22.06.1994.
Ex.B6 : legal notice dt.27.03.1996 issued by the defendant to the father of the plaintiff.
Ex.B7 : postal receipt dt.28.03.1996.
Ex.B8 : post card dt.25.09.1996.
Ex.B9 : post card dt.11.10.1996.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 44 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
Ex.B10 : legal notice dt.01.05.2008 issued to the first plaintiff.
Ex.B11 : postal receipt dt.01.05.2008 corresponding to the legal notice dt.01.05.2008 (Ex.B10).
Ex.B12 : postal acknowledgment card signed by plaintiff No.1 dt.03.05.2008 corresponding to the legal notice dt.01.05.2008 (Ex.B.10).
Ex.B13 : true copy of No.2 Adangal for fasli 1417 issued on 21.04.2008 by the Village Revenue Officer, Pinnapuram.
Ex.B14 : Newspaper clipping dt.22.03.2008 in Surya Telugu Daily Newspaper.
Ex.B15 : certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.158/2009 dt.08.10.2012 on the file of JMFC,Atmakur.
Ex.B16 : Voter identity card of the defendant.
Ex.B17 : payment endorsement dt.02.09.1993
Ex.B18 : payment endorsement dt.20.02.1994.
Ex.B19 : payment endorsement dt.17.03.1994.
Ex.B20 : payment endorsement dt.19.04.1994.
Through DW3:
Ex.X1 : Application of the deceased plaintiff No.1 dt.24.12.2007.
Ex.X2 : Notice issued by the Tahsildar, Atmakur, vide Rc.B.No.150/2008 dt.16.04.2008 to the deceased plaintiff No.1 and the defendant.
Ex.X3 : Application of deceased plaintiff No.1 dt.29.02.2008.
Ex.X4 : Undated application of deceased plaintiff No.1.
Ex.X5 : Report submitted by the In-charge Mandal Revenue Inspector, Atmakur, which was received by the Tahsildar, Atmakur, on 29.04.08.
Ex.X6 : Statement of the deceased plaintiff No.1 recorded on 23.04.2008 by the then Mandal Revenue Inspector, Atmakur.
Ex.X7 : Communication in Rc.E.2.686/2008 dt.21.05.2008.
Ex.X8 : Report sent by the Tahsildar, Atmakur, to the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.B.No.150/2008 dt.01.05.2008.
Ex.X9 : Adangal for fasli 1417.
Ex.X10 : photocopy of the agreement of sale dt.14.07.1997 available in the revenue file.
Ex.X11 : Adangal/pahani issued for the year 1997.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 45 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ATMAKUR.
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 46 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.
PRESENT:- CH.V.RAMAKRISHNA
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR
WEDNESDAY, THE 3 rd DAY OF MAY, 2017
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.71/2008
BETWEEN:-
1. Dornala Ram Prasad (died ) by Lrs.
2.D.Triveni W/o late D. Ram Prasad, aged about 39 years, Hindu House wife, R/o Atmakur, Kurnool District.
3.D. Bhuvaneswari, D/o late D.Ram Prasad, aged 11 years.
4.D. Akamksha D/o late D. Ram Prasad, aged about 8 years.
D3 and D4 being minors rep. by mother 2nd petitioner. Both are residents of Atmakur, Kurnool District.
D2 to D4 are added as legal representatives of D1 as per the orders in I.A.No.522 of 2010 dated 21.12.2010 .….PLAINTIFFS
and
Budamakayala Venkata Reddy S/o B.Linga Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, R/o Tanguturu (v), Banaganapalli mandal, Kurnool District. …… DEFENDANT
-oo0oo-
This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, or anybody on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs.
Plaint presented on 7.5.2008 and filed on 7.5.2008 and on the J.V of Rs.9,000/- a C.F of Rs.711/- is paid under Sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F and
S.V.Act.
Cause of action arose on 5.5.2008 when the defendant came into picture at the behest of Y.V.Ramana Reddy and others of Siddapuram village and made galata while the plaintiff is cultivating his land and several complaints made by the plaintiff to the higher officials like
S.P.Collector etc, and on enquiry, the defendant tendered apologies to the plaintiff and walked away for from the scene and and all of a sudden again when the defendant got issued a registered lawyers notice dt.1.5.2008 and when the plaintiff got issued a reply notice dt.3.5.2008 and on 5.5.2008 when the defendant came to the house of plaintiff and threatened him with dire consequences proclaiming that he hatched a
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 47 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
pucca plan and trying to occupy the plaint schedule property within a few days and since the properties are situated at Siddapuram village, which comes within the jurisdiction of this court.
This suit coming on 21.03.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Murali Mohan & Sri B.Nagesh, Advocates for the plaintiffs and Sri Sri Y.Prakash Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:
1)that the defendant or anybody on his behalf are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaintiff schedule property;
and
2)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,915/- towards the costs of the suit.
Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 3rd day of May, 2017.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ATMAKUR.
Memo of Costs
For PlaintiffFor Defendant
Stamp on VakalatRs. 2=00Rs. 2=00
Stamp on PlaintRs. 711=00- Nil –
Petition stampRs.02=00
Stamp on ProcessRs. 100=00
Advocate feeRs.2000=00 Rs.2000=00
Typing chargesRs.50=00Rs.50=00
Writing chargesRs.50=00Rs.50=00
-------------------------------
Total :Rs. 2915=00Rs. 2102=00
-------------------------------
SCHEDULE
Sy.No. Full Extent Actual extent Name of the land
206/2 pyki Ac.7.62Dornala vari Chenu
O.S.No.71 of 2008- 48 – JCJ Court, Atmakur
Bounded as follows:
East:- Land of Venkoji and Kasi Reddy etc.
West:- Land of Subbamma and Kesalu Reddy etc.
North:- Land of Narayana Setty etc.
South:- Land of Somula Subbalaxmma and Pothuganti Shashikal etc.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ATMAKUR