1
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), RAJAM.
PRESENT: Sri CH. VIVEK ANAND SRINIVAS,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam.
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
(17.09.2024)
APPEAL SUIT NO.10/2020 APPEAL SUIT NO.10/2020
Between:
1. Tandara Neelakantam, S/o late Gavarayya, aged 58 years, Hindu, Retired employee, cultivation, resident at Kaspa street, palakonda town and Mandal, Srikakulam District (died)
2. Tandara Lakshmi, W/o late Neelakantam, aged 60 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident at Kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal, Srikakuam District.
3. Tandara Chandrasekhar, S/o late Neelakantam, aged 32 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident at Kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
4. Tandara Rajasekhar, S/o late Neelakantam, aged 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident at kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
5. Bommalata Krishnaveni, W/o Butchiyya, D/o late Neelakantam, aged 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident at kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal
6. Karigi Vijayalaxmil,W/o Vijaykumar, D/o late Neelakantam, aged 36 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident at kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal
7. Reya Jayalaxmi, W/o Ramarao, D/o late Neelakantam, aged 30 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident at Kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal. …… Appellants/Plaintiffs.
2
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
And:
1. The District Collector, Collector Office, Srikakulam District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda town and mandal, Srikakulam District.
3. The Tahsildar, Palakonda (MRO), Palakonda mandal, Srikakulam District.
…Respondent(s)/Defendant(s).
An appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.10.2020 in OS.
No.03/2012 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakonda.
Between:
1. Tandara Neelakantam, S/o late Gavarayya, aged 58 years, Hindu, Retired employee, cultivation, resident at Kaspa street, palakonda town and Mandal, Srikakulam District (died)
2. Tandara Lakshmi, W/o late Neelakantam, aged 60 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident at Kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal, Srikakuam District.
3. Tandara Chandrasekhar, S/o late Neelakantam, aged 32 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident at Kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
4. Tandara Rajasekhar, S/o late Neelakantam, aged 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident at kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
5. Bommalata Krishnaveni, W/o Butchiyya, D/o late Neelakantam, aged 40 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident at kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal
6. Karigi Vijayalaxmil,W/o Vijaykumar, D/o late Neelakantam, aged 36 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident at kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal.
3
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
7. Reyya Jayalaxmi, W/o Ramarao, D/o late Neelakantam, aged 30 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident at Kaspa street, Palakonda town and Mandal. **Plaintiffs 2 to 7 were added as L.Rs of deceased first Plaintiff as per orders in I.A.No.76/2018** … Plaintiffs
And:
1. The District Collector, Collector Office, Srikakulam District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Palakonda town and mandal, Srikakulam District.
3. The Tahsildar, Palakonda (MRO), Palakonda mandal, Srikakulam District.
… Defendants
This appeal is coming on 28.08.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I. Sri Ramulu Naidu, Learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/Plaintiff(s) and of Sri S.Polarao, Assistant Government Pleader cumLd Counsel for Respondent(s)/Defendant(s) and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is an appeal filed under section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code, against the Decree and Judgment passed in
O.S.No.03/2012 dated 15.10.2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Palakonda, by the unsuccessful Plaintiffs.
(i)The Appellants herein are the Plaintiffs and the Respondents herein are the Defendants in the main suit.
4
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
(ii)The suit in O.S.No.03/2012 was filed by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendants for Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants and their officials from canceling D-patta and other pattas issued in favour of him and from forcibly dispossessing him from the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal are referred as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S 03/2012
3.It is the case of the Plaintiff the father of the first Plaintiff by name
Gavarayya was issued D-form patta in the year 1945 to an extent of
Ac.5.00 cents and since then, he had been cultivating the same along with his two brothers and after the death of father of the Plaintiff and his two brothers, the suit schedule land devolved on the Plaintiff as he is the sole legal heir and the suit schedule property is a part of Patrunivari Cheruvu and the total extent of the said Cheruvu is Ac.39.64 cents and it is abandoned tank and the name of the Plaintiff was also mutated in revenue records and he is paying land revenue to the government and that he is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the government is trying to evict him from the suit schedule property as it is a tank bed land and as he is unable to resist the high handed acts of the
Defendants he filed the present suit. Hence, the suit.
5
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
4.On the other hand, the 3rd defendant filed his written statement which was adopted by first and 2nd Defendants on memo and they denied the plaint allegations and contended that the suit schedule land is a part of tank bed of Patrunivari Cheruvu and the total extent of said tank is
Ac.14.40 cents and the government never issued any D-form patta to the father of the Plaintiff or his family members and Patrunivari Cheruvu is an
Ayakattu tank and not assigned tank and the government also issued a
G.O with respect to the tank bed lands and the government did not issue any pattadar pass book and title deed for the said land to the Plaintiff or his family members and the documents filed by the Plaintiff are fictitious documents and not related to the suit schedule land and the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable under law and prayed to dismiss the suit.
5.Basing on the rival contentions, the trial court framed the following issues for trial:
I S S U E S
1. Whether the Plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property by the date of institution of the suit?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
6
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
6.To substantiate the case of the Plaintiff, P.W.s 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants,
D.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.s B1 and B2.
7.On considering the oral and documentary evidence let by both sides, the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. During pendancy of the suit the Plaintiff died and Plaintiffs 2 to 7 were added as the Legal Representatives of the deceased Plaintiff.
8.Now, the unsuccessful Plaintiffs filed the present appeal by challenging the said Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 03/2012
dated 15.10.2020 by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakonda
on the following grounds:
1. The decree and Judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence on record and probabilities of the case.
2. The trial court erroneously dismissed the suit instead of decreeing the suit in respect of plaint schedule land.
3. The trial court should have decreed the suit on the basis of documentary evidence as well as oral evidence adduced by the
Appellants/Plaintiffs
4. The trial court hopelessly erred on both question of law and facts.
7
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
5. The trial court committed grave mistake and erred in holding that the Plaintiffs have to prove their title and possession over the plaint schedule land, even though, the Plaintiffs examined P.W.s 1 to 3 and exhibited Ex.s A1 to A6 documents.
6. The trial court ought to have verified the documents as well as oral evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs and that the father of the Plaintiff was granted D-form Patta for the suit schedule land and that he is paying land revenue for the said land and his name was mutated in the revenue records and that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of he plaint schedule land and that they are in possession of the suit schedule land.
7. The trial court ought to have verified the documents filed by the
Plaintiffs and should have decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
8. The trial court erroneously dismissed the suit and there is absolutely no evidence for dismissing the suit and the lower court ought to have decreed the suit in the circumstances of the case with respect to the plaint schedule land and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and Judgment.
9.With the above appeal grounds, it is argued by the learned Counsel
for the Appellants that the oral evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 and documentary
evidence under Ex.s A1 to A6 prove the legal right and exclusive lawful possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and that he is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for and prayed to 8
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court in O.S.No.03/2012.
10. Percontra, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the
Respondents/Defendants that, the trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the Plaintiff and Defendant, rightly dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11.After hearing the learned Counsels for Appellants/Plaintiffs and the
Respondents/Defendants and going through the evidence on record, for proper appreciation of the facts and law in this appeal, the following points arise for determination:
P O I N T S
1. Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit ?
2. Whether the father of the first Plaintiff was issued D-form
Patta with respect to the suit schedule land?
3. Whether any injunction can be granted with respect to tank bed land?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction against the Defendants as prayed for?
9
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
5. Whether the impugned decree and Judgment dated 15.10.2020 in O.S.No.03/2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakonda is sustainable or not?
6. Whether the decree and Judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference if so, to what relief?
POINTS No.1 to 4:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit ?
2. Whether the father of the first Plaintiff issued D-form Patta with respect to the suit schedule land?
3. Whether any injunction can be granted with respect to tank bed land?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled relief of Permanent
Injunction against the defendant as prayed for?
12.At the outset, the main suit was filed by the Plaintiff for the relief of
Permanent Injunction against the Defendants, restraining the Defendants and their officials from canceling D-patta and other pattas issued in favour of him and from forcibly dispossessing him from the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
(a)To prove their contention, on behalf of the Plaintiffs P.W.s 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.s A1 to A6 were marked. P.W.1 is the first Plaintiff.
10
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
P.W.s 2 and 3 are the witnesses on behalf of the Plaintiffs. (The evidence of P.W.2 was eschewed from record.) Ex.A1 is the certified copy of
No.6 account for fasali 1361 issued in the name of the father of the
Plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the No.2 Adangal for the year 1988 and 1989 in the name of the Plaintiff. Ex.A3 are the Cist Receipts 12 in number. Ex.A4 are the Cist receipts 30 in number. Ex.A5 is the Andhra Bank pass book.
Ex.A6 is the Pattadar Pass Book.
(b)On behalf of the Defendants, D.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and
Ex.s B1 and B2 were marked. The evidence of D.W.1 was eschewed from record. D.W.2 is the 3rd defendant. Ex.B1 is the true copy of SLR relating to Parusarampuram village. Ex.B2 is the true copy of Memo
No.65961/ANSG(i)/07-1 dated 08.02.1999.
(c)Now, since the Plaintiff filed the main suit for the relief of Permanent
Injunction against the Defendants, the initial burden is on the
Appellants/Plaintiffs to prove and establish their legal right and exclusive lawful possession over the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and that the Defendants caused a breach of an obligation which is in favour of the Plaintiffs, to enable this court to exercise its judicial 11
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam discretion to prevent the said breach, by way of granting the discretionary relief of Permanent Injunction in their favour.
(d)To prove the case of the Plaintiffs, the first Plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 by filing his chief examination affidavit and reiterated his plaint pleadings and testified that his father by name Gavaraiah was issued D-form patta for the suit schedule property in the year 1945 and he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and his name was mutated in Ex.A1 No.6 account and after his death, the suit schedule property devolved on him and his name was mutated in the revenue record under Ex.A2 No.2 Adangal and he also paid land revenue for the suit schedule property under Ex.A3 and A4 and he was also issued pattadar pass book under Ex.A6 and the suit schedule property is a part of
Patrunivari cheruvu and it is a tank and now the Defendants are trying to evict him from the suit schedule property stating that it is a tank bed land and he filed the present suit.
(e)In support of the contention of the Plaintiffs, they also examined
P.W.s 2 and 3 who are the witnesses on their behalf. it is an apt to state here that the evidence of P.W.2 was eschewed from record after filing of his chief affidavit. P.W.3 who is a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs also 12
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam testified in his chief examination that the government issued D-form patta to the father of the 1st Plaintiff and after the death of his father, the 1st
Plaintiff got the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he used to attend the works of the Plaintiffs. In support of his contention, the Plaintiff also exhibited
Ex.s A1 to A6 documents. It is apt to state here that the Defendants are specifically denying the issuance of Ex.s A1 to A5 and A6 documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. So, the burden lies on the Plaintiff to prove the Ex.s A1 to A6 documents. Before, appreciating the documentary evidence filed by the Plaintiffs, it is apt to appreciate the oral evidence of P.W.s 1 and 3, to see whether the oral evidence let in by the
Plaintiffs prove the case of the Plaintiffs. As can be seen from the plaint pleadings and also the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 3, it is not in dispute that the suit schedule property is part of the Patrunivari tank and it is tank bed land. So, admittedly, the suit schedule property is situated in Patrunivari tank.
(f) Now, it is the contention of the Plaintiffs that the father of 1st Plaintiff by name Gavaraiah was issued D-form patta in the year 1945. But, no such patta was filed before the court by P.W.1. Though, P.W.1 stated in his cross examination that he filed D-form patta given by the government 13
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam in court, but he did not file any such D-form patta before the court to prove that his father was issued D-form patta relating to the suit schedule property in the year 1945. So, the contention of the Plaintiffs that the father of the first Plaintiff was issued in the year 1945 for the suit schedule property was not proved by the Plaintiffs. Moreover, P.W.1 could not tell the boundaries of the suit schedule land and he also did not mention the boundaries of the suit schedule land in the suit schedule. He also admitted that the Ex.A6 pattadar pass book shows that he was issued pattadar pass book for 4 ½ acres of land. So, when the Plaintiff could not testify about the boundaries of the suit schedule property and when he also failed to show the boundaries for the suit schedule property in his plaint, it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule land. If really P.W1 is in possession of the suit schedule land he would be able to testify about the boundaries of the suit schedule land. Moreover,
P.W.3 testified in his cross examination that the total extent of Patrunivari tank is Ac.14.40 cents and that the suit schedule land is the part of the said tank. He also testified that no D-form patta will be issued by the government for Patrunivari tank bed lands. He also admitted that the surrounding farmers are using the water from the said tank for their cultivation. So, the evidence of P.W.3 categorically shows that no D Form patta will be issued for Patrunivari tank and that the water of the said tank is being used by the surrounding farmers for their cultivation and the suit 14
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam schedule property is in the said patrunivari tank. So, the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 3 and the pleadings of the plaint categorically goes to show that the suit schedule property is situated in Patrunivari tank which is a government tank and no patta was issued for the suit schedule property to the father of P.W1 with respect to the suit schedule property.
(g)As already stated supra the Plaintiff did not file any D-form patta to show that the father of P.W1 was issued D Form patta for the suit schedule property. Though, the Plaintiff filed Ex.A1 and A2 documents the
Ex.A2, No.2 Adangal was not issued by a competent Tahsildar and it was also not signed by the Tahsildar and so no value can be given to the said document to show that the D-form patta was issued to the father of the 1st
Plaintiff. Ex.A1 shows that it was issued in the name of the father of the 1st Plaintiff for the land situated in S.No.2 which is admittedly Patrunivari tank. There is no dispute that the 1st Plaintiff is claiming that the
Defendants are trying to evict him form the the suit schedule property. But, no evidence was placed before the court to show that he was in possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit.
Ex.A1 shows that it is pertaining to the Fasli 1361 which pertains to the year 1951 which is in the name of father of the Plaintiff and Ex.A2 shows that it is an adangal pertaining to the year 1988-89. So, they do not show 15
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule land by the date of filing of the suit . The Ex.s A3 and A4 documents do not show that they pertain to the suit schedule land. The Ex.A5 is only an Andhra Bank pass book which do not establish the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Though, Ex.A6 was filed before the court, as rightly held by the trial court, there are number of corrections in the survey numbers and extents which creates any amount of doubt over the said document. Moreover, the Defendants are specifically denying the Ex.s A1 to A6 documents. So, when the Defendants are denying the said documents, contending that they did not issue the said documents to the
Plaintiffs, the burden heavily lies on the Plaintiffs to prove the said document according to law. It is settled law that mere filing and exhibiting of documents before the court do not amount to proof of the contents of the said document and the documents are said to be proved in the normal way. The above legal position was laid down in a decision reported in All
India Reporter 1971 Supreme Court page 1865, between Sait Tarajee
Khimchand Vs Yelamarti Satyam, wherein it was held at para 15 of the judgment that “ mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents or does not dispense with its proof ”.
(h)So, in view of the above legal position when the Plaintiff failed to prove the said documents by summoning the concerned authorites who 16
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam issued the documents to him and prove the said document according to law, it is held that the Ex.s A1 to A4 and A6 documents are not proved by the Plaintiff to prove and establish that he was in possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. So, when the 1st Plaintiff failed to file the D-form patta issued in the name of his father before the court and when he failed to prove the Ex.s A1 to A4 and A6 documents according to law and when it is an admitted fact that the suit schedule properties are situated in Patrunivari tank which is a government tank, it is held that the Plaintiff miserably failed to prove his legal right and exclusive lawful possession over the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit.
(i)On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the Defendants that the suit schedule property is a tank bed land situated in Patrunivari tank which is a government tank and that no pattas will be issued for the tank bed lands in view of the prohibition under Board Standing Order
No.15 and even if any patta is issued it is not a valid assignment and it is a void assignment and as per Ex.B1, the suit schedule property is a tank and as per Ex.B2, it cannot be assigned as per the orders of the government and that no injunction can be granted for the suit schedule property as it is a tank bed land. To prove their contention, the Defendants 17
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam also exhibited Ex.B1 and B2 documents. The Ex.B1 categorically shows that the suit schedule land is Patrunivari tank, which is in an extent of
Ac.14.40 cents, which was also admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination. The Ex.B2 shows that the government issued proceedings not to issue any patta to the tank bed lands on 08.02.1999. So, the Ex.B1 and B2 documents show that the suit schedule property is a Patrunivari tank and that the government issued proceedings that no patta can be issued for tank bed lands. Though, D.W.1 chief examination affidavit was filed, he did not appear before the court after filing his chief examination affidavit and his evidence was eschewed from record and the evidence of
D.W.2 is only on record. D.W2 testified in accordance with the written statement contents. Though, he was cross examined nothing material was elicited from his cross examination to discredit his evidence and to show that father of 1st Plaintiff was issued patta for the suit schedule property and that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing the suit.
(j)Now, the crux point for determination in the present suit is, when the suit schedule property is admittedly a tank bed land, whether any assignment of tank bed land can be given by issuing a D-patta and even if any such patta is issued, whether it is a valid under law. It is the 18
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam contention of the learned Counsel for the Defendants that no assignment was made to the father of the 1st Plaintiff under D form patta for the suit schedule land and even if any such D-form patta was issued, it is prohibited as per Board Standing Order No.15. The Officer who is competent to order the assignment is thus bound by Standing Order No.
15 in regard to disposal of land by way of assignment or otherwise. In sum and substance, the legality, propriety and the correctness of disposal of land by way of assignment or otherwise are to be decided with reference to Standing Order No. 15. Para (4) of Standing Order No. 15 contemplates two aspects viz., lands that may be assigned and that may not be assigned. Sub-clause (i) of Para (4) of Standing Order No. 15 reads as follows:
"All lands at the disposal of Government except those hereinafter prohibited may be assigned. The assignment of lands shall generally be free of market value except in the case of project affected lands in which case market value shall be collected Sub- clause (ii) of the same para of the Standing Order No. 25 reads as follows:
"The assignment of the following classes of lands is prohibited:
(a) Poramboke (tank-beds, foreshore of tank beds, cattle
stands, grazing lands and reserved lands) xxxx xxxx xxxx."
(k)So, in view of the above Board Standing Order No.15, there is a clear prohibition to assign the tank bed lands and even if it is assigned it is 19
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam contrary to the board standing orders No.15 and the same cannot be termed as legal. So, even assuming that the D-form Patta is issued in the name of the father of the 1st Plaintiff, it would be in violation to section 23 of Indian Contract Act, which make such transaction unlawful and void.
So, when the assigning of lands in tank bed is prohibited and even if any such assignment is made, it is unlawful and void as per section 23 of
Indian Contract Act. The above legal position as was laid down in a decision reported in 1995(1) ALT 766 between Maddu Tatha and others
Vs. Uttaravilli Nagamani. So, in view of the above legal position, no assignment can be made with respect to the tank bed lands and even if any such assignment is made it is unlawful and void assignment as per section 23 of Indian Contract Act. So, when the Plaintiff is admittedly claiming right over the suit schedule property which is situated in
Patrunivari tank under an alleged D Form patta which was not filed by him
before the court, no assignment can be made and even if any such
assignment is made it is void under law and the Plaintiffs cannot claim any legal right over the suit schedule property in view of the legal position laid down in the above Judgment. Hence, in view of the above discussion and legal position cited supra, the Plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their legal right and exclusive lawful possession over the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and the Plaintiffs also failed to prove that the
Defendants caused a breach of an obligation which in his favour to 20
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam enable this court to exercise its judicial discretion, which is in his favour by way of granting the relief of Permanent Injunction in his favour. Hence, it is held that the Plaintiffs miserably failed to prove the necessary ingredients for granting of relief of Permanent Injunction in his favour and in view of the admitted facts that the suit schedule property is situated in
Patrunivari tank, no injunction can be granted in favour of the Plaintiff as prayed for. Accordingly, the POINTS 1 to 4 are answered in favour of the
Respondents/Defendants and against the Appellants/Plaintiffs.
POINTS No.5 and 6
Whether the impugned decree and Judgment dated 15.10.2020 in O.S.No.03/2012 passed by the Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Palakonda is sustainable or not?
&
Whether the decree and Judgment passed by the trial
court needs any interference if so, to what relief?
13.As can be seen from the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court and in view of the discussion made supra and the findings arrived at while answering Points No. 1 to 4, wherein it is held that the
Appellants/Plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their legal right and exclusive lawful possession over the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit, it is held that the trial court has correctly appreciated the 21
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam facts and Law in the correct perspective in the suit and dismissed the suit for Permanent injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiff and in view of the above findings, this court feels that the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court was passed on correct appreciation of fact and Law and it is sustainable under law and that it does not require any interference from this court and that there is no necessity to interfere with the Decree and
Judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakonda in
O.S.No.03/2012 dated 15.10.2020 and accordingly, it is held that, the
present appeal A.S.No.10/2020 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of the Respondents/Defendants and against the Plaintiffs/Appellants.
14 In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs, by
confirming the decree and Judgment passed by the Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Palakonda in O.S.No.03/2012 dated 15.10.2020.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of September, 2024.
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Rajam.
22
A.S.No.10/2020, Dated 17.09.2024
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side in this appeal.
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Rajam.
Copy to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), PALAKONDA.